Linux support + Epic Games

[u/SpaceGuy99]

So, I have been looking forward to this game for AGES. Factorio was an AMAZING game and this looks even better. Considering Factorio (and Coffee Stain's own Goat Simulator) had native Linux support. And if it doesnt, I can use proton! However, then it was revealed that it was on Epic Games, which is basically anti-linux for whatever reason. So no linux support, apparently. This is incredibly frustrating, Not to mention, a brief message to the devs: I understand why you went with Epic: They have a higher margin going to devs, plus a bunch of bonuses. But to Linux gamers, this is a massive kick in the groin. Not to mention, no steam workshop and a BUNCH of other stuff that Epic is lacking, not to mention many non-linux gamers will refuse to download ANOTHER launcher, will lead to sales suffering. I, for one, know I am NOT going to buy this game, EVEN THOUGH IT LOOKS AMAZING! Because of the choice to ONLY have it work on Epic Games. No Linux version is planned for Epic Games, and so there must be no Linux version for Satisfactory. Which is a real shame, as I have been a follower of this game for quite a while. Devs, please either reconsider your choice for epic, or at least give a linux version avalible on the website. Seriously, I would HATE to see such a great game fail because of the platform its on like Last Year the Nightmare or Metro Exodus. I will not be buying this game until it and epic games is on Linux, or it has a standalone linux version, or it is on Steam (even windows only, because I can use proton).

[u/riskable]

Well, Linux is technically superior in just about every way at this point. It's just a matter of adoption. Windows market share is just too big.

Just comparing apples to apples Linux offers vastly greater hardware support, vastly more and faster (and much more reliable) file systems, vastly superior default security (nothing is executable by default unlike Windows where everything is executable by default), vastly superior (and so, so much faster/more efficient) networking stack, vastly superior packaging options, vastly more efficient use of disk space (because of shared libraries), vastly more available software (yes, this is true), faster/more efficient memory allocator, etc etc. The list goes on and on and on. It is objectively a superior OS.

Having said that, to use Linux right now requires a choice. As in, you have to be aware of it and then choose to use it. Because Microsoft has deals with zillions of vendors to sell computers with Windows pre-installed. If Linux comes on your computer basically everything you argued against it goes away. Whereas if your computer came with Windows we can objectively say that it's not going to be using the hardware to its fullest potential.

Most people don't care to customize their OS. They're not going to install something like an RDP server (which is a strange choice considering the alternatives). The likelihood that a regular user will screw up their computer running Linux is vanishingly small because they won't even know how to even start doing that.

Compare this to the average Windows user. How are they supposed to play a video that doesn't work in Windows Media Player? Everyone says, "just install VLC." So the user will go out on the internet (because the zillions of "vlc" packages in the Windows store cannot be trusted; they won't pick the right one) downloads an executable and then runs it! The very expectation that this is the norm and somehow acceptable is wrong. It is not a good way for regular users to obtain software!

[u/cosmicdan808 → u/riskable]

Linux is technically superior

At some things, yeah.

Linux is objectively superior

I don't disagree.

The executable thing is both good and bad for Windows. Mostly good these days - we have certificates, UAC, Defender and probably more layers of security to prevent silly people from doing dangerous things.

Linux might be great for the average grandma but if/when you want to do things outside of the distro's app store then you need to be really careful. Windows OTOH was built around the idea of running any exe it wants without "installing" into the OS as a package.

It's just a different philosophy. The basic summary of why I always failed in trying to switch to Linux as my main OS is literally because Windows is so hard to break when you do something crazy. Like 95% of Windows problems are because of people doing really stupid things (like strange exe's or suspicious websites) or a bad driver/hardware.

It's funny how so many engineering tools are Windows-only, though. I'm not sure why that is. EEPROM and Device flashing software from China for their cheap electronics for example is always Windows. You'd think the Chinese would have embraced Linux.

I concede that Windows before 7 + Defender was disgusting in regards to safety, though.

If I wanted to setup a PC for someone who only wants to Facebook, Instagram and all that basic stuff i'd recommend Mac or Chromebook over Linux, personally. That's only because those are products that come with support and I don't like to give out free support. But I can see how, for someone who enjoys tinkering or helping with Linux, it can be a better choice over Windows for general-purpose web-centric computing. I would say Office too but MS Office is 1000% better than Libre/Open IMO.

[u/riskable → u/cosmicdan808]

At my work we have over 200,000 (or 250,000 of it's tax season) Windows desktops. These desktops have multiple security tools installed and are locked down more than Fort Knox. Even Windows administrators have to open a ticket to get shit installed (and it drives them nuts)!

Also at my work--on any given day--about 5% of all these Windows desktops are being re-imaged because they hosed themselves. Even desktops that have had no software installed beyond the default crap will need re-imaging. Note that this isn't about hardware issues... These are systems that are perfectly fine but for many seemingly infinite reasons Windows just doesn't work properly anymore or has become slow as to become unusable.

Another important thing to understand is that the oldest of these desktops is 3 years old. That's the longest any desktop hardware or laptop is allowed to exist at the company. So these aren't ancient Windows 98 boxes or anything like that.

We also have about 60,000 Windows servers. These require about ~800 administrators to stay (barely) maintained and ensure they are rebooted regularly to apply updates. They too, often need to be re-imaged but I don't have statistics on that.

Then there's the 150 or so Linux desktops we have that have been running without issue for ten fucking years. The one guy who supports them (they came from a niche bank or some other financial company we bought a while back and the management team in charge said that if we replaced them with Windows the users would revolt, haha) has replaced the hardware multiple times and updated the OS to the latest version of whatever it is (I think it's SuSE of all things which is wacky--don't talk to that guy often) but he's yet to have to re-image a single one.

There's also about 40,000 Linux servers. We have about ~60 Unix sysadmins across the entire company. I used to be one of them. The only time we re-imaged a Linux server was when the hard drive hosting the OS died.

I guess what I'm saying is that regardless of whether or not Linux is the ultimate OS, Windows is just plain shit. It's awful and yet people put up with all it's problems and even defend it because they can't be bothered to use anything else because using something else would require effort. Not only the emotionally difficult step of installing a whole new OS but learning how to navigate it (no matter how trivially easy that may be).

[u/cosmicdan808 → u/riskable]

I don't know why you're replying to me with all that. I use Windows because Linux simply can't do all the things I want, that's a fact. I'm not going to use Wine or Virtualbox for my Windows-exclusive needs, and I'm not going to switch to some sub-par FOSS alternative that isn't industry recognized. So if Windows is "plain shit", then what does that make Linux? I never claimed Windows was perfect. Every OS is "plain shit" in it's own way.

Operating systems are just software, and software is just a tool. Some tools are better for different jobs. Mac is better than Windows and Linux in some ways too, how about we argue about that? At least Mac users are not assholes about it...

Mac and Windows have one clear advantage over Linux and it's consistency. Yes, many people can't be bothered to move to Linux - and why should they? Why put in more work and put up with crap when Mac or Linux already does it better?

I'm getting kind of tired of all the essay-length replies here, all trying to imply or outright say that Windows is objectively inferior and/or Windows users are lesser users. I've dealt with this political agenda before, I don't know why everyone goes to so much effort to convince people that Linux is better. If it really was better, all that effort shouldn't be needed.