Sorry, my English isn't always at it's best... in the poll I ment "Using Cedega, but..." not "Use Cedega, but..."

Hi everyone

There is two geat commercial FPS on Linux; Quake and Unreal Tournament, but the third one is missing.

A have made a poll, and everyone with some good points of if we don't need a port, if we should just use Cedega, if it is a marked for it on Linux, and so on... please take part in this discussion.



My standpoints:
*If something isn't made for Linux, why should the byers suffer to make the software works?
*I like to give the developers of making games on Linux (and other OS's) credit by buying and playing their games.

would Cedega make my UT2004 installs easier?

Never tried... sorry, but UT2004 have native Linux compability, to install UT2004 just open a terminal and type sh then drag and trop the linux installation file from the dvd (a .run file) and type enter. Never installed the CD edition though...

i might try that drag n drop with my CD version. i'm haveing to re-install for the 3rd time. anything to make it easier with shortcuts...

www.mepisguides.com has a step by step picture walkthrough of installing ut2004 and many other games.

I've never done the copy and paste thing nor had my installation information corrupted as told in the guide...

If it's CD's that is used, I belive I have read something about "must put all these files from the cd's to this place...", think it was because Linux won't look for another CD after the first one gets installed for some reason... correct me if I'm wrong.

I once played HL on Linux through Cedega in DirectX 7 mode... Needless to say it was not so spectacular. Anyway, if such a port is made or if there are plans for one, I would seriously consider to buy the game. Anything that would support gaming on Linux.

yup---i have re-loaded this Mepis UT2004 version twice. since i'm a noob to Mepis(6 weeks), i still look for a shortcut OR----Ma more stable version to work.

Hey---i'm cool, i like new stuff and getting it right. but i also get horny to PLAY as opposed to PLAYING geek about it.....

IIRC the problem when installing UT200x from the CDs is that you can't execute the installer from within the CD mount point. In other words, you can't just do:
Because you won't be able to unmount the disk when you require to change the disk. So the way to do it is (was for 2003, anyway):
By avoiding being right under the CD mount point, the script will be able to successfully unmount the CD to continue the installation process... I hope this holds true for the CD version of UT2004, as I have the DVD version I couldn't say, but UT2003 behaved that way, any way.

Unfortunately HL2 is never going to be ported to Linux, since it heavily relies on DirectX. It's a nice thought, but it's just never going to happen.

Obviously a full port is going to be better in the long run. On top of most companies not seen the worth in employing a group to make a linux version, there are huge splinters in the linux community about how things should be done...as a software developer I would run away from such a group...as most game developers have done.

Yeah, I know it probably won't come a port for Linux/UNIX, it's cleared out pretty much here:
http://forums.steampowered.com/forum...hreadid=283548
http://forums.steampowered.com/forum...hreadid=411327 and
http://support.steampowered.com/cgi-...i=&p_topview=1

That is why I would like to get some great points of why they should port or if they should port it; if it is a marked for it, if it will be a market for it in the future or if HL is the reason for why many gamers stick to Windows (since it is the most played game online), why the biggest game won't port while Quake and UT +++ many of the other most played games have made a port, the fact that Linux is free and anyone that is using Windows could play it even though it only came out on Linux, and so on.

If I've see some good points I will probably send Valve mail to (so far):
1. Get a clear statement if it won't happend what so ever.
2. Open their minds so that they will se the benefits of a port and will consider it.

My goodness! Are those forums hostile!! LMAO!!!


Anyway, that kind of responses and obtuse POVs was kind of obvious for the kind of users who post to those forums... *sigh* However some posts do make valid points. I don't think it would be all that hard to port the game to Linux, the main engin has already been ported (in the Server), but the renderer has not been ported, and even though it would not be too much of a hassle to do, the opinions of better spending the resources elsewhere are valid ones. Still they could do it if they really saw a business oportunity in Linux (which apparently they do, as they do have a server package for Linux). I'm pretty sure they will keep alienating Linux and Mac people for some time still... Maybe when their next game or when UT2007 steals the croun off CS:S they would pay attention.

That was classic, I've never seen so many idiots gathered in one place! Thank you for the link

A linux server for a Windows game doesn't require porting major parts of the engine over I don't think but C code is C code, the rendering is where the issues stand. DX is a massive API incorporating video, sound, input and stuff I don't know about. OpenGL is well, video. To port it would be massively messy as they'd probably use OpenAL for audio and SDL for input like Quake 4 which is taking one lib (DX) and rewriting it for 3 libs. My guess is Valve will stick out the Source engine and all assoc. games with Windows only, no bending on that. Linux has had a bit of a market share growth spurt the last few years, if this keeps up then it might see a second glance with their next "big thing" but until then, keep paying your money to Transgaming and thanking them for a good product.

Then code the game in OpenGL and write just a Linux binary and everyone will be happy