Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: [soon?] Soon Source Engine under Unix????

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Tallahassee. FL
    Posts
    127

    Default

    I don't think Michael would mislead us. He was right about ATI's move to open up documentation why wouldn't he be right about it now!!! I hope Valve starts a new trend in game companies being more open to the idea of bringing their software to Linux. I guess a native WoW or SC2 clients are just pipe dreams

    I bet the FSF isn't thrilled about this at all.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcharron View Post
    I don't think Michael would mislead us. He was right about ATI's move to open up documentation why wouldn't he be right about it now!!! I hope Valve starts a new trend in game companies being more open to the idea of bringing their software to Linux. I guess a native WoW or SC2 clients are just pipe dreams

    I bet the FSF isn't thrilled about this at all.
    Sad part, is Blizzard could easily port their mac client to run on Linux. They just don't care enough. Glad a company like S2 took Dota and put it on all the platforms. Icefrog maintainer of dota still refuses to admit he actually worked for S2 in creating Heroes of Newerth. Now Icefrog working for Valve on a similar Dota game.. sigh. greedy people be greedy.


    I'd bet Valve is still working on the Linux client.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,619

    Default

    Until it is ready for beta test it is unlikely that you will hear much about it officially. It was not denied, so maybe it come in the future after work for os x is finished - that's most likely the top priority as they need all their games running on the new platform first. When then it is time i guess they will try linux (as it is not that compilicated to port from os x to linux). when you will hear about that nobody knows yet. As there have been some binaries out for some time at least 1 dev must have played with that in his spare time, maybe some cross compile test or so.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jecos View Post
    Sad part, is Blizzard could easily port their mac client to run on Linux. They just don't care enough.
    in my opinion, Blizzard became a money eater company since the release of wow. Starcraft 2 is quite a proof of that, making ppl pay for a certain period online then charges the player for 2 others expansions... Sad, it is.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Tallahassee. FL
    Posts
    127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jecos View Post
    Sad part, is Blizzard could easily port their mac client to run on Linux.
    There was a Linux client made in house awhile ago and it was canned... They didn't want to provide support.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcharron View Post
    He was right about ATI's move to open up documentation why wouldn't he be right about it now!!!
    To say someone is correct now because they were correct about something unrelated in the past is very weak logic.

    Better logic would be: If Valve had no plans to release a Linux client, why would they do the work to put these Linux clauses in their scripts when they didn't intend to use them? Why would they use SH style scripts at all rather than some OSX binary launcher to get the job done? Why are LSB style binaries and libraries present in some of their newer games?

    Not to discredit anyone, but while even the above can amount to nothing in the long run it is way better logic than simply "Mike is right".

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Well I just had lunch with a friend of mine that does corporate law and I brought up the phrase. In Canada and US that would be considered disclosure.
    Heh... Fair enough. However, it's done all the time as it's not really doing any real disclosure- it's legal wrangling at best to call it a breach of the NDA. Saying "no comment" can actually disclose more than the lawyers will own up to- and is as much a breach as the denial we got.

    Keep in mind, people CAN connect the dots. Better to not even get placed into that position. What he said is probably the best way out of the mess he placed himself in. I know if I were a CEO, I'd not fault him for it, and I'd gnaw on his backside some if he did a "no comment" in that context.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmcharron View Post
    There was a Linux client made in house awhile ago and it was canned... They didn't want to provide support.
    Got it in one- and it was less the studio/publisher and more the parent company that nixed it on those grounds.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kazetsukai View Post
    To say someone is correct now because they were correct about something unrelated in the past is very weak logic.
    You'll note that I didn't say he was right- I was willing to give the benefit of doubt to him over this stuff because of past performance. Big difference. I don't know if he's right or not, but...

    Better logic would be: If Valve had no plans to release a Linux client, why would they do the work to put these Linux clauses in their scripts when they didn't intend to use them? Why would they use SH style scripts at all rather than some OSX binary launcher to get the job done? Why are LSB style binaries and libraries present in some of their newer games?
    Combine that with what Michael's been saying and his past track record, I'm willing to wait and see. Denials from the VP are more of the typical soft one that actually denies little and sounds like they denied everything- typically told just to sidestep bad PR if it doesn't actually come together for whatever reasons. Something Epic probably should've learned a bit earlier...

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    Heh... Fair enough. However, it's done all the time as it's not really doing any real disclosure- it's legal wrangling at best to call it a breach of the NDA. Saying "no comment" can actually disclose more than the lawyers will own up to- and is as much a breach as the denial we got.
    "No comment" is a refusal to talk about the subject. It reveals nothing. As my friend pointed out when I showed him the question and reply, the question was asked in the present tense and answered back in the present tense. This is an definitive answer of the current state.

    Now being that it comes from the VP of marketing he most likely has very little to worry about disclosing anything as he is the head dude of the dept that would handle any such queries. As far if there is anything in the future, there is no absolute way to say (unless you believe in psychics) as the future can never been proven absolute.

    Who's to say that valve didn't create some purposely "leaked" code out there just to see what the response would be? It can also be another case where Micheal was told something only to have it killed before it bared any fruit like in the case of UT3 and the screen shots.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •