Latest Comments

Quoting: "MyGameCompany, post: 5034, member: 68"There are other problems with using RPMs and DEBs to distribute closed-source binaries, which I detailed in my articles. Mainly, package managers can't always resolve the dependencies, and even when they can, you have no idea how the dependent library the PM installed was built (and whether the configure options you depend on were built into it in a way that makes it compatible with your program - things like rpath, whether to use shared X11 libs, etc).

Sure, but is creating a package with bundled libs and no dependency metadata (you still get the benefits of being easily uninstallable, and some level of integration with users' normal methods of installing software) a better or worse solution than a standalone installer? I think this is what the Wolfire installer does. It seems to give the best of both worlds (or at least as much as is possible).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: "gbudny, post: 5010"Ridiculous DRM? This is a joke?

"Some features includes:

LGP copy protection does not require internet connection to install or play the game.

OK. I feel obligated to call you on this one. I was vocal about LGP's DRM when they announced it. After a while I bought one of their games with the DRM during a sale to see what it was like. For a while it seem ok as much as I wanted to dislike it. The annoying dialog every time I'd start the game, reminding me it was calling home, irked me every time I saw it. But I went ahead and bought a second game, X3 with the DRM.

Last May I was still playing the game. May 23 I tried to start the game and it hung. To try and debug it I fired up strace and discovered the game was stuck in a select() system call on a socket connected to 87.117.204.64. Whois said that address belonged to LGP. X3 is not a network game and this error was happening before the the DRM/call-home dialog. Since I couldn't spend the even playing X3, I used the time to write a nastygram to LGP. I'm using that email for reference now.

At the time of the failure I was also unable to reach the LGP website. That day I could not play a single player game I paid for because of a network problem. I think it also demonstrates that if LGP were to go down, I may not be allowed to play the games I've purchased. I believe that adding DRM was a poor choice on LGP's part and as much as I appreciate what they have done for Linux gaming over the years, I believe they deserve a black eye for that one.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

There are other problems with using RPMs and DEBs to distribute closed-source binaries, which I detailed in my articles. Mainly, package managers can't always resolve the dependencies, and even when they can, you have no idea how the dependent library the PM installed was built (and whether the configure options you depend on were built into it in a way that makes it compatible with your program - things like rpath, whether to use shared X11 libs, etc).

In my opinion and experience, unless your source code is open or you're willing to build packages for specific distros/versions, you should really avoid using RPMs and DEBs. A distribution-independent approach that doesn't use package managers is best for distributing a closed-source binary - it's easy to maintain (you have one binary and one "package"/installer to update for patches), and it "just works" on any distro.

I have one installer for each of my games, and I haven't found a distribution yet that my games won't install and run on. That includes both older and newer distributions.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: "gbudny, post: 5025"This is truth.
However since 2001 to 2009 they spent time and money on porting games to Linux PPC, Alpha, Sparc and x86-64 instead porting more new games to Linux x86-32.

Actually x86-64 is good because it's current, many more people use it today than 32-bit.
I use 64-bit and anyone with 4+ GB of RAM (unless they use PAE Kernel ;)).
Any PC today is 64-bit.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: "Hamish, post: 5031, member: 6"That does not answer the question - I fully accept that package managers are an asset and a strength of the platform, but I disagree that they are the best course of action for third party proprietary software for reasons I have already mentioned. I do not consider that to be throwing away a privilege but recognizing the faults and strengths of each approach. Proprietary software is always going to be alien on a free system - as such alien solutions work best for it. That is my take on it at least.

Sorry, I thought your questions was rhetorical (and I think that saying that it brings back a problem that we are trying to move past probably indicates what my answer would be anyway) ^_^

I don't really agree with the reasons you mentioned for third party proprietary software. IMO it's better to register software with a package manager so that it can be easily removed and conflicts can be identified than it is to bypass it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

That does not answer the question - I fully accept that package managers are an asset and a strength of the platform, but I disagree that they are the best course of action for third party proprietary software for reasons I have already mentioned. I do not consider that to be throwing away a privilege but recognizing the faults and strengths of each approach. Proprietary software is always going to be alien on a free system - as such alien solutions work best for it. That is my take on it at least.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It surprises me that there are people who don't quite grasp that package management systems solve the problems that individual installers create. DEBs and RPMs (and the tools to manage them) exist because there are problems with way that things are done on MacOS and Windows. Sure, there are advantages and disadvantages to each, but embracing what we've been actively trying to escape feels a bit like taking a backwards step.

