It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like:Chrome,Firefox,Internet Explorer orOpera

×
avatar
shmerl: No, note the desktop position and C++ requirement. Also note Qt QML being mentioned. This is not about maintaining a web site. This is straight about creating desktop GUI applications (like downloader and etc.).
avatar
Kristian: So in other words GOG is or will be running some Linux server(s) and want some one to create GUI applications for that purpose. Perhaps related to special GOG related server maitanence needs. Perhaps some GUI applications to edit game descriptions or mainain the GOG library/database of games?

What ever it is the person won't be working on actual Linux support for actual games. There is no way they could get the games to run on the Rapsberry Pi. So we sadly won't see Linux support on GOG :(

Edit:

Future_Suture that is VERY good news about CryTek, if only GOG were as open minded as them!
I lol'd at the part in bold. When GOG does eventually support Linux, which is inevitable, we'll have lots to laugh about! Telling youngsters of how GOG didn't support Linux for ages because getting games to run on the Raspberry Pi was too difficult or how FreeBSD, being yet another Linux distro to support, fragmented the Linux ecosystem too much. It will be a merry time! In addition, yes, VERY good news indeed, Kristian. Very good news indeed. Spread the word!
avatar
Kristian: So in other words GOG is or will be running some Linux server(s) and want some one to create GUI applications for that purpose. Perhaps related to special GOG related server maitanence needs. Perhaps some GUI applications to edit game descriptions or mainain the GOG library/database of games?

What ever it is the person won't be working on actual Linux support for actual games. There is no way they could get the games to run on the Rapsberry Pi. So we sadly won't see Linux support on GOG :(

Edit:

Future_Suture that is VERY good news about CryTek, if only GOG were as open minded as them!
avatar
Future_Suture: I lol'd at the part in bold. When GOG does eventually support Linux, which is inevitable, we'll have lots to laugh about! Telling youngsters of how GOG didn't support Linux for ages because getting games to run on the Raspberry Pi was too difficult or how FreeBSD, being yet another Linux distro to support, fragmented the Linux ecosystem too much. It will be a merry time! In addition, yes, VERY good news indeed, Kristian. Very good news indeed. Spread the word!
Well atleast TheEngimaticT admitted his mistake with that FreeBSD bit. But a company making decisions with such misunderstanding doesn't make me confident in Linux support coming to GOG and that Raspberry Pi bit still stands!

They may as well say they can't support Windows due to them having to support DOS as well or Windows Mobile/Phone(or whatever MS is calling it now).
A testing version of the biggest game available for Steam, DOTA 2, is now available for Linux. An official release is said to happen soon. Things are about to get even more serious in the world of Linux.
avatar
Future_Suture: The subject of not enough resources and wanting to provide a quality service at all times actually came up starting from here. Needless to say, apparently it's not as much effort as GOG likes to make it seem.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Making packages and distributing them? Yes, that's trivial. But what your poster in that thread doesn't account for is that we do a lot more than that with classic games. I'm not the guy in charge of testing, mastering, and building games, but let's just look at what *I* can think of that makes Linux release a very difficult proposition:

1: Testing. What distros do we support? There are 10 "fairly common" ones (Ubuntu, Mint, OpenSuse, Fedora, CentOS, ArchLinux, Debian, Slackware, FreeBSD and, um, I've forgotten a couple). Hardware? What level of updates? Only FOSS drivers, or can we take some closed source stuff? Once we've decided on a test bed, we still have to check the games. Do they boot? What about oddball games like, say, Theme Hopsital? There's a version-specific DOSBox-related fix there. Does it in work in any distro? In all of 'em? Managing testing across the 3 OSes we support is tough and requires a lot of time, effort, and money. How much more complex will 10 more OSes make it?

2. Support. Having problems getting your game running? We'll help you out. Contact Support and they'll try to diagnose your problem and offer a solution--but they only know how to fix common (and less common) Windows problems. LInux is famous as the hacker's OS--that is to say, the OS of people who like to do odd things with their hardware. If someone contacts Support because he can't get his copy of Fallout running on his Raspberry Pi with a video out that's connected to a six-panel e-ink display and he wants his money back, well, that puts us in a bad spot.

3. Maintanence. Across those 10 common distros, how often does one of them update? Quarterly? Monthly? I don't know, but the answer is certainly "often". What do we do if slackware updates and breaks the functionality of a glide wrapper that we're using for all of our games? Or if FreeBSD removes a driver from the kernel that we depend upon in order to run some games? Just planning for Windows 8 is a minor headache--ask Tolya about his test plans if you want to hear an earful--but planning for a wide spectrum of OSes that have constantly changing sources and see major feature and bugfix releases more than once a year? Man, that's a Herculean labor.

This is a thumbnail sketch of the challenges that await a digital distributor who wants to release games on Linux and who also wants to provide proper support when doing so.

Of course, we could just release a client, sell the games, and figure that you can sort the rest out yourself--I'm sure some businesses may even consider that a successful business model--but that's not really the GOG way of doing business. ;)
" If someone contacts Support because he can't get his copy of Fallout running on his Raspberry Pi with a video out that's connected to a six-panel e-ink display and he wants his money back, well, that puts us in a bad spot."

If someone contacts support running Windows 3.11 connected to an Oculus Rift and wants his money back because The Witcher 2 won't work, that puts you in a bad spot as well I guess... so you can't support Windows.
avatar
Kristian: If someone contacts support running Windows 3.11 connected to an Oculus Rift and wants his money back because The Witcher 2 won't work, that puts you in a bad spot as well I guess... so you can't support Windows.
That's why GOG isn't supporting Windows. It is supporting Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8 (though only one flavor of it). They could probably support just one flavour of linux on one architecture, but that isn't supporting Linux, that is supporting Ubuntu on x86-x84.

But I guess you already knew that.

P.S. If you can find me a way to connect an Oculus Rift to Windows 3.11, I may be tempted to get a rift.
avatar
Kristian: If someone contacts support running Windows 3.11 connected to an Oculus Rift and wants his money back because The Witcher 2 won't work, that puts you in a bad spot as well I guess... so you can't support Windows.
avatar
JMich: That's why GOG isn't supporting Windows. It is supporting Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8 (though only one flavor of it). They could probably support just one flavour of linux on one architecture, but that isn't supporting Linux, that is supporting Ubuntu on x86-x84.

But I guess you already knew that.

P.S. If you can find me a way to connect an Oculus Rift to Windows 3.11, I may be tempted to get a rift.
There is literally a zero difference in supporting only certain versions of Windows and only supporting certain distros of Linux any and all arguments against the latter can also be used against the former. THAT is my point. GOG is choosing to support 0 Linux distros based on reasoning that should also lead to to conclude that they should support 0 Windows versions.
avatar
Kristian: There is literally a zero difference in supporting only certain versions of Windows and only supporting certain distros of Linux any and all arguments against the latter can also be used against the former. THAT is my point. GOG is choosing to support 0 Linux distros based on reasoning that should also lead to to conclude that they should support 0 Windows versions.
True. With one small difference.
Current versions of Windows are the only versions that are supported (again, with the exception of Windows RT). Current versions of Linux are too many, and not targeted at one architecture only. So you must not only support some flavours, but also only certain architectures of said flavours. GOG said that they would prefer to do a all-or-nothing approach. You demand that they do a some approach.
Personally, I also feel that if someone claims "Linux support" that support should cover everything under the Linux umbrella. If they claim Ubuntu support, that should cover everything under Ubuntu, and if they say "Ubuntu x86" that should cover the specific subset. And once more, I have quite a bit of respect for the linux community for being able to solve any problems they have amongst themselves, but I do find it weird that even though they know how much work it is, they still yell at anyone not supporting it.

P.S. Assuming 3 flavours of Linux, which ones would you support, and why?
avatar
JMich: P.S. Assuming 3 flavours of Linux, which ones would you support, and why?
I would support x86/64 debian - that should cover ubuntu/mint and all the derivatives.
avatar
JMich: Current versions of Windows are the only versions that are supported (again, with the exception of Windows RT). Current versions of Linux are too many, and not targeted at one architecture only. So you must not only support some flavours, but also only certain architectures of said flavours. GOG said that they would prefer to do a all-or-nothing approach. You demand that they do a some approach.
It's not just Windows RT - there's also Windows Server, Windows Embedded and Windows Phone 8 etc. that GOG does not support.

What people mean when they ask for GOG to provide "Linux support" is to provide support for a limited family of Linux based distros - generally the more "mainstream" distros such as Ubuntu or Mint - and this is pretty much exactly what GOG is already doing with Windows.

