Prodeus cancels the Native Linux version, focusing on Proton compatibility (updated)

Quoting: randomgamerguy1997

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: randomgamerguy1997Time and time again people in the community say "ThAt A LiNuX BuIlD Is A ClIcK Of A BuTtON" but it's always proven to not be that simple time and time again.

When have the community ever said that? I know that a lot of Windows developers using Unity tends to have that idea when they launch their Kickstarter, but the Linux community(?)

I literally see people saying it all the time on r/linux_gaming

So that is where the community is at, explains a lot then, I mostly only traverse here, Phoronix, LWN and Slashdot and among that populace I have never seen this but I see that the community is a bit larger than my social bubble :)

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: elmapulthey cant legaly completely drop support for something used by millions

Of course they can. What global law are you referring to that obligates a company to support well announced end-of-life products??

Maybe you meant "ethically". They can't ethically drop support. Which I can agree with, but of course, when has Microsoft ever considered the ethics of its actions?

(hint: never)

do you forgot that governments use windows?
they can make laws like that if they feel like they are being harmed by an company pratice.

i cant remember the name of any but im prety sure i had read about it somewhere, otherwise microsoft ethics at least where good enough to support xp for 14 years


Last edited by elmapul on 9 September 2022 at 3:38 am UTC

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: elmapulthey cant legaly completely drop support for something used by millions

Of course they can. What global law are you referring to that obligates a company to support well announced end-of-life products??

do you forgot that governments use windows?
they can make laws like that if they feel like they are being harmed by an company pratice.

Something doesn't become illegal because they could make a law, but only when they actually did.

And, my opinion: Microsoft is not doing the job that bad. Of course, Debian is doing it better, but I wouldn't expect that much from a profit oriented company.

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: elmapulthey cant legaly completely drop support for something used by millions

Of course they can. What global law are you referring to that obligates a company to support well announced end-of-life products??

do you forgot that governments use windows?
they can make laws like that if they feel like they are being harmed by an company pratice.

Something doesn't become illegal because they could make a law, but only when they actually did.

And, my opinion: Microsoft is not doing the job that bad. Of course, Debian is doing it better, but I wouldn't expect that much from a profit oriented company.

microsoft used to save user files in a file format that only then and god knew how it worked inside, and it can be argueed that their apis are similiar.

if an program only work on an older version of windows, and an important government file only open on this program, and the company who made the program already gone bankrupt, how is the government suppose to open the file once this version of windows is no longer supported?

of course i understand that no company should be forced to support an old api/abi forever, but an government can stabilish an reasonable minimum time as an law, especially when the company who made the software has an monopoly (as microsoft have) have and the government got traped into using it back in the days governments knew nothing about computers to build their it infrastrcuture.
imagine if an government couldnt control their own drones in an war because microsoft said so? or if they had to use an unsuported operating system?
an company margin for profit can really be prioritized over peoples lifes?

we are paying companies for whatever they want to charge with public money, and they got to decide for how long they plan to support one of their system after lock us inside?

Quoting: elmapulif an program only work on an older version of windows, and an important government file only open on this program, and the company who made the program already gone bankrupt, how is the government suppose to open the file once this version of windows is no longer supported?

Grooming the data from time to time, or use a disconnected PC with an outdated OS - like everybody else.

Quoting: elmapulof course i understand that no company should be forced to support an old api/abi forever, but an government can stabilish an reasonable minimum time as an law, especially when the company who made the software has an monopoly (as microsoft have) have and the government got traped into using it back in the days governments knew nothing about computers to build their it infrastrcuture.
imagine if an government couldnt control their own drones in an war because microsoft said so? or if they had to use an unsuported operating system?
an company margin for profit can really be prioritized over peoples lifes?

we are paying companies for whatever they want to charge with public money, and they got to decide for how long they plan to support one of their system after lock us inside?

I'm with you that minimum support times should be enforced. (EU is at this topic, by the way.) But I'd say something like 10 years for PC stuff is good enough. And I don't think governments should use their power just for their own good/self-inflicted problems. They can care for their data and software just like everybody else. And, you won't be surprised here, I'd recommend that they use FLOSS software more.

Quoting: EikeGrooming the data from time to time, or use a disconnected PC with an outdated OS - like everybody else.

are you sugesting that an government pc should be offline? in 2022 an government should put all of their machines offline? seriously?
how do you do income tax? by fax? by letters?

Quoting: EikeI'm with you that minimum support times should be enforced. (EU is at this topic, by the way.) But I'd say something like 10 years for PC stuff is good enough. And I don't think governments should use their power just for their own good/self-inflicted problems. They can care for their data and software just like everybody else. And, you won't be surprised here, I'd recommend that they use FLOSS software more.

