bit-gamer.net

Valve Steam, Source clients heading to Linux

Valve Steam, Source clients heading to Linux

Images captured by Phoronix's Michael Larabel prove that Valve is indeed working on porting Steam and its Source engine to Linux.

Valve has confirmed that it is working hard on porting its Source game engine and Steam digital distribution service to Linux.

Rumours surrounding Valve's support of Linux have been doing the rounds for years, but little official information has leaked. While it's possible to get Steam and Source games running on Linux using the wine (Wine Is Not an Emulator) Windows compatibility layer, it's not ideal - and Steam, in particular, exhibits some odd behaviour when run in this manner.

Now, however, Michael Larabel of open-source news site Phoronix has visited Valve at its headquarters, getting confirmation from Gabe Newell himself that Valve has serious plans for Linux systems.

According to Larabel, Valve has a team working on developing native Linux clients for both Steam and Source-based games. As proof, he has supplied images of zombie-themed first-person shooter Left 4 Dead 2 running on a Linux box as a native application.

Phoronix first broke the news of an impending Linux client for Steam back in 2010, but silence from Valve and the continued failure of such a client to appear led many to wonder if the site had been confused in its reportage. Not so, claims Larabel: 'Valve's Linux work is finally soon to see the light of day in what will more than likely be the coming months.'

Valve boss Newell is reportedly overseeing the development personally, having moved his wheeled desk - as explained in the employee handbook - to the Linux client team. 'I am still struck by just how interested Valve is in Linux as a platform; it is certainly beyond my original expectations,' writes Larabel. 'This Linux work just is not some half-assed attempt by them to make it look like they are a Linux-friendly organisation. Gabe's vision to support, embrace, and promote Linux are amazing, assuming they execute, which looks to be very high probability at this point.'

Sadly, neither Valve nor Larabel is indicating when the software will be ready for release, but one thing is clear: when it does come out, it's likely to prove the shot in the arm that Linux gaming so desperately needs.

91 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Mante 26th April 2012, 14:28 Quote
The first rock has been launched!
fooboi 26th April 2012, 14:35 Quote
If this happens, I can see it as a shot in the arm to open gl cl too!
Brooxy 26th April 2012, 14:40 Quote
Personally I've got to applaud this notion. Gaming has been pretty limited to computers running Windows only. Hopefully more developers will follow suit over the next few years and we'll be able to have more choice when it comes to what OS we use on our gaming PCs.
SpAceman 26th April 2012, 15:04 Quote
This is on the second page of the article: "By the time that my "annual pilgrimage" rolls around for 2012, those not in the land of beer and wonderful Bayerischen Frauen and delicious food, will hopefully have something new to be entertained by instead on their Linux desktop... But again, this is Valve time."

October seems to be the target date.
Bede 26th April 2012, 15:24 Quote
This is fantastic news. If Epic would only port the current and future Unreal engines to linux there would actually be a decent collection of games playable on linux. The death of DirectX would be nice too.

Valve have the potential to have the same effect Apple has had on the portable computing market, forcing lazy companies to up their standards or be left behind.
Pygo 26th April 2012, 15:28 Quote
Amazing. This is exactly what I've been waiting years for, and what the open source community needs! I can't wait. I may finally be able to ditch the one last windows box I have.

I hereby volunteer myself as a beta tester. Any linux distro, any number of reinstalls... I don't care. Lets go!

And although smileys are often overused,
Material 26th April 2012, 16:27 Quote
Have some rep, just for your sheer enthusiasm.
tonyd223 26th April 2012, 16:36 Quote
Ubuntu needs this. Have you ever tried to install WOT on Ubuntu? It's a pain in the A$$! Ubuntu needs mainstream games
PCBuilderSven 26th April 2012, 17:20 Quote
Finally, lack of games has held linux adoption back for a long time
schmidtbag 26th April 2012, 17:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonyd223
Ubuntu needs this. Have you ever tried to install WOT on Ubuntu? It's a pain in the A$$! Ubuntu needs mainstream games

there is more to linux than just ubuntu, and according to winehq.org, WoT has guides on how to make it work. in fact ubuntu wasn't even in the test results for the international version.