The best distros for GOG to support would be the most popular "average end-user" targeted distros - the top two being Ubuntu and Mint x86/x64 (and Debian, since both Ubuntu and Mint are based on it).
This argument about architectures is silly. No one is asking GOG to start supporting all archs from the start (including ARM, MIPS and etc.). It's ridiculous. Let them start with supporting x86_64 only. It's by far the prevalent architecture for modern gaming anyway (i386 is becoming less and less used already). Later if they care, they can add other archs like ARM, since mobile Linux is getting more traction these days (Plasma Active, Sailfish, Ubuntu Touch and etc.). All or nothing is a bad style perfectionist approach which leaves users with nothing in the end. GOG should use agile iterative development approach instead.
Post edited July 17, 2013 by shmerl
avatar
adamhm: It's not just Windows RT - there's also Windows Server, Windows Embedded and Windows Phone 8 etc. that GOG does not support.
True, I forgot those editions. So I think a more appropriate quote would be that GOG currently supports the current flavours of Windows targetted at a home user running a x86/x64 architecture machine. Thank you for the correction.
avatar
Future_Suture: The subject of not enough resources and wanting to provide a quality service at all times actually came up starting from here. Needless to say, apparently it's not as much effort as GOG likes to make it seem.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Making packages and distributing them? Yes, that's trivial. But what your poster in that thread doesn't account for is that we do a lot more than that with classic games. I'm not the guy in charge of testing, mastering, and building games, but let's just look at what *I* can think of that makes Linux release a very difficult proposition:

1: Testing. What distros do we support? There are 10 "fairly common" ones (Ubuntu, Mint, OpenSuse, Fedora, CentOS, ArchLinux, Debian, Slackware, FreeBSD and, um, I've forgotten a couple). Hardware? What level of updates? Only FOSS drivers, or can we take some closed source stuff? Once we've decided on a test bed, we still have to check the games. Do they boot? What about oddball games like, say, Theme Hopsital? There's a version-specific DOSBox-related fix there. Does it in work in any distro? In all of 'em? Managing testing across the 3 OSes we support is tough and requires a lot of time, effort, and money. How much more complex will 10 more OSes make it?

2. Support. Having problems getting your game running? We'll help you out. Contact Support and they'll try to diagnose your problem and offer a solution--but they only know how to fix common (and less common) Windows problems. LInux is famous as the hacker's OS--that is to say, the OS of people who like to do odd things with their hardware. If someone contacts Support because he can't get his copy of Fallout running on his Raspberry Pi with a video out that's connected to a six-panel e-ink display and he wants his money back, well, that puts us in a bad spot.

3. Maintanence. Across those 10 common distros, how often does one of them update? Quarterly? Monthly? I don't know, but the answer is certainly "often". What do we do if slackware updates and breaks the functionality of a glide wrapper that we're using for all of our games? Or if FreeBSD removes a driver from the kernel that we depend upon in order to run some games? Just planning for Windows 8 is a minor headache--ask Tolya about his test plans if you want to hear an earful--but planning for a wide spectrum of OSes that have constantly changing sources and see major feature and bugfix releases more than once a year? Man, that's a Herculean labor.

This is a thumbnail sketch of the challenges that await a digital distributor who wants to release games on Linux and who also wants to provide proper support when doing so.

Of course, we could just release a client, sell the games, and figure that you can sort the rest out yourself--I'm sure some businesses may even consider that a successful business model--but that's not really the GOG way of doing business. ;)
I really hope they've looked over a lot of these reasons since then because so many are just bull responses with very little research or logical reasoning.

1. What distros should you support? This is barely even something you have to worry about. Just package RPM or Deb packages and include the required software or libraries inside the package instead of relying on what the distro includes. Have it all go into the install directory instead of looking into /usr/share/lib and places like that. If a distro has DOSbox .6 or .74 when the game runs best on .71, then include DOSbox into the package. You already do this with Windows, there's no reason why you can't just continue doing it with linux packages. Only things you don't want to include are low level software, like XOrg and various drivers. You can get away with testing on one or two distros as well, include a disclaimer saying tested on such and such distro version, and if someone has a problem then they can just look at the software versions of important packages in those distros and see if they can compile those packages for their own system to get it working.

