Yes, but if you did that without GOG approval(and did such in the full view of the net/with big visibility) the legal GOG hammer would likely come down on you/others trying such.

Linux is simply a kernel, how can a kernel be user friendly? It is simply a part of an OS. Anyways, Linux is one of the most used kernels to ever exist, it's used in a ton of IoT devices and in a ton of phones.
Also, I don't really see a lot of factions forming, there is competition between for example the different desktop environments, which is good. GNOME came out with redshift and so did a bunch of other desktop environments. Since it's all open source it's not that difficult to port.

I should clarify: By Linux I meant Linux based OSs(desktop/etc).
==========================
By factions I meant different desktop flavors/branches. And while it's good for variety's sake it isn't so good(imo) for the consumer overall. With more types/options to choose from, it makes it harder for game makers to support them(afaik) as the more differing branches/flavors of Linux-based OS there are to account for/make games compatible for, the harder it is to want to sell to/appeal to that market share(also linux based OSs[desktops] make up a very small percentage of desktop users, so the market share is already pretty small & less appealing to possible future linux game devs).

Desktops are irrelevant from a game's perspective.

The commercial world is a stupid world. Focusing on distros is pretty lazy, it's the kernel and a handful of core deps that matter, and these are going to be compatible across the vast majority of distros, and that's why Linux gamers don't really give a shit what it says in system requirements because things will work on their distro of choosing anyway. (Either way devs should bundle deps or users a few years down the line will be googling for random .so files because their once-supported distro no longer ships the same/abi compatible versions).

Just because someone gave it a different bundling of applications and desktop background doesn't mean it's a different thing, any more than the various editions (Home, Pro, Ultimate, Edu, Enterprise, various custom tweaks, etcetra) of Windows are different from a game's perspective.

Fixed.

Maybe some companies want to....I dunno...do something as silly as protect their proprietary code that they worked hard to(or paid people to do so) produce? Odd idea, I know.

That's what he said.

Yes, I'm very familiar with this urge to "protect." Mine! It's mine! Don't look! Don't touch! Go away, it's mine! My precious!

And that is why we can't have good things. Their things suck too. It is very silly. Interestingly, virtually all of these companies' business is fully reliant on open source software that they leech for free.

They would have no business if everyone suffered this protectionism cancer syndrome.

Businesses do it to keep their trade secrets and make a profit/remain afloat.....you know, some of the core concepts of capitalism?

Maybe all companies should give all their secrets to everyone else so that everyone who has the means can produce the same products and undercut the originators and put them out of business/force the original creators to have to lay off workers?

As for open source being leeched on by companies: Afaik that's allowed by the creators of such software(and fully legal/within their rights...just as it is within other's rights to protect their investments with private code/trademarks/patents/etc). Companies don't have to give up what they create for free, just like those who DO give stuff up for free can choose not to do so with their future products/software if they so choose. This is part and parcel with the system we live in, and it's a pretty fair one tbh(minus the unfair limits on IP...timewise I mean).

To the last bit.....you call it protectionism I call it being fair/practical: Would you like it if someone came into your home and said "Oy....gimme all your stuff because I think it should be mine."?

There's hardly ever trade secrets or really anything worth protecting in the source code. Especially so with things like Galaxy. The means is competent people with domain knowledge in their head. Again, source code rarely has any secrets worth protecting, and if it did, I got some news.. it can be reverse engineered and it's not even that hard. However, getting competent people and domain knowledge in their head is hard and expensive. That's right, thankfully there are lots and lots of people (and some companies) who aren't inflicted with this silly protectionism cancer. They're the people who realize that it is, in fact, better to share, and there are no secrets worth protecting in the source code. The leeches think the little bit of garbage code they add on top is some sort of magic sauce. It stinks. Sure. I would even defend your right to be silly, even if I thought it were silly. Of course. A lot of silly things are perfectly legal. If you want to make an analogy, why not make one that isn't fucking silly? For example, "oy, I'd like to know the measurements and materials of your server rack and see the schematics for your amplifier so I can also make/have one made for myself and tweak it for my needs." Heck I'd even let you know what the desk I made for myself is like, although you might find it disappointing to realize that there's nothing magical about it.

You're likening the sharing of information to something like theft or impounding of property, it's nothing like that. I still get to keep my rack and amp (and the table I made with lots of sweat and hard work), just as GOG would still get to keep their Galaxy even after releasing the source. But after the good deed is done, more people are happy, and there's much more to collaborate & build upon.

1. Even in cases where the source code isn't very unique/special they still have a duty to their shardeholders/customers/etc to protect the brand to show competency/etc & to keep whatever they did secret as long as possible(to prevent copycats as much as possible).

2. Just because something CAN be reverse engineered doesn't mean it will be(though yes it sometimes is), and doesn't mean one shouldn't try to protect their secrets at all. That's like saying one shouldn't get a home alarm system since competent burglars can get in/out of your home quickly and often can bypass said alarms.

Some people get such for peace of mind, or to dissuade most burglars(as many as they can) to cut down the chances of said burglaries.

3. Weasel words. You call it cancer, but have provided not much in the way of proof beyond "it sucks that they do it/because it's greedy".

4. One could say your idea(or seeming idea) of everyone should give away every one of their creations for free is also silly.

5. How is it silly to want to profit from one's hard work? You wouldn't happen to be a commie, now would you? 0.o

Serious reply to this part: Equating protecting one's hard work/effort as silly is also silly.

6. There you go using that word again. As for this part: It isn't totally silly and fits somewhat because you're essentially saying one should give up the results of their hard work(source code in this case) to anyone who wants it. Yes, this doesn't deprive them of their original copy, but the one copying it could also go and reproduce/sell it and deprive the original creator of income.

This is why we have copyright laws(the limits suck, though, to be fair), and the like: They basically state that one can make their own chair/etc, but cannot make an exact duplicate of someone else's chair design(without their consent) and/or sell it for profit(and thus profit off of the first person's idea without consent).

Heck, even open source software usually has a license/some limits as to it's use.....which is fair as well, imo.

In short: Everyone is free to make what they want and they can either sell it for profit or give it(and it's specs) away for free. No one is being forced to go either way if they choose not to, and that's part of the beauty of the system.

Addition: To be fair, I am also a supporter of the guys who choose to do free software, and wish more small timers would do so(I get why bigger devs wouldn't do it, however). I also support shorter(10-15+ years maybe) terms on copyrights for games/media, and possibly even allowing games that have no verifiable IP holders(after x years) to become legal freeware.

It's not true that we cannot have good things. Of course we can, but we must make them ourselves. We can't expect to get them for free all the time. Sometimes it happens but more often it doesn't. Time to think about paying for open source software. People pay for Windows, why not for Linux? People pay for closed source games, why not for open source games? Some people do a donation, but most people see "free software" and understand "cheap software".

It's true that businesses rely on open source software, but that is okay if the open source license allows that. It may not seem fair, but the open source creators have it in their hand by using the right license (copyleft as in GPL or CC-NC) if they want to avoid commercialization of their work.

This helps with Galaxy how exactly?

Maybe companies who have so much to protect should start paying for the open source software they rely on.

Not that it matters, it ends up in the hands of a few big corps (see: Google).

If the devs of that open source software don't make it pay only then they don't have to pay for it....that's kinda how it works. By saying this you seemingly want them to pay for stuff they use while they are suppsoed to give up their stuff for free because reasons.

No, actually, I just wish that they'd be kind and share if they take, or pay if they don't want to share.