The corporate mindset, probably not the best way I could have phrased that. It was more a reference to judging the value of something based only on market share, profit margins and other stuff like that. While a lot of the participation in open source is in fact done by corporations, a lot of it is also done by non-corporate entites and individuals as well. We all have our metrics and it seems the ones that are bandied about the most are the ones that don't necessarily translate into success or failure for a lot of the community driven projects.
I also did not mean to imply that GOG is big, faceless corporation as I also recognize the more community-minded approach they take to things. If that were my belief, I would not have spent even a single dollar with them. Again, it was a generalization of the all-or-nothing approach that people in general tend to take, not an indictment of anyone in particular.
I also realize that GOG wants to make the experience for their customers as seamless as possible which I also appreciate. I just don't see that as incompatible with things as they sit. Whenever you're going to support something, you have to place limits on what you'll support. Going completely open-ended is suicide, hence the suggestion to specify a supported configuration even down to a specific point release if that's what you feel you need to do. What people do outside of that is their own issue, the same as right now when I buy the version that's guaranteed to work on Windows and I take it and put it on my linux installation and make it work without their help.
As to the reference to mojo, yes, I'm also aware of the history there. However, that was simply an example of a tool that could be quite useful for distribution-independent packaging. I've met Mr. Gordon and I very much admire his talents and skills. I also remember being a bit disappointed that no one jumped on the idea of fatelf because that could simplify and streamline a lot of things. I don't know if you've ever had a chance to see any of his presentations on open source game development tools, but if you haven't there are some up on Youtube (and linked from his site on icculus.org for that matter) and they address a lot of the things that people call "issues".
I really think you're reading between lines that aren't even there for some of what I said, however. Yes, you have your groups of fiercely independent people on both sides of the issue and yes, you have your rabid fan boys on both sides as well. However, since I no longer live in the middle of the war-zone (I stopped dealing directly with all of those issues in 2004, now I just follow it with some interest, but it has no net effect on my daily life), I've found that I'm sort of ambivalent about all of it, I just do what works for me. So if you're looking for rabid fanboiism from me, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. Life has taught me to be a bit more pragmatic in the way I approach things, however I'm definitely not a PR or Marketing guy, so I appreciate that I might not always phrase things the best possible way. The point was definitely not to be confrontational or cast blame, although it seems like people are ready to read into that.
And for the record. When I say ready, I mean "You offer products and I'll buy what I'm interested in buying." "You offer your terms and I'll decide if it's something I can live with." ... and ... "If it's not something I can live with, then obviously I won't be buying." Speaking for myself, which is the only person I'm actually qualified to speak for anyhow, I don't see that as bad.
<snip> I just attribute this to the corporate mindset that seems so pervasive in the world today, even to the extent that it gets applied to entities that are nothing like a corporation. <snip>
Well, if you mean with "corporate mindset" a focussed mindset which wants/supports/allows the creation of reasonable supportable platform, than, yes, I want more "corporate mindsets".
In contrast to what you are (indirect) indicate, that there is a polarization between
"commercial-corporate-propritary-mindset" and "open-source-community-mindset", I'm pretty sure that open-source is very fine and compatible with commercial & platform models.
E.g. the OSS Android platform, as soon as someone created a (more or less) stable platform, the linux kernel was a success in a commercial market with many companies, they love android. Or see the mozilla foundation and their premium product firefox, a success, widely commercial used and supported, "despite" being community driven and open source. Another example for a commercial successful and non-fragmented community driven project is wikipedia. So, no you are wrong, the reasons for the problems of the linux ecosystem in software and game distribution are not mindset of someone else, but their own mindset. To credit is only a encrusted mindset deeply rooted in the last century and a inherent culture of unix and fragmented distro infrastructure.
So, don't mix in things like the innocent OSS and community integrated processes , they work fine & are no problem for gog.
And you mean with "ready", the usual "We don't move, you have to play after our rules."-readiness?
PS: also, gog is already pretty community driven and focussed! It's especially off to call GOG a faceless and not consumer-careing company :(
PPS: you mentioned the mojo setup by ryan gordon, a great programmer and linux gaming supporter. 2 facts about him: when he was a Loki he was also involved on the creation of loki setup, more or less similiar concept as mojo, a installer for all linux variants. Loki tried his best to make it robust and introperable, but as usual linux distros and community was caring not at all for loki setup... ultimately they broke all packages of them on several levels. :( Also, Ryan was so annoyed by the hostality and conservatism of the linux community when he tried to improve the linux gaming with FatELF
that he almost left to Mac "I have a whole list of things, like FatELF, that I'd like to build someday. Make the Linux system better in various ways. FatELF just seemed like a good place to start. But I walked away from that failure thinking, "why would I want to cooperate with these people?" I considered moving to Mac OS X full time. Eventually I calmed down and adjusted my list to prioritize things that didn't need patches to other projects."
source: Interview with Ryan C. Gordon about Linux Gaming