Grimrock

Sol_HSA wrote: This is a shining example of the linux community mentality.

To be honest, i've seen such behaviour practically in all aspects of human being, from cooking to theoretical physics

Sol_HSA wrote:

RabidZombie wrote:though it uses LD_LIBRARY_PATH which is eviiillll

This is a shining example of the linux community mentality.

Apparently everything is eviiilllll in someone's opinion. You just throw a line like that without anything backing it up. Heaven forbid if you make the mistake of going to ask for help using thing X, because nobody will be interested in helping you with it, instead they bash you for using X, wonder why you picked X, say X is eviiillll, if you were sane you'd have picked Q, T or P instead, you're stupid and gtfo. =)

It was not in the scope of my comment, it was just an aside remark.

Want to know why it's evil? Ask me, don't be an ass.

If it overrides the LD_LIBRARY_PATH, then it runs the risk of overriding it for programs that inherit it through itself. Not a huge issue for LoG, but I can see it being a problem in UT2k4. Say, UT2k4 launches an editor, and the editor itself needs to launch a browser for help, what happens when the browser can't find the required libs (or worse, libs of a different version to the ones it's expecting). It's a bad habit that can behave erratically. Much better is to use the $ORIGIN symbol in the linking which doesn't show these problems.

RabidZombie wrote:

Sol_HSA wrote:

RabidZombie wrote:though it uses LD_LIBRARY_PATH which is eviiillll

This is a shining example of the linux community mentality.

Apparently everything is eviiilllll in someone's opinion. You just throw a line like that without anything backing it up. Heaven forbid if you make the mistake of going to ask for help using thing X, because nobody will be interested in helping you with it, instead they bash you for using X, wonder why you picked X, say X is eviiillll, if you were sane you'd have picked Q, T or P instead, you're stupid and gtfo. =)

It was not in the scope of my comment, it was just an aside remark.

Want to know why it's evil? Ask me, don't be an ass.

There are any number of objections people might have to it. I use it in some stuff for Sound Technical Reasons. And if you can figure out a way to implement pseudo without it, I'd love to hear about it.

FWIW, I would buy LoG for Linux, and I will also buy it for Mac. I figure if I buy it on three platforms, that will set me back about as much as going to the store and buying some new game that I won't actually enjoy. I am aware that it can be hard to do distributions for Linux, although it's not nearly as bad as people seem to think -- for the most part, older binaries continue to work on newer systems, just build stuff for something old and you're usually fine. (To call that an "oversimplification" is really classic understatement, though.)

I don't know whether it's a large enough market, and it's probably not worth it simply because most of the prospective Linux users will play it under WINE anyway.

seebs wrote:There are any number of objections people might have to it. I use it in some stuff for Sound Technical Reasons. And if you can figure out a way to implement pseudo without it, I'd love to hear about it.

FWIW, I would buy LoG for Linux, and I will also buy it for Mac. I figure if I buy it on three platforms, that will set me back about as much as going to the store and buying some new game that I won't actually enjoy. I am aware that it can be hard to do distributions for Linux, although it's not nearly as bad as people seem to think -- for the most part, older binaries continue to work on newer systems, just build stuff for something old and you're usually fine. (To call that an "oversimplification" is really classic understatement, though.)

I don't know whether it's a large enough market, and it's probably not worth it simply because most of the prospective Linux users will play it under WINE anyway.

Sorry. There was a case of premature communication. I edited in stuff.

Blerg, quote nesting.

This is why pseudo adds to LD_LIBRARY_PATH but doesn't replace it.

I will buy a copy when the Linux version comes out. dixi

I have Ubuntu Studio 11.10 and Wine 1.4.
Compatibility test didn't worked for me. Unpatched version worked out of the box. Patched version 1.1.14 worked after deleting D3DX9_43.dll from the game install directory. I have had already installed some common dlls through winetricks such as: d3_dx9, directx9, vcrun2010, xact, ... These are neccessary to run most games.
For more info there are many reviews on http://www.winehq.org/search/?cx=partne ... rg%2F&ref=.
It's worth buying it even if you have Linux.

For unknown reasons wasn't able to start game in wine for a long time (wine reported about unknown internal error), but, finally, managed to run steam version, it's works flawlessly.

Curiously, but in linux GPU temperature almost 20 degrees lower than in win.

