Can gaming be the turning point for Linux on the desktop? | Hacker News Reader

Can gaming be the turning point for Linux on the desktop?

techradar.com

31 pointsfollowmylee62 comments

The idea that there is going to be some sort of rapid change to Linux desktop is wrong, simply because people forget that windows desktops are used by corporations and government, almost to the exclusion of any other OS. That is where the oems make the most money, at least in terms of chunks. Canonical and Steam are going after the personal computer, but nobody seems to be making inroads in the corporate desktop world. Everything runs on Windows, often exclusively on Windows. Converting to Ubuntu is a big leap away from windows xp. And the CTO is not the boss. Marketing knows power point and word and Excel, they don't want to learn libreoffice.

Not to mention that there are all sorts of weird industry requirements. Look at doctors converting to electronic records. Show me a vendor with a linux based solution that meets hipaa requirements. Or consider checkout computers, which may process credit cards, which have regulatory requirements.

Stop talking desktops and build a easy way to convert businesses. It won't be easy to build though.

Get approval from regulatory bureaucracies, get every company department either willing to switch or with a super easy virtualization solution, get it ready to support it, make sure any custom software can be ported, handle the conversion. Make sure business partners can still work with you. Oh and RETRAIN EVERYBODY.

Having heard how much people fight converting to windows 7 from xp, you are going to have a struggle to get it done.

But if you do all that, then maybe linux will have a Turning point.

That's the same thing people said about iOS.

The argument is completely flawed because people in companies do get to choose the software, however for driving the change the demand has to be really high, otherwise the cost of switching or of having a heterogeneous work environment is simply not worth it.

People in companies use Windows XP and MS Office because that's what they use at home. Even if they have Windows 7 at home, they can tolerate Windows XP at work, because it's basically the same thing.

Change is coming though. I work on a startup. I have no doubt in my mind that some day we'll be big. And we standardized on Ubuntu. Usage of OS X is only allowed for people that know their way around with whatever development stack we need, because all the documentation for setup and usage of stuff is written for Ubuntu. If they have problems, tough luck, but OS X is unsupported. People wanting to use OS X also need to buy their own personal Macbook. And usage of Windows is only allowed inside of virtual machines.

You know, some of us growing up on Unix might end up running the show inside those big companies that are impeding change.

Yep, I work for a large corporation that uses windows, however, our group is 100% Linux - servers and desktops - because of the kind of software that we write. If we were made to switch to Windows, it would be disastrous. So, there are pockets of Linux-based groups out there in the corporate world, and the question is: can those pockets grow?

But people wanted iOS and the iPhones and I doubt they really cared it was a new OS. It was better than everything before it and you didn't need to learn a whole new OS every time you got a new phone. I doubt Janice from accounts is going to be able to or want to use Linux. " what's a Linux and why do I want one? "

You work at a startup... of course you innovate. But you still mandate expectations on what OS people can use, albeit ones that are different from many companies.

I've said it many times and I'll say it again, the only way Linux will reach a rapid turning point is the day Adobe port over Creative Suite and or Creative Cloud to Linux. Lack of Fireworks and Photoshop are the only two things preventing me from switching to Linux completely, I know many others in the same situation as I am. I currently run Linux in a VM which is fine, but not ideal.

So to me, lack of commercial and popular applications like Photoshop are the reason people don't use Linux. While there are tonnes of open-source alternatives, lets not kid ourselves, we all know Photoshop as well other applications have no decent open-source alternative that makes the switch worthwhile: especially not a decent Fireworks alternative which is a must-have tool for me.

Unless something dramatically changes, PC will always have the games followed by Mac.

To give another point of view, I've never heard of Creative Suite or Creative Cloud and there are many many software devs like me, so if they got ported to Linux it wouldn't make any difference to me or the others like me; are there really enough of you that this port would herald the great consumer OS shift?

That might have been true in the past, but with Adobe's recent moves and the chasing away of amateurs and hobbyists, I doubt Creative Cloud coming to Linux will make much of a difference.

I am curious about this "chasing away" statement.

Specifically with regard to cost, it would appear that Adobe's recent migration to a monthly license[1] puts the suite much closer to consumer reach than ever?

[1] http://www.adobe.com/ca/products/creativecloud/buying-guide....

Adobe is one of the main reasons we want Linux to win. So we don't have to...sorry had to update Acrobat reader...so we don't have to put up with those guys.

How large percentage of PC users are active users of Adobe Creative Suite?

There needs to be more commercial software on linux to make it easier to switch. Games, apps, whatever...

No user is going to relearn something unless there is a compelling reason to do so - productivity gains, costs, etc.

