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

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#41

Post by vbezhenar »

jandrese wrote: post #39
vbezhenar wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're opening their website. JavaScript on their website connects to https://localhost:12345 and uses that connection to interact with battle.net software that runs on your PC. NAT/Firewall is not an issue. But that client software have to present valid certificate for that localhost website. To do so, they generate that self-signed certificate at installation time and mark is as trusted, so browsers will accept it. There's no other way to do that, really (well, there's a way actually, but it requires to sign some very non-standard agreements with certificate authorities, I know that Plex does that). Blizzard does not use that certificate to MitM your connection, because they don't send it back, it's generated, stored and used locally.

I don't like this practice too and I would opt-out of that "feature" having the choice. I just used to develop similar software, so I understand why they did that.

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#42

Post by jandrese »

vbezhenar wrote: post #41
jandrese wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're opening their website. JavaScript on their website connects to https://localhost:12345 and uses that connection to interact with battle.net software that runs on your PC. NAT/Firewall is not an issue. But that client software have to present valid certificate for that localhost website. To do so, they generate that self-signed certificate at installation time and mark is as trusted, so browsers will accept it.…

Do you actually need a root cert for this? Can't you just install the server's self-signed cert?

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#43

Post by vbezhenar »

jandrese wrote: post #42
vbezhenar wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're opening their website. JavaScript on their website connects to https://localhost:12345 and uses that connection to interact with battle.net software that runs on your PC. NAT/Firewall is not an issue. But that client software have to present valid certificate for that localhost website. To do so, they generate that self-signed certificate at installation time and mark is as trusted, so browsers will accept it.…

Do you actually need a root cert for this? Can't you just install the server's self-signed cert?

I think it's actually self-signed certificate for domain (localbattle.net) which resolves to 127.0.0.1, not CA one, sorry for misinformation.

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#44

Post by jandrese »

vbezhenar wrote: post #43
jandrese wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you actually need a root cert for this? Can't you just install the server's self-signed cert?

I think it's actually self-signed certificate for domain (localbattle.net) which resolves to 127.0.0.1, not CA one, sorry for misinformation.

That's much less troubling. It's much harder to engage in shenanigans in that case.

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#45

Post by captn3m0 »

vbezhenar wrote: post #41
jandrese wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're opening their website. JavaScript on their website connects to https://localhost:12345 and uses that connection to interact with battle.net software that runs on your PC. NAT/Firewall is not an issue. But that client software have to present valid certificate for that localhost website. To do so, they generate that self-signed certificate at installation time and mark is as trusted, so browsers will accept it.…

This is what Plex does: https://blog.filippo.io/how-plex-is-doing-https-for-all-its-...

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#46

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#47

Post by darkmarmot »

binthere wrote: post #29
yeoldeporkpie wrote: post #22

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

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.

I would love to use an open source alternative like Godot -- but their intense OOP system vs Unity's push embracing a more FP approach has really put me off.

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#48

Post by xfer »

vbezhenar wrote: post #41
jandrese wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're opening their website. JavaScript on their website connects to https://localhost:12345 and uses that connection to interact with battle.net software that runs on your PC. NAT/Firewall is not an issue. But that client software have to present valid certificate for that localhost website. To do so, they generate that self-signed certificate at installation time and mark is as trusted, so browsers will accept it.…

What's the point of using tls on localhost?

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#49

Post by naikrovek »

zachruss92 wrote: post #13

I love it! This really shows that game devs are starting to treat Linux as a first-class citizen.

I think this is more about making it easier to run the Unity editor headless in a docker container than it is about making lives easier for those extreme few who actually want to use the editor within Linux. Linux users often choose Linux because it is open. The Unity editor is definitely not open.

That's an educated guess, not something I know for a fact, and it makes sense given what I know about how the tool has evolved.

Unity has been able to produce games that run on Linux for a long, long time, so Linux is making some headway, you're right.

Re: Unity Editor for Linux

#50

Post by naikrovek »

sempron64 wrote: post #33
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…

> you can't use Unity without logging in

You definitely can, but it requires working with a sales rep to buy named or floating licenses that are served up by a locally run license server. I would be surprised if they did this for single quantity license purchases, though.

Additionally, after subscribing for two years, you can stop subscribing at any time and continue to use the latest version of the editor at the time your subscription expires, perpetually, as in "perpetual license that you own." This was announced at the same time they announced the switch from perpetual licensing to subscription licenses, if I remember correctly.

Post reply on HN