Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Role Playing (Games) Linux Business Entertainment Games

CCP To Discontinue EVE Online Support For Linux 299

Posted by timothy
from the adam-also-discontinued-support dept.
maotx writes "CCP's recent support for EVE Online in Linux is now set to be discontinued this March. Released last November along with the Mac OS X client, it has failed to share the expected continual growth as seen with Mac client. Feedback on the EVE Online forums, which includes the e-mail in which CCP announced this decision, suggest that the client was not preferred for Linux users as it did not support the Premium graphics client and did not run as well as the win32 client under Wine. For those who wish to stop playing EVE Online, CCP is offering a refund towards unused game time. Select quote from the e-mail: 'The feedback and commitment we obtained from players like you helped both CCP and Transgaming with our attempts to improve on the quality and stability of the client. Many of us in CCP use Linux and are convinced of its merits as an operating system.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CCP To Discontinue EVE Online Support For Linux

Comments Filter:
  • Makes you wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shadow7789 (1000101) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @04:25PM (#26775443)
    why they even released an official client if it performed better under WINE.
    • by vikstar (615372) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @04:38PM (#26775605) Journal

      makes you wonder how they failed to realease an official client that performs better than under WINE.

      • by Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @04:52PM (#26775757)
        I don't know. All good questions, but somehow we've got to find a way to blame Microsoft for this.
        • by psetzer (714543) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @05:46PM (#26776349)

          The usual way is implying that Microsoft paid them off to kill the Linux client. Considering the state of the Icelandic economy and the number of people actually using that client, I think that probably amounted to mailing them a really nice fruit basket.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            You don't know CCP very well then. A fruit basket would've just been thrown into the fish tank. A couple of kegs of beer is what MS must've sent over.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Seumas (6865)

            CCP is a Microsoft house. Sure, individuals use other things within, but they're Microsoft from their high performance computing partners right down to the OS their EVE servers run and the Microsoft SQL servers they run.

            That's all fine and so is claiming that it they can't justify spending money on the Linux client. At least they gave it a try. However, they also admit that they can only tell if an actual official client is connecting. If you run through something like WINE (or Cider on OSX), they don't bot

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Seumas (6865)

              Just to clarify the difference in running clients here and WHY we run Windows clients in VMs instead of the official OS-specific clients, let me give an example of my experience:

              My main system is a dual quad-core Mac Pro with 16gb of RAM and a GF 8800.

              Running the official OSX client gives me around 15 to 25 fps, depending on where I am (in/out of station).

              Running the Windows client on Windows XP SP3 inside of a Parallels guest on OSX gives me 45 to 65fps.

              That's right. I get easily double and possibly triple

      • by pilot1 (610480) *

        They didn't. When CCP says "official Linux client", they mean "official Cedega and old Windows client bundle".

      • by Kjella (173770)

        makes you wonder how they failed to realease an official client that performs better than under WINE.

        1. Take Windows client
        2. Try to replace with Linux counterparts
        3. Realize that it's not a 100% match and that you just introduced a bunch of bugs

        A lot of the interfaces WINE offers are well understood and well implemented. Sadly software tends to only need one exception to barf and die, but if they use the "right" APIs I have no problems imagining a good emulator being better than a crappy port.

        • by shaitand (626655) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @06:25PM (#26776731) Journal

          Wine isn't an emulator. Seriously, wine is a native implementation of the win32 api. Saying that wine is an emulator is like saying mono is a .net emulator, or that glut is an OpenGL emulator. An API isn't code, its a specification. Win32 is a specification not code, Wine is just an implementation of that specification on Linux.

          • by Tacvek (948259)

            True, but it is worth noting that Wine does contain some more emulator-like features than many other API reimplementation projects. These features are a necessary component of being able to run existing binaries. More specifically, they need to support existing binaries that are not targeted at a virtual machine.

            Nevertheless it is definitely not an emulator. It might validly be called a simulator, as host-native implementations of embedded device APIs are often labeled simulators, to distinguish them from e

          • by Epistax (544591)
            Sigh...

            This definition for emulate fits:
            1. to try to equal or excel; imitate with effort to equal or surpass
            wine attempts to equal or excel the windows adaptation of the win32 api, at least in specific regards.

