Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unity Editor for Linux

blogs.unity3d.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 58 posts

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#31

Post by ramensea »

joshklein wrote: post #26
734129837261 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am interested in a switch to Linux (web developer, I use OSX, I need the terminal for all my tasks) but had not looked at Mint yet. The website looks like it was made 15 years ago, are they more modern than the website seems?

For "most MacOS-like experience" and "willing to compromise on FOSS philosophy for practical convenience in GPU-related work", I recommend taking a look at Pop!_OS. It's System76's take on Ubuntu with Mac-like UI tweaks and proprietary Nvidia drivers built in.

I've found Chrome OS to provide the most Mac like experience outside of Mac. Its Linux app support is still in development, but I successfully made a Unity game on my Chromebook!

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#32

Post by sempron64 »

sempron64 wrote: post #30
binthere wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Godot has caught my eye a bunch of times but I'm still not quite convinced to use it yet. I guess I need to just try it.

It is very intuitive! I picked it up in about 30 minutes, and I'm using it for a small project for a friend. I've previously written games in Python/Pygame, WebGL, and C++, and I've tried out Unity and was a bit overwhelmed. Godot is way faster, simpler, and friendlier. Try this tutorial: https://docs.godotengine.org/en/3.1/getting_started/step_by_... I recommend using GDScript instead of messing with C#, which is su…

I'd also like to point out that Godot 3 has full 3d support with PBR support, custom shaders, skeleton animation, and basically everything you'd expect in a 3d engine. It's way more fleshed out than when I last looked at it in Godot 2, and ready for prime time.

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#33

Post by sempron64 »

yeoldeporkpie wrote: post #22

That is a good reaction to Godot's growing popularity.

For anyone interested at all in software freedom Godot is an excellent choice, and I hope it will grow more.

Unity's licensing terms are complicated and litigious, and because of this their tooling is locked to their online platform -- you can't use Unity without logging in. This means they at any time they can lock you out of their tools. I'm honestly more comfortable with older licensing models where you'd get your software on a disc for a fee. Not only do you not own the engine, you don't own what you created on it. They can lock you not only out of selling, but out of even compiling or editing your own game.

I get that the games industry is driven by revenue, and I'm comfortable with buying and selling games as a product. I'm even comfortable with selling commercial software at a flat fee. But that doesn't mean we can't collaborate on engines and tooling outside of a revenue context to move the state of the art forward. Most advances in game development have been locked for decades in the proprietary engines of large studios, and every serious indie developer had to develop in 2d or start from scratch. Unity's more open licensing model was a huge step in the right direction and has inspired a lot of creativity but it's still fundamentally a closed platform that can lock further innovations behind a paywall and deprive creators of tools.

This is their right -- they're not hiding the terms of their licensing at all. But if as an indie developer you really want to own your game's code instead of locking it into Unity's platform, Godot is the way to go.

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#34

Post by blackbrokkoli »

734129837261 wrote: post #21
blackbrokkoli wrote: post #7

This is great! I have high hopes for it, since the experimental version already worked quite well for some time. Still, Unity was one of the reasons I got Win10 on an external hard drive... It's quite a dead meme, but with things like photopea, Blender, smooth Linux VsCode version, stepping stone distros like Mint and now Unity the year of the Linux desktop might come!

I am interested in a switch to Linux (web developer, I use OSX, I need the terminal for all my tasks) but had not looked at Mint yet. The website looks like it was made 15 years ago, are they more modern than the website seems?

"Modern" is kind of a loaded word, but Mint is both new and has a very polished UX, if that helps. Coming from OSX you should have smooth sailing, besides inherent things like window management button order and switched up yes/no dialogues ;)

For example, the installation is a window where you just click through the settings, not some command line jungle, to give you some kind of feeling of Mint. Under the hood there is of course the full power of Linux.

Personally, the switch brought me to discover i3wm (https://i3wm.org/) which is a fundamental different way of thinking about your screenspace. Not affiliated, but if you currently have an open mind about your workflow, I can highly suggest it for frontend-dev. Basically, windows automatically fill all available screenspace, which is awesome for the plethora of terminals you tend to have sometimes as well as resizing graphics/webpages.

Have fun whatever you do :)

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#35

Post by rijoja »

sempron64 wrote: post #32
sempron64 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very intuitive! I picked it up in about 30 minutes, and I'm using it for a small project for a friend. I've previously written games in Python/Pygame, WebGL, and C++, and I've tried out Unity and was a bit overwhelmed. Godot is way faster, simpler, and friendlier. Try this tutorial: https://docs.godotengine.org/en/3.1/getting_started/step_by_... I recommend using GDScript instead of messing with C#, which is su…

I'd also like to point out that Godot 3 has full 3d support with PBR support, custom shaders, skeleton animation, and basically everything you'd expect in a 3d engine. It's way more fleshed out than when I last looked at it in Godot 2, and ready for prime time.