anyways nitpicking aside, as people from the phoronix forums have mentioned, i think one of the motives of valve in making this move is so they can customize their own linux distro, allowing them to create a steam-based console, kinda like what was mentioned here on BT a couple months ago with that alienware hardware. the great thing about using linux for a console is you can relatively effortlessly customize it to work however you want - you won't need all those services that don't affect gaming (which is most of the services windows 7 has), the system can potentially boot up within a few seconds, you won't NEED a mouse and keyboard, and valve can package anything they want with it and make it do what they want without extra features they'd probably rather discourage such as internet explorer. sony did this with ps3 - that runs a highly modified linux distribution (gentoo if i'm not mistaken). something like this could also operate with much lower hardware specs.
lp rob1 26th April 2012, 18:41 Quote
Steam is one of the main distribution systems for the PC. By porting it, and the Source game franchise, Valve has literally thrown open the doors to Linux into the gaming world. Then other companies will start to think - Hey, Valve is making money off those Linux guys, lets do the same. In fact, lets just use cross-platform stuff so we can make money off of EVERYONE! And ultimately, this means that gaming will spread to more and more platforms, some free, some costly. An OS will not be about market dominance (aka, DirectX), it will be about which OS offers the best features.

Windows will have certainly lost one customer (me) when Steam does get ported, and many more may follow suit when they realise just how good open-source operating systems are. Who needs Metro? We have Gnome or KDE. And if you don't like it, well then go and change it for whichever one you prefer, be it XFCE, Enlightenment, or the plethora of other windowing managers!

Let's bring freedom back to the gamer.
digitaldunc 26th April 2012, 19:05 Quote
*Double post*
digitaldunc 26th April 2012, 19:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lp rob1
Windows will have certainly lost one customer (me) when Steam does get ported, and many more may follow suit when they realise just how good open-source operating systems are. Who needs Metro? We have Gnome or KDE. And if you don't like it, well then go and change it for whichever one you prefer, be it XFCE, Enlightenment, or the plethora of other windowing managers!

Let's bring freedom back to the gamer.

I wouldn't get too excited -- while the selection of games that use the source engine are in the most part pretty good it obviously doesn't cover everything.

Engines will need to be ported, which means dev time. How many mainstream developers are going to pay for dev time for porting to an OS that is used by a minority of desktop users? I'd bet not many.

Don't get me wrong, it'd be gaming nirvana and after being a *nix advocate for years I'd probably jump ship as well, but I just don't see it. Having the client is all well and good, but not as sweet if there aren't any games for it to serve.
toolio20 26th April 2012, 19:08 Quote
A genius move, on a myriad of levels. I may despise so-called Valve Time, but there is no question they know what they're doing.

Linux is an open frontier for gaming, and Valve posting their virtual "First!" pretty much makes them the only game in town - overwhelming goodwill and market share snagged in one fell swoop. I also agree with the other folks, this may very well become first shot across the bow of the U.S.S. Microsoft: both Windows (licensing fees, etc.) and Direct X are major obstacles to any kind of standardized PC platform that could compete with the console market; while Steam 4 Linux doesn't solve these issues it does represent a significant step in the right direction that oh by the way will make moneys for them too.

A bloody masterstroke...
bsp 26th April 2012, 19:23 Quote
A few indie companies have been doing cross-platform for a while.

I for one am looking forward to being rid of windows. This was literally the last reason I had to keep any copies about :)
Guinevere 26th April 2012, 19:31 Quote
This is brilliant news, and here comes my blue-sky thinking! Five years from now....

'PC' Gaming has Linux as a top tier supported platform. The big distros are all on board, and there's several specific distributions for gaming and there's even some retail 'appliance' type devices that run steam games without you having to deal with the underlying OS. Because they are based around PC class hardware (mini-itx) you can choose you're own config and upgrade, repair them as you need.

The market share of traditional windows PCs is falling faster than ever. As gamers don't need to run Windows 11 to play their favourite games they're buying Android, iOS and Ubuntu-touch tablets... while lusting after the nVidia chipped tablet Valve are rumoured to be working on internally (To coincide with the launch of HL2 Ep 3)

I'll continue to extrapolate the changes that will also occur in the next five years...