            Let's go for computer specific:
            to imitate (a particular computer system) by using a software system, often including a microprogram or another computer that enables it to do the same work, run the same programs, etc., as the first.
            Okay so anything that fits "to imitate by using a software s
            • by shaitand (626655)

              'Let's go for computer specific:
              to imitate (a particular computer system) by using a software system, often including a microprogram or another computer that enables it to do the same work, run the same programs, etc., as the first.'

              Exactly and Wine does not meet this definition. Wine and Windows both run on the same computer system and wine does not emulate that system.

              Cross-Platform API's are NOT emulations. Your broad definitions (which run contrary to the usage of the term Emulator by any technical expe

          • by onefriedrice (1171917) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @07:50PM (#26777649)

            ... or that glut is an OpenGL emulator.

            Given your other examples, you probably meant mesa in place of glut.

          • by sayfawa (1099071)
            That's actually the first explanation I've heard that makes me understand why it isn't an emulator. Thanks.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by AikonMGB (1013995)

        No kidding.. this is like the record industry releasing shitty music without DRM and pointing to its low sales to show that people don't want to buy DRM-free music.

        *sigh*

        Aikon-

      • I don't wonder. (Score:3, Informative)

        by waveclaw (43274)

        CCP is claiming that they can't count the number of wine users because wine reports 'as windows' and not as 'wine on Linux.' Bullet meet foot.

        FTA,

        The Eve Online Linux client is as native as notepad.exe.

        What do you expect?

        file "~/.cedega/EVE Online/c_drive/Program Files/CCP/EVE/eve.exe"
        eve.exe: MS-DOS executable PE for MS Windows (GUI) Intel 80386 32-bit

        Throw away for a moment the fact that Direct X translation to OpenGl is super slow compared with native OpenGL.

        Wine >> winex.

        Cedega = winex + no devel

        • by vikstar (615372)

          Throw away for a moment the fact that Direct X translation to OpenGl is super slow compared with native OpenGL.

          People are still using Direct3D instead of OpenGL for anything but the XBox? Tysk, tysk.

          • Re:I don't wonder. (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 08, 2009 @07:04PM (#26777175)

            They use D3D because OpenGL is not particularly good to program with. OpenGL 3.0 is not the much-heralded "fix" to the crap specification that it was supposed to be.

            I work better in OpenGL than D3D, but that's my own familiarity with the API rather than the quality. OpenGL has huge gaping problems. A few basic issues...

            -everything's a fucking GLuint, so you have to wrap and cast everything to make it halfway tolerable (at which point it looks so close to D3D that, for the important platforms, you might as well have already done it in D3D)

            -GLSL sucks, with weird and arbitrary rules

            -GLSL shaders can't be compiled (there are ways to do this but they are best described as "skiffy" and less charitably described as "broken")

            -no way to query for GLSL functionality (for example, the noise() function always returns 0 on most cards because almost nobody actually implements it)

            -no coherent SDK-type documentation; crap organization of what documentation exists

            -VBO trashes pointer setup. WHY?

            -developing GLSL on nVidia cards is crap, because it's translated into Cg and doesn't correctly report errors on bad code

            -developing anything generally is crap, because there's no analogue to the D3D caps structures that tell you what work on a given machine.

            -using binding to do everything means you can't make what should be really, really simple assertions about the state of your render pipeline between two draw calls (this is just plain fucking unacceptable!)

            Microsoft may be rah-evil or whatever your nearest GNU zealot wants you to believe, but D3D is a vastly superior API. It's pretty hard to fault developers if they choose to use the better API for targeting their primary platform, if they decide that being cross-platform isn't of interest to them.

            You want more developers, have an API that doesn't suck. It is perhaps a very sad statement that WINE's implementation of D3D is a better gaming API than anything native that's currently available on Linux (yes, it uses OpenGL under the hood, that's fine--OpenGL is a decent binding to the hardware but absolute shit for actually developing stuff).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BrentH (1154987)
      They used Transgamings standalone Cedega (like how many games are ported to OSX, under the name of Cider). Remember how Cedega is a fork of Wine, years and years ago when Wine was hardly capable of 3D accelerated stuff? The two projects separately developed implementations of Direct3D, an this just shows Wine has done a better job.