BTW, Fireworks will never go on Linux - Adobe killed it.

With Adobe's planned move to a web based suite, this point seems moot.

Where did you hear this?

Photoshop I can understand, but Fireworks? Really?

I have not used it in years, but yes.

There's gimp as a Photoshop alternative, and an open source alternative for Fireworks would be great, remember that Adobe is killing the product.

Why not? I like Fireworks - it is really easy to use for simple tasks.

No, games aren't nearly enough. I'm a Linux user myself, but quite frankly Windows is simply a better consumer desktop. It's also already installed on every computer.

The switching cost is simply too high and the only people outside of the tech world using Linux are generally those with old computers who had a techy friend install it for them. Problem is they'll be back to Windows as soon as they upgrade that old computer (or in my mom's case, as soon as the first thing doesn't work like it does on Windows).

The only thing I don't agree with here is this: Windows is simply a better consumer desktop.

That's like saying the Chevrolet Impala is a better car than all Holdens. Sure, more people are familiar with the Impala, and some Holdens will certainly be less friendly to the average driver, but those are not reasons to dismiss an entire make as unsuitable to an entire class of driver.

You're definitely right that games aren't enough, though, and I think you make the most relevant point, that most computers come with and have always come with Windows installed.

I can't argue for Linux in general as I find most distros too old school for me, but Ubuntu with Unity is better to me as a consumer desktop than Windows 7.

I guess you have some very specific proprietary applications in mind, line Netflix, but they are what they are because of Netflix, there's nothing in Ubuntu that prevents Netflix from creating a great Ubuntu client.

I have no idea about Windows 8, as I have never used it.

I'll agree with you and take it one step further.

Windows is a better desktop for consumption of media. All of the major music, television show, and movie stores run there. Virtually all of the gaming digital download stores run there. Almost all of the file sharing applications run there. All of the TV tuner hardware works there. If you want to consume media the Windows is ideal. Even though Windows is an ideal desktop for the consumption of media there is something much more important.

Windows holds the lead as the top desktop for the production of anything creative: code, graphics, music, videos, and games. While certain parts of this may not be without frustration (I'm looking at you, Visual Studio) the support provided is generally superior to what you find in the Linux world (there is no Linux parallel to MSDN). Photoshop has no peer in the professional image manipulation world, though GIMP could fill that role for an ambitious amateur. Final Cut Pro or Adobe Premere or Sony Vegas are in no way threatened by any free software solution. While Ardour is amazing, Cubase and Pro Tools make it look like a joke in a professional environment.

Linux excels as the platform that ties the Internet together. Windows, by and large, sucks as a server. Any of the major free software mail transfer agents (sendmail, postfix, exim) blow Exchange Server out of the water for email (not counting all of the other things Exchange Server does). IIS is a sick joke compared to Apache, lighttpd, and nginx. Nobody can look me straight in the face and say FileZilla Server outclasses vsftpd or proftpd.

Now, the gaps are closing little by little. I think that the Windows consumption market is going to be cannibalized by Windows RT on tablets. I think that free software production tools are going to get better and better and eventually beat out their professional counterparts on Windows. I just don't think that day is today. Or next year. Or the next ten years.

Am I the only one who thinks it will help?

I think it will help precisely because of the market it just got exposed to. Yes, so Linux won't get pre-installed in all the computers at Best Buy, but exposing it to kids who use steam, and showing that it can play the games they know and love WILL make some of them think twice about why they're not an el1t3 haxx0r and using linux already.

Gamers are pretty close to the computer/tech loving crowd (I think that's pretty indisputable), and they'd be the easiest to convert to linux/unix systems anyway, this move just makes it even easier for them to convert, and if it does that, it will help linux grow.

Also, the investment Valve has made in games for Linux is supremely important in the consideration of any other leader of any other industry to consider linux seriously as a operating system, so yes it's important.

"Turning point"? Maybe not, mostly because that word is loaded with bullshit ideals of some underdog overcoming a 50 point deficit in a basketball game in the last 5 seconds.

But it definitely will change things. No research to support it, but I am definitely one of the people that keeps a windows partition ONLY because I can't play all the games I want to play on linux yet.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and as long as linux keeps it's use cases and adds more, there will be less and less reason for you to not choose it. Then one glorious day, linux will be capable of running enough of the software that makes people use computers, and someone (probably Canonical) will launch a marketing campaign.

That'll probably be the turning point, but for now, this is definitely a step in the right direction.

Betteridge's Law applies.

Gaming helped cement DOS/Windows victory on the desktop because most enthusiasts bought computers to play games, but it did nothing for the Amiga (which was great for gaming but had a lousy ecosystem for office stuff).