2. Linux may be the "Hacker OS", but you still can at very least lay down the hardware minimal requirements. The problem that was laid out, with the RPi and all that crap, is strictly hardware. Minimal requirements between windows and linux are practically the same. If a person is running an ARM processor when the compiled game needs an x86, that's their problem, and is not something you need to worry about. If they come to you, you can just say read the requirements.

Also, if someone is going as far as running an RPi with a 6-panel eink display, wanting to play Fallout, I can assure anyone that they're not so freakin' stupid as to want to want their money back because the game doesn't work.

3. Maintenance can easily just fall under when looking for distros to support, test the ones that have LTS releases, and have the disclaimer state that they were tested on those systems. Every two to four years, test again.


Linux isn't frighteningly different from Windows, and I hate it when people think it is. The biggest problem for older games is just writing .sh scripts to execute dosbox or scumvm with the old app, and new games just need to support having an OpenGL/AL renderer and sound support, most easily accomplished by using SDL2.

Distribution isn't as big a hurdle as people make it out to be.
avatar
nhydock: then include DOSbox into the package. You already do this with Windows, there's no reason why you can't just continue doing it with linux packages. Only things you don't want to include are low level software, like XOrg and various drivers. You can get away with testing on one or two distros as well, include a disclaimer saying tested on such and such distro version, and if someone has a problem then they can just look at the software versions of important packages in those distros and see if they can compile those packages for their own system to get it working.
There is no reason to include DosBox anywhere. DOS games from GOG are perfectly playable with distros' DosBox-es. Anyway, this whole discussion isn't really about DosBox games (shipping them is trivial and is a question of packaging). It's about native Linux games.
Post edited July 17, 2013 by shmerl
avatar
Future_Suture: The subject of not enough resources and wanting to provide a quality service at all times actually came up starting from here. Needless to say, apparently it's not as much effort as GOG likes to make it seem.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Making packages and distributing them? Yes, that's trivial. But what your poster in that thread doesn't account for is that we do a lot more than that with classic games. I'm not the guy in charge of testing, mastering, and building games, but let's just look at what *I* can think of that makes Linux release a very difficult proposition:

1: Testing. What distros do we support? There are 10 "fairly common" ones (Ubuntu, Mint, OpenSuse, Fedora, CentOS, ArchLinux, Debian, Slackware, FreeBSD and, um, I've forgotten a couple). Hardware? What level of updates? Only FOSS drivers, or can we take some closed source stuff? Once we've decided on a test bed, we still have to check the games. Do they boot? What about oddball games like, say, Theme Hopsital? There's a version-specific DOSBox-related fix there. Does it in work in any distro? In all of 'em? Managing testing across the 3 OSes we support is tough and requires a lot of time, effort, and money. How much more complex will 10 more OSes make it?

2. Support. Having problems getting your game running? We'll help you out. Contact Support and they'll try to diagnose your problem and offer a solution--but they only know how to fix common (and less common) Windows problems. LInux is famous as the hacker's OS--that is to say, the OS of people who like to do odd things with their hardware. If someone contacts Support because he can't get his copy of Fallout running on his Raspberry Pi with a video out that's connected to a six-panel e-ink display and he wants his money back, well, that puts us in a bad spot.

3. Maintanence. Across those 10 common distros, how often does one of them update? Quarterly? Monthly? I don't know, but the answer is certainly "often". What do we do if slackware updates and breaks the functionality of a glide wrapper that we're using for all of our games? Or if FreeBSD removes a driver from the kernel that we depend upon in order to run some games? Just planning for Windows 8 is a minor headache--ask Tolya about his test plans if you want to hear an earful--but planning for a wide spectrum of OSes that have constantly changing sources and see major feature and bugfix releases more than once a year? Man, that's a Herculean labor.

This is a thumbnail sketch of the challenges that await a digital distributor who wants to release games on Linux and who also wants to provide proper support when doing so.

Of course, we could just release a client, sell the games, and figure that you can sort the rest out yourself--I'm sure some businesses may even consider that a successful business model--but that's not really the GOG way of doing business. ;)
GOG, I love you, but these are just excuses.

If you only supported Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, like steam does, all these problems are minimised. That would be a start at least.

If Steam and Humble Bundle support linux, so can you.
I just want to add my voice to the crowd... I don't think I've posted on this thread before, but I would also love Gog games on Linux.