      A brief look at the Transgaming forums show that actual development of Cedega has stopped. Wine is the better choice these days.
    • by burnin1965 (535071) on Monday February 09, 2009 @01:36AM (#26780027) Homepage

      Because their official client was actually the Windows client running under Cedega from Transgaming which is built off of wine.

      As a linux user who does play games I can tell you the reason I don't play EVE Online is because they announced a linux client and before buying the game I read up on it and discovered they actually didn't release a linux client and instead were working with Transgaming to get the Windows client working on linux. Its called bait and switch, no thanks, I purchased ID Software's Quake Wars instead as it actually does have a native linux client. Its no where near the same genre and it would have been interesting to play EVE Online, but oh well.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Sub par graphics and an inability to compete with its wine counterpart would contribute to its own death.

  • uh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    it did not support the Premium graphics client and did not run as well as the win32 client under Wine

    So...maybe nobody was using the client because it sucked? Well, if they make Wine a supported platform for their Windows client, that wouldn't be too bad. I remember when World of Goo was released, with Linux support promised (still not here), it ran perfectly on Wine.

    It's still a shitty alternative to say, OGRE. But if you absolutely must use DirectX, just test on Wine the same way you test on WinXP or

  • Bummer for them... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aztektum (170569) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @04:34PM (#26775555)

    I was about to ditch WoW + Crossover for EVE because of their support (and talking my WoW friends into doing the same). Now I don't know...

  • by Lazy Jones (8403) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @04:37PM (#26775583) Homepage Journal
    For a company with 300+ employees, how hard can it be to write a client with native Linux support? Even Vendetta Online has one and EVE uses Python mostly on the client side (= portable).

    CCP is yet another Windows shop that would rather throw a lot of money at a crummy DirectX wrapper than look over the fence and embrace native Linux development.

    • by imsabbel (611519) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @04:45PM (#26775681)

      To your title: Yes.
      Its easily a support nightmare.

      OTOH, i am very sure that CCP looked at their stats, counted the number of linux cusomers and made some quick calculations that showed they will never make the money they would need to spend.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pilot1 (610480) *

      They use DirectX, so pretty hard.

    • Surprisingly hard (Score:2, Informative)

      by CarpetShark (865376)
      Given that Linux is yet to even standardise on a single unified sound output API, how can we expect anything more? Just to load and play a sound, you need a sound API, and codecs. For sound, you have alsa, OSS, and layers on top like NAS, ESD, pulse, SDL, JACK, whatever KDE went with that I forget, etc. Arguably, some or all of these may fail to meet requirements. For codecs, you have gstreamer, (probably) SDL, etc., and a nightmare of communicating to customers what extra libraries they'll need, even i
      • by coryking (104614) * on Sunday February 08, 2009 @05:00PM (#26775845) Homepage Journal

        Yes, but by standardizing API's and kernel goo it would make it easy for so-called proprietary vendors like CCP to support Linux. According to som in the Linux community it is fact better to provide random API's that change all the time--that way proprietary vendors get scared off.

        The fact that Linux is so hard for vendors like CCP is seen by some in the Linux community as a feature, not a bug. Hopefully, those very same people in the community are cheering CCP pulling out of native Linux support, as it clearly shows their plan is working as intended.

        • For the same reason it is a pain for commercial apps, it is a pain for OSS too. A disproportionate amount of effort in various projects is invested in spinning on API updates...

          Most things have calmed down, but audio frameworks for some reason stay in a state of significant flux. Today's 'correct' API is pulseaudio, which will abstract the underlying mess, but who knows what tomorrow brings. I'm still haven't followed esd and arts lately to see if they have relevance. dmix and the like I bunch up in als

        • Re:Surprisingly hard (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Pecisk (688001) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @05:11PM (#26775983)

          Ohh my God, another "Linux architecture is hard, therefore vendors have problems" apologist.