At the end of the day though, it doesn't make much difference. Unless Valve are going to integrate Steam with local package databases to register individual games and other stuff it installs, Steam will essentially be its own isolated package management system.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

RPMs most likely work about the same as Kame posted about DEB files (I know that I can simply open them up in an archive program and manually extract the contents).

This does not change the fact that doing that or what Kame suggested remains a hack and should not be necessary for installing the game on other unsupported distros. I thought we had this situation fixed for us years ago by Loki anyway?

When it comes to how Desura does it, would there be less complaints if Desura made a more active way of making it known that it is up to the user to set the install location (such as it shipping with it's own MojoSetup installer?).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: "Bumadar, post: 5019, member: 93"but so is steam which we are all exited about :)

Not about the DRM I am not. I am still loath to Steamworks and it is the main thing that gives me pause whenever I consider using Steam. This is why I am still very much in the Desura camp myself.

Quoting: "Bumadar, post: 5018, member: 93"agree, but that is something totally different then writing pieces about them still being invalid and create the mood he does where people fanaticly want LGP to go bust. its more then trollish, its like doing his best to make a company look bad or irelevant

Possibly, though LGP is not the only the company Larabel does this to. I will submit that LGP is the one that has tried to do the most for Linux, so it is worse in that respect though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I recommend mid wars, 5v5 matchmaking map with only one lane and almost no respawn timer. It's crazy fun, and people tend to rage less if you're bad in midwars.

Also, they've made it a lot more accessible recently, adding in things like range indicators and the like on skills, and having in game guides is just fantastic.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: "MaximB, post: 5024, member: 3"I don't think that at 2012 they need to spend time and money on PPC, Sparc and Alpha. It's better that we get 3 Linux games a year from LGP, than zero.

This is truth.
However since 2001 to 2009 they spent time and money on porting games to Linux PPC, Alpha, Sparc and x86-64 instead porting more new games to Linux x86-32.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I don't think that at 2012 they need to spend time and money on PPC, Sparc and Alpha.

Maybe they should choose easier games to port ?
If they see that the code is a mess and it's problematic, then port a different game.
I'm sure you can get all the technical details before you buy the porting rights.
Also as I've said before, use different porting/licensing approach.
Licensing an old game and trying to live of the sales is suicide.
Instead, try to release the Linux port closer to the release date of the game - and live of the % of Linux sales.
Hib anyone ?
Kickstarter ?
There are lots of opportunities out there, you need to evolve.

It's better that we get 3 Linux games a year from LGP, than zero.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

unfortunately HoN didn't appeal me enough. it has native client and pretty good graphics, but i play LoL instead because its just much more simpler game to play and i'm too lazy to play hardcore.
too bad that LoL doesn't have native client. but it works without problems with playonlinux.
anyway i might give few more tries to HoN in the future

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: "MaximB, post: 5021, member: 3"I love LGP and all they done for Linux gaming, but times have changed and they must evolve.
One thing I could not understand....why Ryan Gordon ported much more games than LGP (and newer games) ?

Ryan often didn't make patches for older games.
He didn't ported commercial games to Linux PPC, Sparc or Alpha.
For example he ported Candy Cruncher only to Linux x86.

QuoteMe: Did you ported Candy cruncher to Linux Sparc and PowerPC?

Ryan Gordon: We had it running on PowerPC for the Mac OS version, but I'm pretty sure
I only dird the x86 version. (LGP probably had source code access and
added Sparc and PPC ports).
--ryan.

"According to Ryan C. Gordon. a game port is not all that difficult and a single developer can spend anywhere from 24 hours to 3 months making a port. Could you confirm this? What then is it that takes such a long time getting a Linux-port out of the door?
Ryans estimate is based on the fact that a) a lot of the games he ports are already using OpenGL so the hardest part of a port doesn't exist, b) most of the games he ports have a custom or non-existent network stack, and so the second hardest part of a port is a whole lot simpler, and c) he is a coding machine, better than most at what he does, and he has 10 years experience doing it. Not everyone has his skill level."
http://www.hardware.no/artikler/ryan_c_gordon_and_michael_simms/68450/4
LGP has many unpublished games for Linux. Three months ago I found empty PPC folder on CD with Knights and Merchants: The Shattered Kingdom for Linux.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I love LGP and all they done for Linux gaming, but times have changed and they must evolve.
One thing I could not understand....why Ryan Gordon ported much more games than LGP (and newer games) ?
I think LGP should not be porting old games, but as suggested before try to port game that are in production and get funds from Linux sales (40% to them 60% to the developers- or something similar).
Posting good 10 year old games is a bad idea.