Windows PCs are still bought in huge numbers by stick-in-the-muds, corporations and windows developers. Among everyone else... well some of them buy windows, some buy Macs and some buy their tablet of choice and be done with it. After an initial healthy holiday period of sales, nobody is now buying Google Glasses... not since Jedward were seen sporting matching pairs in their Christmas video that stayed at number 1 for 39 weeks.

The patent wars have escalated to the point where "Mega IP corp" owns what is known as the "root software patent" (Method of running software on a computer) allowing it to demand a 30% cut of all profit from anything and everyone that is done on a computer.

It's well known that "Mega IP corp" is owned in whole by North Korea, but after they nuked Papua New Guinea (Aimed for Seoul but overshot) everyone just pays the 30% and keeps their heads down!

In the UK the conservatives are still in power in a three way coalition with UKIP and the monster raving loony party. An 'AI' simulation of "Screaming" Lord Sutch is deputy PM and is infamous for interrupting PM questions with Max Headroom impressions.

The top selling smart phone is a "Samsung Galaxy+ Pamela Super Ribbon XM Nexoid Wunder 5G II LTE+ R2D2 Supreme Boobies" It's 0.5 mm thick with a 8" 2048 x 8192 screen resolution (4 : 1 ratio). It was released with Android 3.2 but rumoured to be getting an update to the "Deep fried Mars bar" release of Android soon (Currently only available on Googles own Phillips manufactured "Nexus Belt" the worlds first smart phone with a daylight viewable 21 : 1 ratio rollable screen (4" wide, 84" tall)

:)
digitaldunc 26th April 2012, 19:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere

In the UK the conservatives are still in power in a three way coalition with UKIP and the monster raving loony party. An 'AI' simulation of "Screaming" Lord Sutch is deputy PM and is infamous for interrupting PM questions with Max Headroom impressions.

I'll rep you for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere

The top selling smart phone is a "Samsung Galaxy+ Pamela Super Ribbon XM Nexoid Wunder 5G II LTE+ R2D2 Supreme Boobies" It's 0.5 mm thick with a 8" 2048 x 8192 screen resolution (4 : 1 ratio). It was released with Android 3.2 but rumoured to be getting an update to the "Deep fried Mars bar" release of Android soon (Currently only available on Googles own Phillips manufactured "Nexus Belt" the worlds first smart phone with a daylight viewable 21 : 1 ratio rollable screen (4" wide, 84" tall)

:)

Mmmm... deep fried mars bar...
lp rob1 26th April 2012, 19:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
In the UK the conservatives are still in power in a three way coalition with UKIP and the monster raving loony party. An 'AI' simulation of "Screaming" Lord Sutch is deputy PM and is infamous for interrupting PM questions with Max Headroom impressions.

Is that any different from our current political situation?
Bazz 26th April 2012, 20:31 Quote
I is interested!
javaman 26th April 2012, 22:38 Quote
My biggest concern is drivers. This will create issues for Nvidia and AMD having to support another OS which they barely do ATM (guess they have no reason to). Community support will also be interesting if allowed and this opens the pathway for a steam console. If windows 8 flops this might make linux a very attractive option for prospect gamers and other users, especially if a flavour designed especially for steam. TBH lack of steam is why I still have windows.

After this, steam on android....let it sink in,


there you go!
Guinevere 26th April 2012, 23:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lp rob1
Is that any different from our current political situation?

Nope.... see in the future nothing changes. Humanity makes the same mistakes over and over and over again.
toolio20 26th April 2012, 23:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsp
A few indie companies have been doing cross-platform for a while.
Yes, because that is totally the same as Valve bringing Steam and Source to the kernel...
leslie 27th April 2012, 00:28 Quote
This will be a BIG shot in the arm for Linux (not to mention a potentially good source of income for Valve).

Gaming on Linux has been a major drawback for me.
AmEv 27th April 2012, 00:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinevere
This is brilliant news, and here comes my blue-sky thinking! Five years from now....

'PC' Gaming has Linux as a top tier supported platform. The big distros are all on board, and there's several specific distributions for gaming and there's even some retail 'appliance' type devices that run steam games without you having to deal with the underlying OS. Because they are based around PC class hardware (mini-itx) you can choose you're own config and upgrade, repair them as you need.

