Anyone who knows how software companies work knows the pattern. One dude wants to do something and pushes hard for it and things get done. Then they leave the company / get promoted / move to a different part of the company and there is no more will to do said thing. The people in the company have forgotten about linux support 200 times already, and saying something 10 years ago won’t change that. Make linux be something regular gamers want to run, get a double digit adoption rate, maybe they’ll revisit it
Then they should have kept it internal until they were ready to commit. People spent money with them as a result of that commitment, and it may not have been a large part of their customer base, but it is exactly the people they courted with the public statement. They wanted to make the announcement to reap the PR benefits, so now they need to follow through and deliver.
Nothing really happens because Linux doesn’t have the market share to demand better, and I never said that wasn’t the case. My point is that they shouldn’t have put themselves in this position, not that we have any power to make them follow through.
Gog is not in the bridge building business though
This is a valid rebuttal, as I was talking completely literally. I apologise, I thought they were a civil engineering and construction firm.
Then maybe they shouldn’t have publicly said they were planning to build this bridge ten years ago.
Anyone who knows how software companies work knows the pattern. One dude wants to do something and pushes hard for it and things get done. Then they leave the company / get promoted / move to a different part of the company and there is no more will to do said thing. The people in the company have forgotten about linux support 200 times already, and saying something 10 years ago won’t change that. Make linux be something regular gamers want to run, get a double digit adoption rate, maybe they’ll revisit it
Then they should have kept it internal until they were ready to commit. People spent money with them as a result of that commitment, and it may not have been a large part of their customer base, but it is exactly the people they courted with the public statement. They wanted to make the announcement to reap the PR benefits, so now they need to follow through and deliver.
Or else what happens? The reality is nobody cares.
Nothing really happens because Linux doesn’t have the market share to demand better, and I never said that wasn’t the case. My point is that they shouldn’t have put themselves in this position, not that we have any power to make them follow through.
Yes, they are unreliable. The fact that this is typical of software companies doesn’t excuse the behaviour or make it a sound business strategy.
You’re not actually arguing with what’s being said, you’re just normalising it.
What do you think this is? It’s a random post, not a debate. I’m not here to argue a point. No amount of “discussion” will reach them