On the other hand, the desktop market is collapsing and you might think that the kind of person who still wants/needs a desktop might be more likely to be the kind of person who wants/needs Linux. That's possible but it's not the perspective taken by the article.

quarterto's law: Any headline which ends in a question mark will have a comment on it citing Betteridge's Law.

The Amiga had an excellent ecosystem for office stuff.

Prowrite on the Amiga wasn't bettered for word processing until Word 6 5+ years later.

The Amiga could also be hooked up to a laser printer like a Mac, but not quite as well.

The main reason the Amiga was beaten because by the time it arrived on the scene DOS already had the market.

I was a heavy Amiga user in the day and constantly got into arguments with people advocating its office software. No Amiga word processor was capable of producing decent output or handling documents longer than ten pages. They looked fine (ProWrite was a MacWrite clone, Excellence was a WriteNow clone) but didn't stand up to any kind of serious use.

The Amiga was the world's bestselling home computer and utterly dominant in the games market outside the US for several years but never became a credible desktop productivity computer.

Having non-square pixels in its highest resolution non flickery display mode sure did not help.

This ship has sailed.

Desktop is even less relevant today.

Linux can be a good foundation if your workflow is 100% web based, but I don't see this happening in large corporations (for now)

Still, sorry to say this, but Linux blew it. Yes, even Canonical

If someone can partner with a hw maker, do a computer that boots to a web browser (and within that domain works 100%) maybe this can work.

100% web based? Why?

Most of the time using the same applications on Windows and Linux.

Pidgin, Chrome, Libre Office, Thunderbird, IntelliJ IDEA, Eclipse, VLC, Spotify, Steam.

Yes, this is a typical profile for a home user/developer

But for example, that's not what the computer used by the office secretary needs.

Chat - Google Apps Online Chat Libre Office - GDocs Thunderbird - Gmail

VLC/Spotify - this can be done with html5, even audio streaming

>> If someone can partner with a hw maker, do a computer that boots to a web browser (and within that domain works 100%) maybe this can work.

You mean ChromeOS?

Yes, but there's more needed than good product: good marketing is essential

Let's see how the Chromebooks fare

Actually the upcoming Ubuntu Phone and Tablet OS is more exiting for me than whatever the new Android version is.

games is the only reason I have windows anywhere. And the inertia of rebooting my machine into windows means I almost never play (non-web) games anymore. Steam will definitely score some sales off me now, but whether mainstream gamers will switch, who knows??

I switched my GF to ubuntu 12.04 a few weeks ago. She is already preferring the system due to no malware and less crashes. So clearly desktop linux has come along way in 5 years. I have given her almost (but not quite 0) help in operating it too. Wifi doesn't work though :(

Not criticizing you - just offering an alternative viewpoint:

I can't remember the last time my windows system crashed and malware is not a problem as long as one is sensible. I have never been infected by malware of any sort and I do visit some dodgy sites.

Sandboxes and VM's are your friend as well as things like NoScript addon.

I can see absolutely no compelling reason to switch to Linux. I do use Linux on VM's for work related projects, but not seriously considering replacing my desktop with Linux any time soon. Perhaps the fact that I am also a power user of Excel colours my view.

> I can see absolutely no compelling reason to switch to Linux.

and you are right - because going with windows means any hardware is going to work _by_ default, and you won't have to waste mental energy to work out whether its going to be supported on linux/GNU. Ditto with software (tho less of a problem i suppose).

I haven't come across WiFi hardware recently that Ubuntu didn't support, so it's pretty impressive that you've found some :P. Perhaps you should check whether it actually runs what you want before you buy it though ;)

Linux gaming may take off as Linux-based gaming console, but that won't help Linux desktop (hint: the problem of Linux desktop is not lack of games).

For me it is! Definitely!

I have installed plenty of ubuntu systems without touching the console; While it's the easiest way to communicate instruction on the web, it's entirely possible to use ubuntu without touching the console.

Yeah, this article is full of little snipes like this -

"Even installing the Steam for Linux Beta will involve a segment of updates, where you'll be endlessly typing [Y] into a terminal."

Or, you know, going to the Ubuntu Software Centre, typing "steam" in the search box and then double clicking "Steam" in the results, which is what I just did.

Hypothesis: if someone could build a Linux distribution that performs exceptionally well (better than most Windows setups) when it comes to games/graphics processing, then there would be more people willing to give it a try. Showcasing things like "X more frames per sec", and some other graphics-related stats might be enough to get the hardcore gamers interested enough to take the plunge. Because this means low level driver development, etc this is not easy and would require an immense amount of work that may turn out to be for nought.

