Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unreal Tournament 3 Linux Server Is Out!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Unreal Tournament 3 Linux Server Is Out!

    Phoronix: Unreal Tournament 3 Linux Server Is Out!

    It's over a month late, but today Ryan Gordon has released the Unreal Tournament 3 Linux server. This server doesn't require the retail DVD, but is 1.6GB in size.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NjI1MQ

  • #2
    they should prioritize the client some more.. the server do me no good

    Comment


    • #3
      Will there be client at all?

      Comment


      • #4
        Yay!

        I'm so happy for all the windows users that have had the privilege to play this game since early November, that they can finally play on stable Linux servers!

        HOORAH!

        ^ This is sarcasm.

        The server got precedence over the client. Epic has failed us.

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh... GEEZ.


          People. C'mon now and get on the same page here. The only reason that the client didn't go out yet is that Ryan's having to do more work on fixing the licensing imbroglio that he's tapdancing around to get the game (And the UT3 ENGINE) out the door for us.

          They didn't fail us- they had it lined up for release and then hit an 11th hour snag.

          Seriously, people, will you STOP going on like this when there's some little glitch? Until it becomes dead clear, either by extreme delays (more than a couple of weeks or months...we're talking year plus delays...) or by an OFFICIAL statement from the studio or publisher that they're not going to do a Linux version, if they made an OFFICIAL statement that they're going to do so (And Epic has done this for UT3... So has Id for Rage and IdTech 5...) then you need to take them at their word until they prove not worth that.

          Comment


          • #6
            the level of information they are giving is simply insuffecient.

            and no matter the reason, they have failed us.

            they could have simply stated what the problem was, and then perhaps focusing abit more on fixing it, than producing a server for linux.

            its really quite simple, to resolve licensing issues you do the following
            1: identify exactly what stuff theres problems with
            2: ask the people holding the rights, if they will license under <insert terms epic wants> or not, and that they have 1 week to say yes or no.
            3(if yes): continue on your way, with 1-2 weeks delay
            4(if no): either stop the project right there, and issue the statement, or rewrite it, and STILL issue statement about what is needed to be done, and an expected timeframe.

            this kindof useless level of information can only be labelled by one label: "FAIL"

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Redeeman View Post
              the level of information they are giving is simply insuffecient.

              and no matter the reason, they have failed us.

              they could have simply stated what the problem was, and then perhaps focusing abit more on fixing it, than producing a server for linux.
              Sorry, if it's something covered under Non-Disclosure, no they CAN'T tell us. And, I suspect that's what's going on- that's par for the course in the game industry.

              It works in the way you describe in the FREE and OPEN SOURCE communities- it does no such thing in their world. You can't even begin to ask them to operate outside of what they're able to do.

              Give it a rest. Really.

              Comment


              • #8
                Darn... At least the server means that the engine (at least partially) has already been ported to Linux, which means that the remaining coding should be in its way to delivery (hopefully).

                I fully understand what you are trying to say, Svartalf, the same was the situation (and I think still is) for ATi/AMD's Beta program. You get to download the driver, test it, give feedback on it, but not to comment to the Linux community at large. That's how NDA's work, you agreed to be bound by those terms. Epic (just like Svartalf said) has agreed to said terms of one or rather several NDAs, which cause them to simply be unable to even tell their audience what's going on. I believe that was in part the reason why they didn't use much third party IP in their past generation games (for instance, why they did develop an in-house physics engine and not go with Havok), I guess this time around things got messier if they wanted to keep all-in-house. But I can only do that, guess. Until they can actually comment on the status, that's what we are able to do. We all know the proprietary software world sucks for things like these, but hey! Epic is being kind enough to grant us a Linux version, even if delayed, having into account the "peculiarities" of our community.

                Should they have delayed the Windows version so one massive "unified" version was out? Probably was the "right thing to do", but maybe it wasn't their call either (but rather the publisher's, and since Linux releases usually fall outside the scope of the publishers... That means a big "sorry, Linux")

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yes Yes Yes ;-)

                  I have my UT3 here waiting for beautiful linux client ;-) It would be nice if we could see any alpha/beta before new year, but thats too soon i think :/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Just got this from Ryan:

                    Subject: Middleware...


                    ...so did you figure out what got removed from ut3 yet?

                    --ryan.

                    Anyone bother investigating the server file yet? I haven't had the time yet.
                    Michael Larabel
                    http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Now that's an Open Challenge!!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Thetargos View Post
                        Now that's an Open Challenge!!
                        Indeed. I wish I had the beta and after files... Then I could actually TELL you what went south on 'em without having Ryan, Epic, or anyone else breach NDA's...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Heh... Nojoy on finding out that way... Only ONE .so- Ageia's SDK is present. Past that, there is only one binary, the server. It, unfortunately, is done much the same way an LGP binary has been done for stability reasons.

                          Licenses for middleware stated in the EULA:

                          Speedtree
                          Fonix VoiceIn and DecTalk
                          Libxml2
                          ConvexDecomposition
                          PhysX
                          GameSpy
                          Lua
                          SDL 1.2

                          Odd combo of things, really. Don't have a clue (yet) as to what the hold up was. Apparently it wasn't Bink or GameSpy any more than it was PhysX.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Svartalf View Post
                            Heh... Nojoy on finding out that way... Only ONE .so- Ageia's SDK is present. Past that, there is only one binary, the server. It, unfortunately, is done much the same way an LGP binary has been done for stability reasons.
                            [... snip ...]
                            i went over each one and here's what i came up with...

                            Speedtree - no issue, linux already supported.
                            Fonix VoiceIn and DecTalk - might pose problems...
                            Libxml2 - no issues, open source.
                            ConvexDecomposition - which library is this?
                            PhysX - closed source, and says support for linux is comming.
                            GameSpy - closed source, but shows support for linux, at least with prior titles (look at quake 4 and doom 3?)
                            Lua - no issues, open source.
                            SDL 1.2 - no issues, open source.

                            just by a quick look, it's easy to say that fonix voicein, and dectalk might be the hold up.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Dandel View Post
                              i went over each one and here's what i came up with...

                              just by a quick look, it's easy to say that fonix voicein, and dectalk might be the hold up.


                              You didn't do much digging:

                              "DECtalk 4.6.4 and 5.0 are still available as downloadable run-time (RT) only products, formatted specifically for Linux-based applications. Click here for more information."

                              VoiceIn, on the other hand, doesn't seem to officially state that there's a Linux version, but considering that the thing targets PS3, etc. it's not likely that this is actually the problem either as it's liable to be C++ or C code with little fancy stuff in it. You couldn't target all those platforms that they claim to with the VoiceIn Game SDK if you did stupid stuff.

                              Furthermore, VoiceIn and DecTalk would be client side apps- there's little use for a speech recog and text to speech system on the server side of things.

                              By licensing statements alone, you won't find what had to be worked out or re-worked. You're going to have to think through what might/might not exist on both sides that might need to be re-worked simultaneously to get rid of a licensing problem. Also don't think for one moment that the OpenSource stuff can't be a problem- one still has to abide by the licensing terms of the license used by the software that you're using (As the in recent times violators of the GPL on BusyBox have been finding out...). The LGPL has to be abided by- which means you need to provide an option to dynamically link a binary to a new version of the library. If you don't provide SOME way of doing it, you're in violation of the terms of the license if you're not abiding by the terms given you by the regular GPL. That's just one example of a gotcha. Ryan stated we all wouldn't believe our eyes or ears if we were told what'd been the problem- I'm of the opinion that this is the truth and it's a damned silly thing that held it up.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X