5 ms·

I disagree with that, as the open source dependencies of a major game application are tiny compared to the application itself.

by TwoBit 13y ago

jiggy2011 13y ago
Porting something Linux -> Windows is likely much easier than the other way around. For example you can run GTK/QT on Windows but you can't run Win32 on Linux without relying on something like Wine. So you would need to have something that was either designed to be cross platform from the get-go , or you need to re-engineer around different APIs.
- nrivadeneira 13y ago
  The fact that it's easier to port from Linux to Windows, could be great incentive to build for Linux first then port out. As a converted Ubuntu user for the past 1.5 years, I'm rooting for this to happen. I could fully drop Windows if it does.
- asdkjahsdkjsh 13y ago
  The lack of Win32 API is not a big deal porting-wise.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    If you application is built on top of Win32 (or some other proprietary API)?
    - elmindreda 13y ago
      Games generally use far less of it than a normal GUI application would.
    - Sanddancer 13y ago
      There have been applications that have been ported to Linux through using Wine as a library. Alternatively, if your app is c#, you can use the system.windows.forms stuff in Mono.
- lucb1e 13y ago
  > Porting something Linux -> Windows is likely much easier than the other way around. True I'd say (though I have no experience in porting huge software projects), but why is this? Isn't it just because the Windows platform is so much larger? I guess Linux will still keep things open since it's not part of a for-profit company, but easy portability to Windows in the future is no given unless Microsoft starts to make things that way. And I mean "future", like, when Microsoft's lock-in products like Office and Windows have a <50% market share. After that it'll be over soon altogether, or Microsoft must come up with something brilliant. Hmm, something brilliant that must be. In the past they bought stuff they didn't have themselves. Good luck buying (and selling) LibreOffice or GNU/Linux :D
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  It's all dependent on vendor choice. Nothing says they have to use GTK, QT, or any other multi-platform windowing toolkit, and if they do, nothing says that they have to build and distribute Windows or OS X versions of their software. It's just as easy to say "Windows apps written in QT are really easy to port to Linux" as the other way around. If someone writes their own code to address X11 directly, Windows wouldn't be able to run the software without an X Server, which requires the installation of a bunch of other crap through cygwin and would still probably have performance issues (that is, it'd be very much like using WINE to play Windows games, but probably much crappier). A Linux exclusive can be made, and running an unauthorized "Windows port" can easily be made to exceed the technical skillset of your average gamer.

I disagree with that, as the open source dependencies of a major game application are tiny compared to the application itself.

by TwoBit 13y ago

I disagree with that, as the open source dependencies of a major game application are tiny compared to the application itself.

jiggy2011 13y ago

Porting something Linux -> Windows is likely much easier than the other way around. For example you can run GTK/QT on Windows but you can't run Win32 on Linux without relying on something like Wine. So you would need to have something that was either designed to be cross platform from the get-go , or you need to re-engineer around different APIs.

nrivadeneira 13y ago
The fact that it's easier to port from Linux to Windows, could be great incentive to build for Linux first then port out. As a converted Ubuntu user for the past 1.5 years, I'm rooting for this to happen. I could fully drop Windows if it does.
asdkjahsdkjsh 13y ago
The lack of Win32 API is not a big deal porting-wise.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  If you application is built on top of Win32 (or some other proprietary API)?
  - elmindreda 13y ago
    Games generally use far less of it than a normal GUI application would.
  - Sanddancer 13y ago
    There have been applications that have been ported to Linux through using Wine as a library. Alternatively, if your app is c#, you can use the system.windows.forms stuff in Mono.
lucb1e 13y ago
> Porting something Linux -> Windows is likely much easier than the other way around. True I'd say (though I have no experience in porting huge software projects), but why is this? Isn't it just because the Windows platform is so much larger? I guess Linux will still keep things open since it's not part of a for-profit company, but easy portability to Windows in the future is no given unless Microsoft starts to make things that way. And I mean "future", like, when Microsoft's lock-in products like Office and Windows have a <50% market share. After that it'll be over soon altogether, or Microsoft must come up with something brilliant. Hmm, something brilliant that must be. In the past they bought stuff they didn't have themselves. Good luck buying (and selling) LibreOffice or GNU/Linux :D
cookiecaper 13y ago
It's all dependent on vendor choice. Nothing says they have to use GTK, QT, or any other multi-platform windowing toolkit, and if they do, nothing says that they have to build and distribute Windows or OS X versions of their software. It's just as easy to say "Windows apps written in QT are really easy to port to Linux" as the other way around. If someone writes their own code to address X11 directly, Windows wouldn't be able to run the software without an X Server, which requires the installation of a bunch of other crap through cygwin and would still probably have performance issues (that is, it'd be very much like using WINE to play Windows games, but probably much crappier). A Linux exclusive can be made, and running an unauthorized "Windows port" can easily be made to exceed the technical skillset of your average gamer.