They have quite a good as on system as well don't they? A good ecosystem around a slick and open core might very well be a winning concept.

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#36

Post by cr0sh »

joshklein wrote: post #26
734129837261 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am interested in a switch to Linux (web developer, I use OSX, I need the terminal for all my tasks) but had not looked at Mint yet. The website looks like it was made 15 years ago, are they more modern than the website seems?

For "most MacOS-like experience" and "willing to compromise on FOSS philosophy for practical convenience in GPU-related work", I recommend taking a look at Pop!_OS. It's System76's take on Ubuntu with Mac-like UI tweaks and proprietary Nvidia drivers built in.

I've personally found Budgie Linux to be the most "MacOS-like" distro. It is also based on Ubuntu.

Earlier this year I was forced to do an OS refresh on my home system, and I decided I wanted something closer to MacOS; before I had a hacked together system that approximated (virtually identical) Crunchbang (#!) - but was based on Ubuntu Minimal (14.04 LTS) and built up from there.

I wanted something that was still "lightweight" in the sense that it did what you wanted and no more; something with a fairly MacOS-like "intuitive" interface. I wanted something that could be configured easily without needing to hack on config files (as I had to do with my mess - updating OpenBox, etc). But I still wanted to be able to easily modify it to make it mine (unlike MacOS which is pretty locked down in the modding department).

I looked at PopOS, I looked at Mint, I looked at straight Ubuntu, and I tried BunsenLabs (what evolved out of #!); it wasn't until I tried Solus that I found the interface I liked - Budgie Desktop.

Unfortunately, I hated the Solus package management system; I wanted my Debian archive files, and Ubuntu repos, etc! But a quick search found me Budgie Ubuntu - I tried it, and loved it.

Ultimately, to each their own; Budgie Linux may not meet your definition of "MacOS-like" - but it met mine, and is certainly worth a look I think. I don't regret choosing it (my only "regret" - which is minor - is choosing the 18.04 LTS - so I couldn't get the latest version of Budgie, and won't until the next LTS release; currently Budgie is on 19.x (x.10 and x.04) - and that version has the latest version of Budgie, but LTS won't get it until 20.x).

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#37

Post by vbezhenar »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #14
vbezhenar wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One simple example: battle.net installs its own root certificate to the OS trust store. How do you do that for Linux? There are plenty of distributions with different rules. That would be some work.

Why would it do that in the first place?

I think that they're running webserver on localhost and they are connecting to it from their website opened in browser, probably for some integration.

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#38

Post by blacksmith_tb »

cr0sh wrote: post #36
joshklein wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For "most MacOS-like experience" and "willing to compromise on FOSS philosophy for practical convenience in GPU-related work", I recommend taking a look at Pop!_OS. It's System76's take on Ubuntu with Mac-like UI tweaks and proprietary Nvidia drivers built in.

I've personally found Budgie Linux to be the most "MacOS-like" distro. It is also based on Ubuntu. Earlier this year I was forced to do an OS refresh on my home system, and I decided I wanted something closer to MacOS; before I had a hacked together system that approximated (virtually identical) Crunchbang (#!) - but was based on Ubuntu Minimal (14.04 LTS) and built up from there. I wanted something that was still "l…

I liked Budgie, which is an "official flavor" of Ubuntu these days[1] like Kubuntu, Xubuntu etc. Personally I didn't find Budgie to be a lot nicer than stock Gnome, but it has some visual flair for sure.

1: https://ubuntubudgie.org/

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#39

Post by jandrese »

vbezhenar wrote: post #37
seba_dos1 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would it do that in the first place?

I think that they're running webserver on localhost and they are connecting to it from their website opened in browser, probably for some integration.

How is that going to work when most of the users are behind NAT/Firewalls? That's a connection model that just doesn't work well on the modern Internet.

I'm also kind of baffled by the need to install a Blizzard root cert in the cert store. That's normally only necessary for people who are too cheap to get their certs signed (Blizzard makes enough money to do this) or who want to MitM encrypted traffic from your host.

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#40

Post by jandrese »

paulcarroty wrote: post #8

Linux gaming on the rise now, thankfully mostly to DXVK and D9VK projects. Seems like one of big corporations funding the authors, probably Valve (old Microsoft kind-of-enemy).

Steamplay has been a huge influence in my household. Dunno about the bigger picture. It's much less hassle than the Wine wrappers of old and for the most part just works.
Post reply on HN