The market share of traditional windows PCs is falling faster than ever. As gamers don't need to run Windows 11 to play their favourite games they're buying Android, iOS and Ubuntu-touch tablets... while lusting after the nVidia chipped tablet Valve are rumoured to be working on internally (To coincide with the launch of HL2 Ep 3)

I'll continue to extrapolate the changes that will also occur in the next five years...

Windows PCs are still bought in huge numbers by stick-in-the-muds, corporations and windows developers. Among everyone else... well some of them buy windows, some buy Macs and some buy their tablet of choice and be done with it. After an initial healthy holiday period of sales, nobody is now buying Google Glasses... not since Jedward were seen sporting matching pairs in their Christmas video that stayed at number 1 for 39 weeks.

The patent wars have escalated to the point where "Mega IP corp" owns what is known as the "root software patent" (Method of running software on a computer) allowing it to demand a 30% cut of all profit from anything and everyone that is done on a computer.

It's well known that "Mega IP corp" is owned in whole by North Korea, but after they nuked Papua New Guinea (Aimed for Seoul but overshot) everyone just pays the 30% and keeps their heads down!

In the UK the conservatives are still in power in a three way coalition with UKIP and the monster raving loony party. An 'AI' simulation of "Screaming" Lord Sutch is deputy PM and is infamous for interrupting PM questions with Max Headroom impressions.

The top selling smart phone is a "Samsung Galaxy+ Pamela Super Ribbon XM Nexoid Wunder 5G II LTE+ R2D2 Supreme Boobies" It's 0.5 mm thick with a 8" 2048 x 8192 screen resolution (4 : 1 ratio). It was released with Android 3.2 but rumoured to be getting an update to the "Deep fried Mars bar" release of Android soon (Currently only available on Googles own Phillips manufactured "Nexus Belt" the worlds first smart phone with a daylight viewable 21 : 1 ratio rollable screen (4" wide, 84" tall)

:)

Please, Guinevere, click on the Rep button on your post! Want to know how much that humored people!
SexyHyde 27th April 2012, 00:50 Quote
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG! This will be mega! seriously this has so many implications. good ones too. just need this to come out and i can sell my retail copy of windows!
GoodBytes 27th April 2012, 01:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fooboi
If this happens, I can see it as a shot in the arm to open gl cl too!
While OpenCL is very nice.. OpenGL isn't. Try debugging your shaders.. oh boy! Here's a hint, you can't. There are no real debuggers. They are tracers... like gDEBugger, but nothing what you expect when you program C/C++. DirectX can be debugged just fine. It's also easier to program and has much less limitations. So DirectX will still be the developer of choice, especially that right now DirectX is what pushes the graphical effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooxy
Personally I've got to applaud this notion. Gaming has been pretty limited to computers running Windows only. Hopefully more developers will follow suit over the next few years and we'll be able to have more choice when it comes to what OS we use on our gaming PCs.
This will be like MacOS... meaning expect only some indies games, and Valve games. Maybe Blizzard MIGHT join in, if they are descent drivers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bede
This is fantastic news. If Epic would only port the current and future Unreal engines to linux there would actually be a decent collection of games playable on linux. The death of DirectX would be nice too.
OpenGL is far behind DirectX. As much as I hate saying this, as it's always very nice to have an open platform, but this is truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PCBuilderSven
Finally, lack of games has held linux adoption back for a long time
Actually this is not why Linux has low adoptions. That is just the first issue that comes to gamers mind. But Linux, while did massive leaps over the years, is extremely far behind for desktop and laptop user usability. Linux tries to satisfy it's current users, which loves extreme flexibility, and don't mind using Command Line extensively. The OS and their programs have way to many options, many useless, which submerge the user in trying to find an option to much. This is just another downside. Still needs a lot of work for desktops and laptop environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG! This will be mega! seriously this has so many implications. good ones too. just need this to come out and i can sell my retail copy of windows!
Won't change much, just a couple of indie games. The only thing it would provide, is make the few developers that don't mind using only 1 DRM. Publishers want DRM.. so big games won't make it there, until they are trusted DRM system put into Linux, without any easy way to break it. Having an OS with open source.. doesn't make this welcome. Everyone will download Linux Gamer Edition, where DRMs are blocks in some fashion.
mi1ez 27th April 2012, 02:03 Quote
Ok, who thinks this could be related Valve's "open platform" they were talking about when discussing making their own hardware?
SexyHyde 27th April 2012, 02:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Actually this is not why Linux has low adoptions. That is just the first issue that comes to gamers mind. But Linux, while did massive leaps over the years, is extremely far behind for desktop and laptop user usability. Linux tries to satisfy it's current users, which loves extreme flexibility, and don't mind using Command Line extensively. The OS and their programs have way to many options, many useless, which submerge the user in trying to find an option to much. This is just another downside. Still needs a lot of work for desktops and laptop environment.