They don't have to license the porting and sales rights, that as it seems never covers the costs.
Also they need to choose games that are easier to port, games that use more Linux friendly engines.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

QuoteCorrect me if I'm wrong, but I thought RPM and DEB did not give you the flexibility to decide where to install. Doesn't the package manager put it where it wants to (apart from the user)?

No, the package is more or less like a simple archive you extract to "/".
At least for DEB packages. Not sure about RPM.
This means it's the packager who decides where things go. Of course, distributions might not add certain packages to their official repositories if they don't like the packager's path choices (and/or if it's closed source).

Here's what's in a .deb (simplified list):
-the files to install on the system
-a text file containing a description of the package, its dependencies, version number, etc ("debian/control")
-pre-installation scripts (optional) ("debian/preinst")
-post-installation scripts (optional) ("debian/postinst")
-pre-removal scripts (optional) ("debian/prerm")
-post-removal scripts (optional) ("debian/postrm")

The pre/post-installation/removal scripts are usually just necessary for packages with daemons, etc. Games shouldn't need them. (apart from update-menus or similar in postinst, but this is automatically taken care of by debhelper scripts while building the package if I remember correctly. Haven't packaged for a while, but [URL='https://bitbucket.org/Knitter/puzzlemoppet']need to get back to it soon[/URL]... ;) )

You can easily extract the contents of a .deb with the following commands:
dpkg -x $DEB .
dpkg -e $DEB .

My take on the paths:
-closed source things (or anything self-compiled or from third-party repositories) into /opt (or other non-standard directory in /) or somewhere in /home
-open-source games into /usr/games

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: "whizse, post: 5011, member: 126"It's certainly less bad than some alternatives, but it's still DRM.

but so is steam which we are all exited about :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: "Hamish, post: 5007, member: 6"They do have to up their game now. It is not just them playing in the sandbox anymore.

agree, but that is something totally different then writing pieces about them still being invalid and create the mood he does where people fanaticly want LGP to go bust.

Quoting: "Hamish, post: 5007, member: 6"But I do agree that Larabel does tend to be a bit trollish - but he is like that about everything. :rolleyes:

its more then trollish, its like doing his best to make a company look bad or irelevant

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: "gbudny, post: 5010"Ridiculous DRM? This is a joke?

When I already own several of the games they sell with no DRM restrictions from another service, the joke happens to be on them. No matter how benevolent they try to make their DRM, it is still a bad practice and it did bite people who purchased LGP titles during their now infamous server outage. I personally do not find it to be defensible.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: "Cheeseness, post: 5015, member: 122"The LSB (based on POSIX) also governs what stuff should live where, doesn't it?

Absolutely. That's what I was getting at when I said LSB. Either put it where it's supposed to go (according to LSB), or let the user decide.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought RPM and DEB did not give you the flexibility to decide where to install. Doesn't the package manager put it where it wants to (apart from the user)?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: "Hamish, post: 5009, member: 6"I do in general dislike registering games with my package manager, yes. I am also unsure how you think that if a company only releases a DEB version of their game (or an RPM for that matter) it would not be restrictive. All the LSB provides is a standard set of libraries and operating standards. It does not make it so that one package format will work on any distro. That is what I was arguing about.

Providing DEB or RPM packages doesn't *need* to be restrictive at all. They're just archives with little bit of metadata that tells the package manager what it depends on and how to remove it. As I understand it, the actual content of the packages don't need to differ at all. Of course, I'm not talking about exclusively providing one or the other...

If the app is self-contained enough to be unpacked from a .tar.gz or a .run, I don't see why that itself couldn't be put into a package manager friendly archive in exactly that form as well.

Wolfire's way of handling it is interesting. Their installer gives the option to build a package manager friendly archive appropriate for your system on the fly. It takes a long time to build an RPM (I haven't tried it on a DEB based system), but it's pretty new and hopefully will be better over time.

The LSB (based on POSIX) also governs what stuff should live where, doesn't it?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Oh, and to get back to the topic, I would gladly support LGP, but they really need to do a full 180 before I start throwing money their way.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It's certainly less bad than some alternatives, but it's still DRM.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: "Hamish, post: 5007, member: 6"One thing LGP has always been good for has been support of their old games. My only concern is that when they have released updates they have often bundled them with the new DRM system. I really hope that they remove that - I can not really cheer them on until they do. LGP does also have the problem that it's competition has gotten stiffer. I mean, Desura is directly offering several titles that LGP has (Postal 2, Shadowgrounds, Shadowgrounds: Survivor) with updated Linux builds for far less than LGP is asking for, not to mention they ship without the ridiculous DRM measures.