Just like the spreadsheet drove the PC revolution in the early 80's, Linux needs a killer app that pulls people in, and games may be the genre. Perhaps there needs to be some revolutionary development in the graphics realm (I have no idea what this could be or else I'd be writing it right now!) that is exclusive to Linux, that could give it the gravity that it needs to make it into people's living rooms. Think some new 3D technology, something that big corporations can't do quickly, or some area that is out in the open that the big corps aren't paying attention to right now.

If any of this turns out to be true, and if Linux ever does make it BIG wrt gaming, that it's likely going to be some startup that makes it happen. The major players don't feel threatened by Linux, but imagine if some game like Minecraft came out that only supported Linux. It would take them by surprise and by the time they figured out what is going on, it would be too late. Now, licensing makes this tricky, so perhaps this will never happen, but that never stopped those that want/need to try to make it happen from trying.

Never.

1. Only one thing wins the desktop: pre-installations.

2. Gaming requires superb driver support, which almost always means commercial drivers. Linux's licensing inflexibility makes this very difficult.

I use a Mac at work and a Windows 7 PC at home. I spend more time on my mac than my PC and like quite a bit of it. But when I think about switching at home (cause the hardware is so so nice and the OS fixes so many things that frustrate me with Windows), I start to make a list of things I do with my home PC and either can't do or the equivalent isn't as nice/doesn't have as much choice, doesn't run as well for whatever reason.

The same thing happens whenever I think about switching to Linux at home, but the list is much much longer.

Let's pick games, I don't game nearly as much as I used to. But I like having the option to do so, with pretty much any game I happen to want to play, and not worry about it not being ported to my platform.

Sure there are things that I can do on Mac or Linux I can't do on PC (reliably run rails for example), but they aren't necessarily things I want to do at home. Sure it might not run as smoothly, or it crashes every so often or whatever, but the desktop, consumer, software support for it is at least 2 orders of magnitude better than either other platform.

In the end Windows, despite its warts is a compelling platform because of all the shit you can do with it (and explorer is so much better than finder).

I enjoy my MBPr, a lot, I hate using my home PC for work-type stuff. Walking around with a thin light laptop in my backpack with great battery life that I can open pretty much anywhere and spin up a half dozen VMs and still have a performant web experience is really f-ing impressive. I don't even try and use my old windows laptops anymore, that experience feels far too clunky.

I remember the clusterfuck that codecs created on my Windows machine, when after installing big and broken packs of codecs I was still unable to play some movie.

The first time that I experienced a movie playing experience that was smooth was on Linux, by means of MPlayer. Then later came VLC.

Of course, software like VLC is nowadays multi-platform, thanks to the virtue of being open-source and having contributors that wanted to see it ported to Windows.

However, for other tasks things aren't so smooth. There are many things that I need to do in my daily routine, that would be solved by simple utilities that are known and available in the Ubuntu/Debian repository and that work well. In Windows, even for things like compressing or uncompressing a format that's not ZIP, or for mounting an ISO file, or for burning DVDs, or playing music, or whatever, you end up installing proprietary software that's either broken, or mallware, or bloated crap, or all of the above.

These are just examples from the last time I tried, YMMV, but this happens every time I try it. Last time on my Windows desktop at home, I tried playing around with the latest Visual Studio Express. The installation process simply choked and I ended up with a broken Windows. It's like every time I try using Windows I experience death through a thousand cuts.

In general, most of the utilities I end up using on a Windows box are ports of software who's primary audience comes from Linux/BSD and why not use the real thing anyway?

Also, I don't really need games because I'm playing the greatest MMORPG of all time ... being a software developer.

> Also, I don't really need games because I'm playing the greatest MMORPG of all time ... being a software developer.

Yeah, and I find that attitude common among lots of software devs. If you spend all your work day and all your free time involved in software development activities, windows is probably not the right environment for that.

I am always surprised at all these "I did x and windows completely fell apart" anecdotes by software developers though. I'm not kind to my home system and it's been more or less rock solid over the last 4 years. Much more so than OS X has been (which hasn't been too shabby mind you).

I'm not trying to have a holier-than-thou attitude, however I personally find video games pointless.

Speaking of free time, especially since I already spend unhealthy amounts of time in front of a computer, why would I want to spend some more time in games, when I can prefer going out to the movies, or taking walks in the park with my son, or go out for beers with friends?

You know, those software devs that you found with this attitude, they might be on to something ;-)

They might be. I'm finding myself playing games less and less and doing more walks in the park myself.

I didn't mean it to come of with a negative connotation towards the word "attitude", I think it got lost in the ASCII. I only meant it as an observation.

