Hacker News Reader

Comment by alex_duf | Hacker News Reader

A lot of hate in the comments, I think it's great that companies are in a position where they think it makes sense financially to support Linux as a target platform.

View on HN

I think this is a good lesson in why companies don't try to bring stuff to Linux: the market is incredibly resentful of products.

Companies? gasp corporations? Using, spit, money? HOW DARE THEY!

Come on... it's always the same reason: money.

Companies don't support Linux because it's not widespread enough so it can't outweigh the costs. They don't give a rat's ass for the market's resentfulness or lack thereof. The Linux market was basically not a real market before because their market share was simply too small.

There are plenty of products made for resentful markets and as long as they keep being profitable they don't care.

> Companies don't support Linux because it's not widespread enough so it can't outweigh the costs.

I'm pretty sure they made the calculation assuming the GabeBox from Valve is a success and didn't want to miss out.

> They don't give a rat's ass for the market's resentfulness or lack thereof.

Indie devs do. Some of the best selling games are made by solo devs or very small teams.

It's not hate, but we are now at a point where the vast majority of games just run, mostly thanks to Valve and the Wine/DVXK community's efforts. What Linux gamers fear now (with good reason) is that increased interest in the platform from companies more interested in money than freedom will undermine these efforts with anti-consumer and anti-FOSS initiatives, such as closed source clients, DRM, signed kernels, hardware attestations.

This is the mixed bag... and I'm glad that Valve is at the forefront of this one... While I feel the fees may be excessive in a lot of cases (same for mobile app stores), at least Valve seems to be good stewards of PC gaming as a whole, and building a lot of good will in the community.

I don't really want to see locked down hardware in the space any more than there already has been (Nintendo, Sony, X-Box, etc)... I think the PC centered gaming community largely wants a more open platform in general. In the long run, I don't see a lot of solid competition... especially with ever growing legacy libraries of content.

> closed source clients

If people really want Linux to be a viable alternative to Windows, run by a majority of the general public, it has to be possible to sell closed-source software that runs on it (where "it" means a broad range of different distros).

Yes, that means less freedom concerning that particular software. But without it, the platform is a tiny niche that's easily run over by the hardware OEMs.

If I am signing my own kernel, that's awesome.

If Poettering is signing my kernel and reporting my UUID to websites along with proof I am viewing all ads, that is dreadful.

Unfortunately it will be the latter. Motherboards already have signed binary firmware blobs, some people cannot remove the Microsoft keys and still have functioning UEFI secure boot.

They're just trying to ride the wave of Valve's deck (and they will fail). The fact is that, since I bought the Steam Deck, I bought less from GOG and more from Valve.

And this won't change a thing: it doesn't matter if they make a Linux-native frontend to the horrible GOG Galaxy. I just want my games to launch as seamlessly as they do from Valve's UI, not yet another launcher that I have to launch on top of Valve's system UI. I am already doing that with Heroic Games Launcher, which is far better than whatever they will concoct in-house and supports many other stores.

>I just want my games to launch as seamlessly as they do from Valve's UI

Valve integrated steam all the way down to the OS level to do all that. GOG galaxy meanwhile is focusing more on being an accompanying app to optionally use than centralizing everything under GOG. I think Galaxy trying to strive to be as "seamless" will break the very philosophy of GOG to begin with; being a store to grab games you truly own, not a platform to immerse yourself in.

It's nice, Linux being an open platform, that if something isn't on Steam you can just install GOG and get it there.

GOG supported Linux from before Galaxy.

I don't use Galaxy at all. My GOG games work on Linux. It's a good company.

While on the other hand I'm often frustrated and feel limited by a steam-only deck and am going to start installing the other store fronts. I have games there I've gotten cheaper or even free. I don't like being locked into steam and "Gabe the goodest billionaire" propaganda exists to keep people from engaging in competitor products. I also want to support stores that take less from developers, especially smaller ones. Steams 30% cut while Epic is 0% up to $1m is concerning. I want smaller devs to succeed better. Steam is a huge compromise even if its a 'fan favorite' quasi-monopoly.

So yes I want gog to be native linux on things like the deck.

I really don't care if they do it "wrong". If it's too "wrong", I just won't use it myself. Windows just needs to die. We can fight for "right" after they get on the boat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com