          Listen, CCP was never hiding behind a fact that so called "Linux client" is just a Windows client with Wine wrapper. And frankly, with Wine or Crossover Games you would have more success than Transgaming (which from mine point of view is completely shite). Transgaming based client has hard time with ATI video cards, with exsotic sound card settings, etc. Of course you can tweak it, but what's the point then? They have nice forum where people already exchanging with ideas how to get EVE running on Linux.

          There are one space sim (rather funny one), which has real *native* client. NEVER had problems with that, even on open source ati drivers on Radeons. So propably it is not that hard to do that...natively.

      • Re:Surprisingly hard (Score:4, Informative)

        by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Sunday February 08, 2009 @05:18PM (#26776045) Journal

        Given that Linux is yet to even standardise on a single unified sound output API

        That's a troll argument. It doesn't have to be unified, as long as the systems talk to each other -- which they do.

        For games? Use OpenAL. That's a no-brainer, that gets you 3D surround, and handles plugging into whatever they've got, hardware or software, any OS. Then the user, or the distro, can configure OpenAL to use ALSA natively, or use Jack, or whatever other layer they want to put in there.

        whatever KDE went with that I forget,

        KDE wrote a wrapper for all of the above, plus native ALSA (on Linux), and whatever Windows/OS X provide.

        For codecs, you have

        the same set of codecs you have on Windows, if you're licensing them. Or, if you'd like to save yourself some money, you use Vorbis/FLAC, available both in native libraries and through gstreamer/SDL.

        This is as retarded as people claiming that the fact that both GNOME and KDE exists means Linux will never be a good desktop. OH NOES, choice, whatever shall we do. JUST PICK ONE! And no, you don't need the community to pick one for you -- close your eyes and play pin-the-tail-on-the-audio-library.

        They all work. The existence of others, especially when the one you want (OpenAL) will plug into all of them, is not something you even have to think about.

        a nightmare of communicating to customers what extra libraries they'll need

        Or you include those libraries with the game -- it's really not that difficult to configure the game to use your libraries instead of the system libraries. Or you distribute a demo under a license that allows redistribution, and let the distros work it out -- when people want the full game, they put in a key and download the rest of the content.

        But really, how is it a "nightmare", even if you had to spell out dependencies? How is it in any way harder than "communicating" what version of DirectX you need on Windows?

        Linux will get people bothering to provide native support when

        when people who might potentially port start looking at what's already there, and how hard it's not. If an indie game with close to no budget can provide native Linux support (think: every Introversion game, every Penny Arcade game, a few from Chronic Logic...), I would think that a company with 300+ employees could find one who knows at least as much as one of those guys.

        • by vlm (69642)

          a nightmare of communicating to customers what extra libraries they'll need

          Or you distribute a demo under a license that allows redistribution, and let the distros work it out -- when people want the full game, they put in a key and download the rest of the content.

          Oddly enough, Debian has about ten thousand packages most of which handle dependencies transparently to the user. I'm sure with that much practice handling one more package won't be too difficult.

          Now this won't work with Oracle or MS Office as they can just download the package and never pay, but Eve is/was a MMORPG which means its quite useless without a paid login.

          I stopped playing EVE years ago because at the time they only supported windows and I lost my only working windows install (mac and linux only

          • Now this won't work with Oracle or MS Office as they can just download the package and never pay

            Missing the point about a demo. Granted, the shareware model works better for games, where you can simply withhold the actual content until they pay -- but either method is relying on DRM, which ultimately fails.

            But you are right -- an MMO doesn't have that problem. The smarter ones just offer the full game as a free download, and make you pay for an account -- expansions are tied to an account, for example.

      • Every modern Linux distro I have seen includes ALSA. I have not seen a distro use OSS for years now.

        As for APIs, you forgot OpenAL. Here is a list of games using it: Doom 3, Jedi Knight 2, Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy, Quake 4, Prey, Unreal 2, Unreal Tournament 2003, Unreal Tournament 2004, Unreal Tournament 3, Postal, America's Army, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142, Freedom Fighters, Hitman, Psychonauts, Colin McRae: DiRT, Penumbra: Black Plague, Race Driver: GRID.