Ridiculous DRM? This is a joke?

"Some features includes:

LGP copy protection does not require internet connection to install or play the game.
This system does not require user to keep the disc inside the CD drive while playing games.

This system enables users to install the game on multiple systems (as there is not a limited number of activations), while also discouraging sharing by noting that any user who has access to the owner's LGP account credentials could potentially lock the owner out of their own game.

Owners of a game license can transfer the licence to someone else, download a replacement disc image and allow people to see that the licence is valid if they buy your game. Owners can retrieve lost keys and forgotten passwords. Buyers can check to see if they are buying a game with a valid license.[URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Game_Publishing#cite_note-38'][COLOR=#0645ad][39][/URL][/COLOR]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Game_Publishing

They never want make bad DRM for Linux. For example:

Some features includes:
copy protection require internet connection to install or play the game.
This system require user to keep the disc inside the CD drive while playing games.
This system enables users to install the game on only one systems (as there is a limited number of activations), while also discouraging sharing by noting that any user who has access to the owner's LGP account credentials could potentially lock the owner out of their own game.

Owners of a game license can't transfer the licence to someone else and they can't download a replacement disc image and not allow people to see that the licence is valid if they buy your game. Owners can't retrieve lost keys and forgotten passwords. Buyers can't check to see if they are buying a game with a valid license."

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: "Cheeseness, post: 5002, member: 122"This is why the LSB (Linux Standard Base) exists and why it is important to respect it where possible. I don't really understand why installing to LSB friendly locations would make users fearful of being locked to a specific distro though (or were you just saying that you dislike the idea of games registering themselves with the package manager?).

I do in general dislike registering games with my package manager, yes. I am also unsure how you think that if a company only releases a DEB version of their game (or an RPM for that matter) it would not be restrictive. All the LSB provides is a standard set of libraries and operating standards. It does not make it so that one package format will work on any distro. That is what I was arguing about.

Quoting: "Cheeseness, post: 5002, member: 122"This is something that the application should be providing for though, not something that users should have to configure themselves.

Agreed.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

It is only on Unity - what did they expect? It looks pretty good to me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

One thing LGP has always been good for has been support of their old games. My only concern is that when they have released updates they have often bundled them with the new DRM system. I really hope that they remove that - I can not really cheer them on until they do.

LGP does also have the problem that it's competition has gotten stiffer. I mean, Desura is directly offering several titles that LGP has (Postal 2, Shadowgrounds, Shadowgrounds: Survivor) with updated Linux builds for far less than LGP is asking for, not to mention they ship without the ridiculous DRM measures. There is also the fact that Indie games and LGP are often in the same niche (since LGP ported a lot of older Indie games), meaning that they are facing a lot more competition from in-house Linux developers than they ever did before. They do have to up their game now. It is not just them playing in the sandbox anymore.

But I do agree that Larabel does tend to be a bit trollish - but he is like that about everything. :rolleyes:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

got the same mail and was pleasantly surprised by it :)

Quoting: "liamdawe, post: 5005, member: 1"Other websites have pulled them up (Phoronix..) about if they are valid or not anymore because of Steam coming, I say yes of course they are they do Port games to Linux after all, games have to first be ported to be sold remember.

That post on Phoronix... I am not sure what his issue is with LGP but he has been coming down on them for while now, every few months he does this. The post made no sense, because Valve comes to linux that does not mean other publishers are irrelevant, Valve been on windows for ages, does not mean other publisher are irrelevant on windows.

The bashing Phoronix does of LGP and the mood he creates with it (if you read the posts, some people even feel LGP "must" go bust and that it would be a good thing) is simply bad and uncalled for and makes me wonder if there is a personal issue between Larabel and LGP.

LGP done a lot for linux gaming when nobody gave a damn, they spend a lot of time, money and resources porting games, maybe they not the newest games but that has more to do with other publisher not seeing a market and thus not letting LGP close to their windows source code to port.

On the good news side though, you can now follow LGP on Desura !!!

http://www.desura.com/company/linux-game-publishing so press the tracking button :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

also find it pretty good looking but am amazed at the critique you read on some of the other websites (and the facebook page) about it, I guess "we" not that spoiled yet ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

this looks so flipping cool. i can't wait to play it!

View this comment - View article - View full comments