Valve Looking to Port Games to Linux? 129
Martin Bozic writes "Valve is apparently looking for senior engineers to port games to Linux. They have an ad up on the official site looking for a Senior Software Engineer with experience in 'systems engineering designing and developing communications software and hardware solutions including resolving problems surrounding real-time and non real time PC- based systems using C++ and network programming algorithms and their interaction with physical devices.' One of the lines under the job description is the simple statement: 'Port Windows-based games to the Linux platform.'" No reason to get excited about this before they make an official announcement; while this may eventually mean Half-Life 2 running under Linux, they may just want penguin-based folks to play Peggle.
quick, somebody call Icculus (Score:2, Insightful)
If they do port HL2... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IF, just, IF (Score:5, Insightful)
A few years ago, I spoke with someone from one company that makes astronomy-based software who said that they decided not to release their software in the early days of Linux because of the demand at the time from Linux extremists to release the source code. Please don't scare Steam into the same kind of retraction by suggesting or insisting that they release their code as well. You can be almost guaranteed that Steam would be a binary release, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Re:Sure, why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
It could be server software (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Seems unlikely (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, how could you even type this without your fingers breaking themselves in disgust before you could finish?
Valve will follow the road that leads to them making more money. That means watching the market and adapting as it shifts. With so much new support for Linux lately (Ubuntu, Dell, HP, ATI/AMD) it would be hard to ignore Linux as a gaming platform. That doesn't mean they WILL decide to write cross-platform games, just that they would be fools to ignore it without reason.
Probably right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure, why not? (Score:2, Insightful)
Adobe CS3 wouldn't go amiss either, but I doubt we'll see that happening any time soon.
Re:IF, just, IF (Score:5, Insightful)
You are coaxing a timid animal out of its hole only to start screaming at it when it pokes its head out, forcing it to run back into its hole out of fright. Knock it off, damn it!
Re:Seems unlikely (Score:3, Insightful)
No kidding. Valve even went so far as to port the engine used for the original Half-Life from OpenGL to Direct3D. And then, when they made the Source engine, they dropped the OpenGL part entirely. Now they've apparently not only had a 180-degree change in heart, but such a big one that they're (maybe) willing to face the cost of porting Source* back to OpenGL? I don't believe it. I mean, it'd be great -- don't get me wrong -- but I don't believe it.
(*Yes, the job description could just be talking about Peggle, but then who the heck cares anyway?)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:IF, just, IF (Score:1, Insightful)
No, you didn't use the word "demand", but your comment was a direct reflection of the attitude that (unfortunately) has existed since Linux became a commonly-known term that companies who release software for Linux are just somehow expected to release (or "give freedom to") the source code as well.
Re:IF, just, IF (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... he didn't "demand" that. He just pointed out that some people value 'software freedom' highly, and that value may (for such people) outweigh the utility of closed software, no matter how many hours were spent coding it. The fact that someone doesn't share your tastes or priorities is not prima facie evidence that they are wrong. De gustibus and all that.
Sure, Linux has 'free-software purists' among its users. How could it possibly be otherwise? If they were using Windows or Macs, they would not, ipso facto, be free-software purists.
You seem to be implying that any free-software purism among any Linux users will scare off companies. Perhaps that's even true (though I doubt it, and I'll need more than a couple of anecdotes to convince me of that) but I have to ask why companies are that timid? Don't they know that there are also plenty of pragmatic, 'impure' Linux users, too?
Linux gaming market is far smaller than most think (Score:3, Insightful)
Game developers are not ignoring Linux as a potential retail platform, they are merely doing the math and seeing that it is not justified. The major problem is that Linux gamers generally dual boot or emulate, therefore they are already customers buying the Win32 version of the game. A Linux version of the game would merely replace a Win32 sale with a Linux sale, there is no new money in such a swap, the development and support costs are not paid for. These costs are only supported by *new* sales, this means sales to people who refuse to dual boot or emulate. This makes the Linux gaming market far smaller than most people think.
Mac used to be in a better situation because dual boot was impossible and emulation impractical. However with modern Intel based Macs this is no longer the case. Note what is happening there, developers are starting to use emulation. To oversimplify things, wine (Cider) is being linked into the Win32 game, as opposed to Linux where wine (Cedega) is a standalone tool. If developers start support Linux it will be through something like Cider where there is very little work compared to doing a native Linux port.
Re:IF, just, IF (Score:3, Insightful)
"There is no cause so noble it will not attract some kooks." - Larry Niven
You're kind of reinforcing my point there. Quoting irrational message board comments is not an argument. I defy you to name a platform that doesn't have its irrational fanboys [penny-arcade.com]. The guy you're talking about had a negative attitude about Linux for other reasons. At most, extremists users were an excuse or rationalization.
If we address the real reasons that people form negative preconceptions about Linux, the whackjobs (and note: I'm not saying the 'free software purists' are 'whackjobs') won't matter.
Re:IF, just, IF (Score:3, Insightful)
As citizens of free countries, we are all very much allowed to make loud demands for freedom from whomever we wish. It doesn't mean that the entities in question have to care about our demands, nor does it mean that the government should be stepping in to guarantee those freedoms that some citizens want. But we are damn well free to voice our desires to those companies.
To put it in a less adversarial way: Software authors undoubtedly have the legal right to release their software as binary-only. However for many people, open-source software is "better" (for pragmatic and even ethical reasons), and so they will encourage those software authors to release their software as open source ("encourage," not "force"). This is no different that any other interaction between customers and a company: we encourage companies to do all kinds of things that we want. It's up to them to decide which ones they think are worth doing. Your analogy presupposes that the objective is to get "more software on Linux" in which case demands for source, as you point out, simply scare off potential developers. However not everyone shares that goal. For many, the goal is "make all software free" and those people are urging software developers (for Windows and Linux) to release source code. In that regard, getting more binary software on Linux isn't really a step forward. The fact is that most people with such goals are Linux users, so the requests for source code are statistically going to be higher for a binaries released for Linux than for Windows.
This is simply a manifestation of the diverse goals of the FOSS community (that diversity, incidentally, is not necessarily a bad thing).