        The same is true in Windows. Many games u

      • by _Sprocket_ (42527)

        Yet oddly enough, my copies of NWN, Q3, and UT2004 didn't have problems. Weird. Maybe they know something others don't? (heck - even Bioware needed to learn a few more things).

      • You forgot to mention the fact that if they want to release the client on its own, they have to maintain packages for all the big distributions, because stuff compiled for one is hit or miss on another.
      • Re:Surprisingly hard (Score:4, Informative)

        by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Sunday February 08, 2009 @07:16PM (#26777301) Homepage Journal

        Given that Linux is yet to even standardise on a single unified sound output API, how can we expect anything more?

        That's odd, I could have sworn that I had access to OpenAL, SDL, and probably others in addition to DirectSound and oh wait, what's this? Windows has another way to play sounds? Say it ain't so!?!

        This is a complete non-issue and I sure hope whoever modded you up gets smacked in the metamod. The solution is as simple as using either OSS or SDL, preferably the latter. You can ship SDL libraries with your application, and elect not to use them if the user has appropriate libraries, if you choose. Ship your application with SDL configuration as well, tell it to use every possible sound output in some rational order, and it will pick one. I suggest starting with pulse, then esd, then alsa, then oss. If you like you can try some others down below there (KDE has "arts" BTW. It's poop. Or maybe there's something new and even worse in KDE4?)

        It's even a bigger non-issue if you just make it easy to package, and offer a demo. Make it so that the distributions willing to distribute non-free applications can at least distribute your demo within their licenses, and you don't even have to distribute the game or the patches. The distribution will do it for you.

        P.S. SDL is not a codec, although you can play video through it. Nice try. You can use ogg audio or video for free, and bundle the libraries with your application. So this is another dumb argument that we see all too often.

        The documentation argument would be good if Microsoft's documentation weren't complete shit. The biggest developers get help from Microsoft, and everyone else just makes it work somehow to some degree because they have to.

  • by syousef (465911) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @04:48PM (#26775709) Journal

    ...if you're running Linux ;-)

  • ... as if millions of nerds suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
  • I use Linux heavily (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sentientbrendan (316150) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @04:52PM (#26775761)

    and do all of my development work on it... and periodically I reboot into Windows to play Fallout 3.

    I like Linux for development, but the fact is that it is not as good of a gaming platform as Windows is.

    Windows has better video drivers, and it has a tons of teams at Microsoft working on things like directx that directly support gaming. Aside from that it has an enormous industry devoted to developing windows games.

    Oh, and sound just works on Windows, did I mention that? That's pretty important for games. I have surround sound working on my Linux install, which took some doing, but as soon as I plug in my USB headset so I can use skype, the Linux sound system explodes. That means that even if left for dead was on Linux, I still wouldn't be able to play it.

    Really, I don't see what the big deal with dual booting is and since people like me are just going to dual boot, I can't imagine why any game maker would waste money on a Linux port.

    If I can play my game even marginally better on windows I have no reason not to get the windows version.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by FrostDust (1009075)

      Really, I don't see what the big deal with dual booting is and since people like me are just going to dual boot, I can't imagine why any game maker would waste money on a Linux port.

      If I can play my game even marginally better on windows I have no reason not to get the windows version.

      Not everyone is going to pay >100 USD, or use a pirated copy of Windows, just to play one game.

      • Not everyone is going to pay >100 USD/year for a subscription to play a game either. What's your point?
      • by fm6 (162816)

        Not everybody pays $100 extra for Windows. Most often you have to buy a Windows license just to get the hardware you want. Even if the manufacturer offers a Windows-free price, it's not usually that much less than the regular price. (Note that OEM licenses are a lot cheaper than retails licenses.) In effect, everybody pays for Windows, whether they run it or not, or even own a license.

    • by guruevi (827432)

      Windows has better video drivers, and it has a tons of teams at Microsoft working on things like directx that directly support gaming. Aside from that it has an enormous industry devoted to developing windows games.

      Oh, and sound just works on Windows, did I mention that? That's pretty important for games. I have surround sound working on my Linux install, which took some doing, but as soon as I plug in my USB headset so I can use skype, the Linux sound system explodes. That means that even if left for dead

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by _Sprocket_ (42527)

      Really, I don't see what the big deal with dual booting is and since people like me are just going to dual boot, I can't imagine why any game maker would waste money on a Linux port.

