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

Porting the Unity Editor to Linux: Stuff I Wish We’d Done Then

natoshabard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: Porting the Unity Editor to Linux: Stuff I Wish We’d Done Then

#81

Post by tormeh »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #67
natosha_bard wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can totally sympathize, and we'd like to support every distribution. :-( But the simple statistics show that we get the most bang for our buck by supporting Ubuntu because of its desktop market share. The great thing about the Linux community is that it's full if crazy smart people who will go out of their way to make sure stuff is working on their distribution. And of course if something isn't working on your dist…

You haven't been asked to support every distribution, just Debian, and possibly Ubuntu. Please pay attention to this advice. Supporting Debian practically gets you Ubuntu support for free, as well as a number of other popular distributions.

Steam and most Linux games can be run on any distribution with a bit of work on the user's part. The problem with officially supporting something is that suddenly the vendor is responsible for the game not working. That shit costs time and money. You say Debian, but sooner or later someone will demand support for Damn Small Linux. It's better to just stop at Ubuntu and let users of other distros install the right dependencies themselves.

Re: Porting the Unity Editor to Linux: Stuff I Wish We’d Done Then

#82

Post by yoz-y »

throwaway24242 wrote: post #57
rdsnsca wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth is Mac user expect a Ui to look and feel native, otherwise you will be savaged in reviews, no matter how good your feature set. You last sentence tells me you have never used a QT app on a Mac, because it does not look and feel native.

But do the users care? I do not think so. Otherwise a lot of famous websites would have native UI clients.

The iOS AppStore is exactly that. A bunch of native UIs for famous websites. E.g.: Facebook, Twitter, Google Apps...

Precisely because users (at least iOS and Mac users) do care.

Re: Porting the Unity Editor to Linux: Stuff I Wish We’d Done Then

#83

Post by tormeh »

anon4 wrote: post #77

I still don't understand why so many are jumping on the Linux gaming bandwagon. I mean, it's nice for me and all, I just don't really see the business gains for them.

Costs are slightly lower than sales, I would expect. It's also a political issue when it comes to Humble Bundles and crowdfunding.

Costs have dropped with C++11, Unity and Steam for Linux. Sales have risen since Linux' market share is rising (very very slowly). Also of note is that Linux users seem to have beefier setups than their Windows peers, according to Steam Survey (12GB RAM vs 8, 2GB VRAM vs 1, bigger screens and more cores). More money spent on hardware correlates with more money being spent on games.

Re: Porting the Unity Editor to Linux: Stuff I Wish We’d Done Then

#84

Post by adrusi »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #65
jebblue wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems Gtk has won, why don't the QT developers and supporters move to the Gtk camp and work to make it better rather then keep QT alive which just wastes efforts.

"Gtk has won" [citation needed]

It has essentially won on linux, where Qt is limitted to the KDE subculture and cross platform apps for which linux is not a priority. GNOME, Unity, Pantheon, XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnamon, etc. all work best with GTK. With some of the heavier weight desktops, Qt apps look quite out of place, kind of like how cross platform UI apps look on Mac and Windows.

Since most Qt apps on linux come from the KDE ecosystem, they often pull in a lot of KDE dependancies, which means a lot of extra packages lying around your system, creating clutter, which might bother some people. The relatively heavyweight nature of most Qt apps makes them less appropriate on systems that use just a window manager rather than a full desktop environment.

Sure, a lot of GTK apps pull in a bunch of GNOME dependancies, but there's also a large contingent of GTK apps from the lighter-weight XFCE world that don't.

Outside of linux, Qt has won pretty decisively, mostly because the GTK developers aren't interested in making GTK apps look good on Mac/Windows, so long as they run.

Re: Porting the Unity Editor to Linux: Stuff I Wish We’d Done Then

#85

Post by white-flame »

anon4 wrote: post #77

I still don't understand why so many are jumping on the Linux gaming bandwagon. I mean, it's nice for me and all, I just don't really see the business gains for them.

Right at the top of the article they call it a labor of love for those inside the company.

Re: Porting the Unity Editor to Linux: Stuff I Wish We’d Done Then

#87

Post by rodgerd »

Superpelican wrote: post #74

Having switched to OS X about a year ago after years of Linux usage, I can say that personally I really like the case insensitivity OS X has by default. It doesn't whine every time I accidentally (don't) press caps lock. Case sensitive file systems must be the dumbest invention ever. Who is seriously going to distinguish his/her files by capital and non-capital letters? "Test.txt" and "test.txt" should be the same!

To borrow a snark from Twitter: the same sort of person who has a cat named mittens and another cat named MITTENS.

Re: Porting the Unity Editor to Linux: Stuff I Wish We’d Done Then

#88

Post by DanBC »

Superpelican wrote: post #74

Having switched to OS X about a year ago after years of Linux usage, I can say that personally I really like the case insensitivity OS X has by default. It doesn't whine every time I accidentally (don't) press caps lock. Case sensitive file systems must be the dumbest invention ever. Who is seriously going to distinguish his/her files by capital and non-capital letters? "Test.txt" and "test.txt" should be the same!

What is the reason for case insensitive file systems?

This 2001 page has some possible reasons. (Much simpler; some benefits).

http://xahlee.info/UnixResource_dir/_/fileCaseSens.html

Re: Porting the Unity Editor to Linux: Stuff I Wish We’d Done Then

#89

Post by akavel »

nacs wrote: post #69
akavel wrote: post #66

I'm scratching my head after this article, not really sure if the author really believes in what he's complaining on fully? For me, those are kinda nice "wishes", in that if they happened, the porting team would have less work to do now, sure. But, actually, especially those specific things listed - they sound to me like things, which would be unnecessarily hard and really costly things to do "in the past", assuming…

> not really sure if the author really believes in what he's complaining on fully The author is a lady.

Hmm, can't edit anymore to correct, sorry for the mistake.

Re: Porting the Unity Editor to Linux: Stuff I Wish We’d Done Then

#90

Post by akavel »

cwyers wrote: post #73
akavel wrote: post #66

I'm scratching my head after this article, not really sure if the author really believes in what he's complaining on fully? For me, those are kinda nice "wishes", in that if they happened, the porting team would have less work to do now, sure. But, actually, especially those specific things listed - they sound to me like things, which would be unnecessarily hard and really costly things to do "in the past", assuming…

> 2. No OS #ifdefs >Um;... so... like... what else to use instead?... You misread. The problem was that it was written in the form of if Windows do this, else do something that only works on OS X. The alternative is an explicit if for OS X, so that when you have a third OS to support you don't have to add that.

Hm, still not quite sure how that'd help; one still has to edit all that places, no? and in case one had "#else nothing", I don't see how that's more useful in any way. And the suggested "do something sensible by default" - if one could, one wouldn't have the ifdefs at all I suppose.
Post reply on HN