10 years in some cases is the time to upgrade every machine on the company, in other words, by the time you finish the migration for an new tech , its already obsolete.
we are talking about millions of machines here.


Last edited by elmapul on 9 September 2022 at 11:18 am UTC

Quoting: elmapulare you sugesting that an government pc should be offline

Are you seriously... actually seriously... suggesting that if a government entity is so incompetent to be running a decades old operating system (when multiple upgrade paths have been available for years and years) that they should "just pass a law" to force Microsoft to produce patches long after its well-announced EOL date??

Or are you just trolling. It honestly sounds like trolling.

Because that's not how the world works. Back in 2014, only 8 years ago, the UK government paid £5.5M to Microsoft, begging them for an extra year's support. No laws involved - they just dropped public money into the MS pot to cover their incompetence. Pretty sickening really - they had 7 years to fix their shit and this is how they went about it.

Managing your legacy O/S footprint is bread and butter in most enterprises. I'm currently overseeing the removal of our last 100 or so Windows 2012 servers right now at my workplace, for example. Because believe me, there will be no laws created to cover this easily avoidable threat.

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: elmapulare you sugesting that an government pc should be offline

Are you seriously... actually seriously... suggesting that if a government entity is so incompetent to be running a decades old operating system (when multiple upgrade paths have been available for years and years) that they should "just pass a law" to force Microsoft to produce patches long after its well-announced EOL date??

i think you dindt understand a single word that i said, so i will try to explain again with other words.

no, i dont think that an company should be forced to support an product forever.
companies should work with open standards and open protocols whenever possible, especially when their clients are using "public money" (by pulic money i mean, charity, governments, and others, i dont know the exact term)

companies shouldnt be allowed to lock their users to thenselves as the only providers for something ,especially if the money used to purchase the product/service is "public money".

Quoting: scaineManaging your legacy O/S footprint is bread and butter in most enterprises. I'm currently overseeing the removal of our last 100 or so Windows 2012 servers right now at my workplace, for example. Because believe me, there will be no laws created to cover this easily avoidable threat.

removal of 100 windows servers to replace then with what? another product from microsoft? because a lot of governments give up migrating to linux, not because linux wasnt capable of doing what they need, but, because microsoft put an lock on then that was too expensive to break, it was consuming too much time and money, so they just gave up.

that, should be illegal.
and even if you think this is acceptable, why the hell an company should be allowed to charge as much as they want for their product if its the only option, not because other companies werent capable of doing an similiar product, but due to vendor lock in?

how much money its acceptable for an government to invest into purchasing software licences? 1 trillion of dollars?
if microsoft deciced to increase the price of their next windows versions while at the same time, drop support for older versions, but they have put an great lock on the content avaliable for it, should an government be forced to pay whatever microsoft want to charge to update their machines?

the way i see things, the only reason you were able to migrate from windows server 2012 was because this lock wasnt strong enough to prevent you from doing, or because you didnt changed your provider.

when companies abuse their power to ransom users, i think they should be forced to one of 2 things:
1)keep supporting the product even if that harm their profits (wich they wont like and as result, they will see thenselves forced into 2)
2)open the documentation of how to implement their apis/procols/file formats.

TL:DR i dont think ransomwares should be legal and legaly encouraged.

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: AdutchmanThis isn't a question of "5 minutes of Google"

Yeah, I agree - it's definitely a bit more work than that to ensure Linux compatibility. But they promised to do that work. People bought into their game based on that promise.

Same old problem with crowd funded games - no accountability. Developers have been defrauding the public on Kickstarter for years with these kinds of promises. Whole projects simply walk away with hundreds of thousands of pounds with no repercussions.

I'm not saying what's happening here is on that scale - in the grand scheme of things, "not delivering a Linux version of our game" is a pretty minor form of fraud, but it's tedious how often it happens, and it is still fraud to sell something based on a promise you can't deliver on, even if you think you're justified in blaming a third party (Unity) for that outcome.

(I've seen this defended before, and I think it's because Linux is so small. Imagine if a dev promised a Playstation version of their game alongside the Xbox version, then failed to deliver on the Playstation version - there would be a gigantic outcry. But when it happens with Linux, it's just "ah well, no big deal, there are only 17 Linux users in the world anyway.)

Realistically, we should probably be happy that they're willing to work on a Proton version at all. Look at the Carmageddon assholes, by comparison. Not only did they defraud their Linux customers, they trolled them in social media repeatedly. The Prodeus devs are saints by comparison.

Sure, I can get behind that. If you promise the version clearly, you should of course keep the promise