Your reason seems to be that the things you need Linux to do it just doesn't do as easily or as intuitively (for you) as OS X or Windows. I think that's a common and reasonable assertion and likely to be at the root of why we haven't and likely won't see some mass exodus of non-Linux users to Linux OS's.

I dual boot Ubuntu with Windows 7, and the only reason Windows is around is for gaming... every time I boot into it I find myself mildly irritated at the differences between it and what I'm now used to. I've tried a few times but being productive at work-related tasks in Windows is no longer possible for me.

So it does work both ways: What you're used to will always feel more, well, useful than what you're not. But because most of the computer-using world is used to Windows, it certainly is a largely one-sided problem (for those of us who choose to call it a problem).

> Your reason seems to be that the things you need Linux to do it just doesn't do as easily or as intuitively (for you) as OS X or Windows.

I'm actually fine with things being different on different platforms. I haven't even bothered to spin up a Windows "safety" VM on my work machine. I think the differences are better appreciated that way. There's plenty of things in OS X that I wish were in Windows.

What I'm troubled with are the things I can't do (Wine may be bridging that gap better and better these days but still) but want to.

Why is Explorer better than Finder? There are only two things I prefer - the preview mode on Explorer (which is more a problem with Preview.app rather than Finder) and how Explorer puts folders at the start of the list/grid rather than mixed in with the files.

I find it's better in almost every design decision. From organizing large groups of files to launching applications or previewing files.

For example, after years in OS X I still can't predict where a folder will end up when I create a new one...the only thing I know is that it won't end up where I want it to be.

I can't ever seem to fit as much information into finder as I do explorer.

Then there's all the weirdo non-standard interaction bits that don't exist anywhere else in the OS:

- Why does enter rename a file?

- Why do networked computers give me an error I have to click away when they go offline?

- Clean up just aligns icons to the nearest grid instead of actually organizing them in any way that I'd find useful.

- Folders get mixed up in the file list.

- Why show me the path at the bottom if I can't do anything about it (like clicking to navigate back up the hierarchy?

- The move/copy semantics are sometimes unpredictable.

In the end I just find it really really fussy to do something like just move a bunch of a file around. There's no flow with finder. It feels like work.

I have a theory though: I notice that in OS X there seems to be a lot more in the way of dedicated "organizer apps" -- applications which organize photos or videos or music or whatever. I think this is because finder is such a chore to use. I don't think I've ever felt the need for such an app in windows-land. My parents, who can barely use a computer seem to get by fine with explorer as well but are completely flumoxed with finder.

Games are not a game changer. What makes Linux great is grep. That is why it will not be a mainstream alternative. The tragedy of casting Android as a success for Linux is that it comes to the mainstream on locked down devices and as a vector for widespread corporate data collection on individuals and their personal lives.

If it becomes possible to play up to date and current games, then yes this will change the picture allot. I have tried to persuade many of my friends to switch to Linux, but I am always met with the same question: can I play X,Y,Z. And when my answer is not as well as on Windows, then they always decline. Gaming is the only barrier that I have met from my friends.

My wife wants MS office because that is what they use on her workplace. So the point about low conversion do to the corporate world could seem plausible, but I do not think so. Most companies that I have work for is afraid to change because the employees are afraid of change.

If people start using GNU/Linux at home the barrier for change will be much lower in the workspace. And adoption can move ahead rapidly.

«Developed for just over two decades and it's still barely made a mark on the consumer consciousness.»

What about Android? Linux is in the pockets of way more than half smartphone users in the World. If that's not making a mark... what is?

I know they're talking about desktop, but this sentence is still incredibly missleading and false. Consumers buy Android phones. Period.

How many of those consumers know it's Linux under there? I think that's what they mean by "consciousness". For most Android users, you're lucky if they even know what "Android" means, let alone Linux.

You're right, I hadn't thought of it that way.

Maybe.

Mac sales increased when the iPhone/iPad was introduced, the same can happen with linux. It doesn't really help when Ubuntu hides the term "Linux" on the homepage.

There is very little brand recognition among regular consumers.

I would argue for something far simpler.

There's not a good alternative for HeidiSQL in Linux. There are not good GUI clients for MySQL in Linux.

Not a killer application, but something nice to have.

No, I think the fact that consumers are moving towards devices and so are the operating systems for them means Linux will win the content creators.

So they argue that "Mac and Linux have the same fatal flaw: few games", and claim Valve is the solution.

Valve has been on Mac for a while now, right? Did it help?

Isn't Apple the company with the most PC sales in US?

If GOG would have started to release Linux versions of their games I would have been using only Linux ever since.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com