      I used to dual boot. Then I got a few games working on the Linux side. I didn't have to reboot to play. I could just flip over to a new virtual desktop, goof off for awhile, then go back to what I was doing. I didn't have to interupt anything on my Linux system. I didn't have to waste drive space for a "game" partition. And eventually, the Windows partition went away and never came back.

      Those times that I do need Windows for work involves a VM. I don't play games in Windows. But then, the days of be

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by yossarianuk (1402187)
      There are some games however that run so much faster through wine that windows. I can think of call of duty1/2 - max payne (1) - Civilization 4 Personally the amount of games of windows isn't enough for me to want to go back to the hell that is windows...
    • by fm6 (162816)

      periodically I reboot into Windows to play Fallout 3.

      I'm curious: do you not use WINE because it's more hassle than rebooting, or because it doesn't work with this game?

    • by antdude (79039)

      Especially when one has to shutdown, reboot, etc. Annoying. If we want to go back to Linux, then we have to do it again! Yes, we can get another computer but still... I hate rebooting. :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by demachina (71715)

      "Aside from that it has an enormous industry devoted to developing windows games."

      Wouldn't count on that forever. Take for example EA not releasing Madden NFL on the PC this year.

      Two reasons Windows may fail as a games platform:

      - Piracy on PC's is more rampant than on consoles
      - Cheating on PC's is rampant in multiplayer games

      I gate consoles for gaming but the fact is closed platforms are proving to be inherently better for online games.

      Not sure of the economics of the piracy issue but if you are sinking te

  • Failed to show growth my ass. Ubuntu was by far the easiest distribution to get Eve up and running. Hell, I even got Eve to run on my netbook. It wasn't lack of interest. Tell the fucking truth: CCP couldn't get it right and they never released a native linux client. Their support was terrible. That's why they failed.
  • It ran on Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @05:27PM (#26776131)

    I saw tons of webpage ads for Eve Online, but I never noticed anything about it running on Linux.

    If I'd known that, there's a good chance I would have signed up, partially for the fun and partially to support games companies that support Linux.

    Is the real lesson here that they didn't properly advertise their Linux compatibility? Or is it just that I need to get glasses?

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Is the real lesson here that they didn't properly advertise their Linux compatibility?

      The real lesson here is that there was no profit in advertising their Linux compatibility. Although you could argue that was because there wasn't much of it.

      Allegedly it still works fine on Linux, with the windows version and Wine.

    • by LingNoi (1066278)

      It already runs on linux via wine, the offical port is no different.

  • I really wanted to play Eve but couldn't get the client to work (this was a while ago). Instead I got a good hit of nostalgia playing oolite [oolite.org], a copy of the old 8-bit Elite. I haven't tried out the crazy amount of expansion packs [alioth.net]. If anybody knows anything similar or better please post below!

    Phillip.

  • by Lord Ender (156273) on Sunday February 08, 2009 @05:40PM (#26776253) Homepage

    CCP is encouraging users of the Linux EVE client to upgrade to the OpenOffice.org Calc application.

  • "The Client we paid developers to make for us was not up to par with a free client supported by volunteers."

    Translation: our hiring team don't know their asses from their elbows.

  • So apparently, it worked better under wine, with better graphics to boot. Why didn't they just publish an install script which downloaded, installed and configured the version of wine that worked best, and install the game using that copy of wine?

  • When I install the Windows client, I can play. When I install the Mac client, I can play. When I get the Linux installer, I get:

    ARGS are -GAME EveOnline-linux
    Traceback (most recent call last):
    File "/usr/lib/eve/cedega_installer.py", line 17, in <module>
    import gtk, gtk.glade
    ImportError: No module named gtk

    Oh, I see, so apparently my pygtk installation isn't right. Whereupon I say "fuck it", since I want to play a game and not spend an hour in Gnome/Gtk dependency hell just to find out what depen

  • it did not support the Premium graphics client and did not run as well as the win32 client under Wine.
    And you wonder why it wasn't as popular as the unofficial client.

"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.

Working...