With an argument like that you'd might as well be asking GOG to include DRM-free pizza and unicorns with their games. :)

But that's exactly what they said they wouldn't do. It's pretty much reduced down to "We should provide complete support to all Linux users, across all Linux platforms, or we won't do it at all." Again, it's not part of some anti-Linux agenda, it's them keeping to standard that they've kept consistent across Windows and Mac OS X. It's not something I immediately or necessarily agree with, but it's something I can understand.

It'd be interesting to hear from someone in the know how large the technical differences among XP, 7, and 8 are versus, say, the top three Linux distros.

Problem is, how do you decide which the top three Linux distros are? Is Ubuntu one of them? How about Debian, on which Ubuntu is based? If you support Debian do you automatically support all its derivatives as well (Ubuntu, Mint, etc.)?

The problem isn't with the distributions themselves, but with the wild differences in available drivers for each one. Arch has a huge following but the driver support is worse than Debian, which is worse than Ubuntu and so on and so forth.

Also, which drivers do you use? Do you use the open source ones if available, or the binaries provided by the hardware manufacturers? What happens if one of them is available on one platform but not the other?

Compare this to the Windows situation, where if your drivers work on Vista they will work on 7 and 8 as well without any issues. The only "problem" would be Windows XP which has a different driver model (at least when it comes to graphics and audio) but that's a non-issue as it's already supported by driver manufacturer (I honestly hope that that will slowly stop so that people will be forced to move to a better OS when they get better hardware).

Not at all, as far as cost and effort goes there is no difference between that tech demo and Linux binaries. You have nailed it on what GOG's stance is, but this is exactly the stance I am arguing against. Just because an extra happens to provide Linux support for a game is no reason not to upload that extra!

I agree with you on your last point.

I will be outraged if they don't support Biebian (Justin Bieber Linux)...

Joking aside, software usage varies wildly based upon the area of the world you are in. I wonder how that would apply to Linux distros?

I'll launch a class-action lawsuit against GOG if they don't support Jesux.

That page is a joke, right? Please tell me that it is a joke!

Without source code supporting Linux is a bitch. GOG has source code, and rights to modify said source code, for very few games.

Those other projects you mention are unique in having the original developers, who own their own source code and toolchains, converting their games for Linux and targeting a very specific Linux architecture.

So no, it's harder than you're making it out to be. I assure you, the source code for several GOG games is essentially lost to time, the original devs themselves probably couldn't come up with a valid copy and way to build it.

That is not at all a valid reason not to upload already existing Linux clients as unsupported extras.

Like Justin Bieber Linux and Hannah Montana Linux, it is indeed a parody – however, unlike the latter two, I don't think anyone actually made a release of it.

Sadly however, on a related topic, this story (an incident between a BSD developer and some Texans at a diner) apparently really happened.

I didn't offer a reason for all 3 of those cases, I told you why most of them wouldn't be supported. Most of those free Linux games are just that, you're free to get them yourself.

If you want to nitpick about under 1% of GOG's entire library I'm just going to ask you to check out the salary for a single Linux software dev to support them: that's why.

GOG does not need to hire a single person for what I am suggesting.

I still think that the general approach that 'Linux' is an operating system which needs to be more unified is just plain wrong. Ubuntu is an operating system. Mint is an operating system. Debian is an operating system. Fedora is. And while they share the same kernel and some chosen assets, they're independent operating systems. The entire idea of supporting 'Linux' seems incredibly dumb to me - you don't support Windows, you support Windows 7. You should not be asked to support Linux, you should be asked to support Ubuntu, Debian ... Well, you get the picture.

I agree 100%

The author is schizophrenic, and that explains most of it.

It is actually pretty cool if you think of it as a work of art.

Is there any information on when that happened? I mean... Are all these stories about Texas actually true?