Evgueni wrote:I will buy a copy when the Linux version comes out. dixi

I would also like to get a Linux version... Any news on when I can be expecting the release of the Linux version? I just got set up with Linux. Thanks.

cupid stunt wrote:Linux is a deployment hell, and thats real reason why nobody bothers making linux ports, and I wont even mention technical support problems. Dont know why l-users always insist on native version when they have windows on a partition exactly cause of this. And yeah go ahead and call me a troll :3

*sigh* I'm sorry that I have to respond to this topic too, but this baffled, irritated and frustrated me since years... Why linux as great open source OS with a great community full of clever people struggles so hard on desktop? only 1-5% desktop adoption since years... Personally, I think because the deployment hell (aka linux is NOT a platform: http://linuxrevolution.blogspot.de/2008 ... attle.html or http://benjamin.smedbergs.us/blog/2006- ... ng-system/) is very real for users & developers ...sadly

Also, approaches which could overcome this fragmented distribution hell were not supported or even sabotaged... like the great autopackage project (autopackage article: http://web.archive.org/web/200803310927 ... cles/60124 joey hess and other debian traditionalist sabotaged it by discrediting) or fatelf by ryan gordon, the porting genius behind the humble bundles (http://lwn.net/Articles/392862/ more or less stopped by alan cox because he was unable to accept that repository managment is NOT the solution to everything).

Recently, even Ingo Molnar, a high rank linux kernel developer, discussed the topic of software deployment (Sofware deployment != repository managment) for the linux ecosystem in a quite open and dramatic way: Technology: What ails the Linux desktop? Part I. "The basic failure of the free Linux desktop is that it's, perversely, not free enough.. [...]" (https://plus.google.com/109922199462633 ... gdeFDfRzNe)

lanxu wrote:By the way. From the technical point of view, cross-platform development on PC (Win/Mac/Linux) is extremely easy if you use the right combination of tools and libraries. Although, this requires a lot of research and adaptation from the programmer.

I would subscribe the "easy" part for the first 2 platforms... and the last sentence only for the third platform. For the first 2 platforms you have working & and long time supported single multimedia API (e.g. DirectX), developers can rely on this. In contrast a insane amount of knowledge or hacks are required to develop and deploy a binary software product for the extremly broad and undefined ecosystem linux. It's a pity. No standard packaging systems/deployment way, no standard libraries one could rely not even ABI/API stability in the same distribution across some version update.

The Mac and Windows ecosystems understood long, long ago what qualities are required to make desktop software developer and users happy... the linux ecosystem clearly not.

E.g. Linux Game publishing describes the problems of deployment with the multitude of package formats existing (http://blog.linuxgamepublishing.com/200 ... h-distros/)

For ubuntu 2010 the mixing of system and applications (the very reason for deployment problems & the excessiv repository usage) was idenfied as bug in the use case of updating applications in a repository independed way. (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/578045)

RabidZombie wrote:

cupid stunt wrote:Linux is a deployment hell, and thats real reason why nobody bothers making linux ports, and I wont even mention technical support problems. Dont know why l-users always insist on native version when they have windows on a partition exactly cause of this. And yeah go ahead and call me a troll :3

Statically linking is the most reliable way, but it can cause licensing issues (LoG source release under GPL? lolno).

sadly, the great ulrich drepper sabotaged this useful approach effectively technically (he maintaines the glibc which is to be known statically not linkable) see his comment on this topic: http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/no_static_linking.html ....it's not working technically. Also, as you mentioned already the GPL prohibits statical linking if you want to use it for an commercial product like LoG.

RabidZombie wrote: UT2k4 seems to ship with compiled libraries and dynamically link specifically to them (though it uses LD_LIBRARY_PATH which is eviiillll). It seems to work, as it still runs, avoids licensing issues and, while suffers from bloated install sizes, avoids the increased memory usage from static linking.

You are right LD_LIBRARY_PATH is an ugly workaround. But not only for the mentioned reasons, also because linux didn't provide a better and sane way for achieving this. Windows and Mac had since long time "private DLL" approaches (local libraries are priorized before system ones), whcih allow in a simple and clean way portable, distro-agnostic stick-ware and bundles... not available under linux.

Beside, the better approach mentioned by RabidZombie helps to achieve at least somewhat binary portability on linux, is described here: http://blog.linuxgamepublishing.com/200 ... -the-lgpl/ using the not so well known §origin keyword in a clever way.

sorry for that rant... while I'm frustrated with the linux ecosystem and the blocking thinking of some unix-traditionalists, I still have some hope... The success of Humble Indie Bundle for the linux gaming and the open-mindness of at least some key people like Molnar, Miguel de Icaza or ubuntu's Matthew Paul Thomas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT5fUcMUfYg) I still have some hope that someday the linux ecosystem will provide a kind of professional platform experience for users and ISVs. cheers