DirectX ate my b@lls!?

Hi Guys,
I'm new to the forum but have been a regular reader of THG for many years.
I've been pondering this issue for a while so I thought I float it and see how everyone feels.

For many years now, directX has been the mainstream API utilized for PC gaming.
Pretty much every single game released in recent years requires directX to run and has been developed with directX in mind.
Given that directX is closed source, I can't help but scratch my head here and ask why!?

Why have we become so dependent on a proprietary API?

Whatever happened to OpenGL? I can't help but wonder if consumer interests would be better served by embracing an open standard here? It would certain help code portability. How many of you out there would like to see your favorite games on other operating systems?

I know I certainly would.

Being a security professional I rely on open source quite a lot. In fact I'm not a windogs user at all. I still keep a windogs machine kicking around for nothing other than games however.
I've tried hard to rid my self of windogs once and for all but one sticking point is directX.

More specifically, games developers insistence on directX.

Would the gaming community not be better served if a lot of the development effort was based on an open standard? Certainly so when you factor economics in to the equation. It would certainly help your bottom line if you could run your games on a free operating system.
Its not like there is a lack of open standard here either. OpenGL is quite capable from what I hear and actively maintained and grown. Why is no-one using it?
Why are game developers drawn to directX over an open standard?

Anyone else ponder this?
I'm curious to hear your take.
cheers all.

QUAKE WARS (modified doom 3 engine, I didn't think it could do outdoorrs ).

Developers kits is my guess.
Microsoft develops all the developers' tools for DirectX and makes them very easy to use and implement.
You get no such offerings with open standards like Open GL. I'm sure there are dev kits for it but they are probably (as most open source things are) very difficult to use relative to the Microsoft solution.

This leads many programming groups to embrace the Microsoft solution so that they can more quickly and easily code their software.

Now this is all conjecture but based on the typical behaviors of the industry... I'd say it is at least plausible.

My main gripe with Linux/Unix is that in order to do something I am unfamiliar with in Windows, I spend maybe 3 hours tops figuring it out and it generally works the first try. With Linux/Unix I have spent weeks trying to do certain things and eventually giving up in fit of frustration. They have an embarrassing lack of internal consistency, and an immature user interface that, while very pretty, has very little in the way of user intuitive functionality and even less in the way of enforced interface standards.

If open source projects were to start focusing on interface then I think we would see more adoption of those programs.