No Linux has low adoptions because people use what they know/see/use. when people go to work and use the computer - its windows. go to the shop/store to buy a computer - its windows. no one knows about Linux unless they go out looking for it, Linux has no big marketing campaign. I use windows to game and linux for everything else at home. i use windows at work. i use linux because its quicker than windows and more secure - i never use the command line. for what the average person does on a computer a current main distro would more than suffice. I know i would pick linux mint over windows 8 just on USABILITY alone
SexyHyde 27th April 2012, 02:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG! This will be mega! seriously this has so many implications. good ones too. just need this to come out and i can sell my retail copy of windows!
Won't change much, just a couple of indie games. The only thing it would provide, is make the few developers that don't mind using only 1 DRM. Publishers want DRM.. so big games won't make it there, until they are trusted DRM system put into Linux, without any easy way to break it. Having an OS with open source.. doesn't make this welcome. Everyone will download Linux Gamer Edition, where DRMs are blocks in some fashion.

NO linux already has indie games this will give it moar indie games AND steam games and it will be a small selection - that will grow. this is the thin end of the wedge. slowly but surely DRM is going. after all its a cost that is counter productive - the more you spend on DRM the more money you seem to lose on lost sales and higher counterfitting numbers.

anyways, games come out on linux and they are good - im buying them.
they release a linux tf2 hat - im buying it!
AmEv 27th April 2012, 03:18 Quote
Minecraft's on Linux....



Technically, that's Java, but still......
GoodBytes 27th April 2012, 03:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
No Linux has low adoptions because people use what they know/see/use. when people go to work and use the computer - its windows. go to the shop/store to buy a computer - its windows. no one knows about Linux unless they go out looking for it, Linux has no big marketing campaign. I use windows to game and linux for everything else at home. i use windows at work. i use linux because its quicker than windows and more secure - i never use the command line. for what the average person does on a computer a current main distro would more than suffice. I know i would pick linux mint over windows 8 just on USABILITY alone
Windows 8 is a great OS. People want change, but don't want change. People complained about Windows 7 new task bar like no tomorrow, saying that will stick to XP... Windows 7 is now loved. People complained about every aspect of Vista, and somehow, even the instant search feature... now people want these things. Same will happen with Windows 8. Once you pass the learning curve, and adjust the Start Screen, like you adjust the Start Menu in Windows (assuming it will be exactly like the Beta version now), then Windows 8 provides a great experience.

Also Linux is not designed for lay people, and even us:
-> Internet needs to used for help... as no one can help me. What if the user don't have access internet.
-> Many things says to open the terminal and type stuff that lay people don't understand, and even many of us.
-> Help and documentation is difficult to find, and understand. Very technical. Not designed for lay people.
-> Linux xWindows environments have a serious problem with their font rendering engine. Text is incredibly hard to read. It's not an issue on MacOS, and I think Windows 7/8 (same) has the best text rendering, AND default font.
-> Simple things in Windows, or MacOS, feels like a week-end project to do.
-> Low quality, low performing, or non existent drivers. The Linux community needs to do some work to help developers/companies. On my laptop, E6400, almost 4 years old, still don;t have proper drivers. When I put Linux on it, and installed all the drivers I pass from what is now with Windows 8 Beta: 12h of battery life, down to 4 hours and half (no power saving features). Poor Nvidia Quadro performance over Windows (Moving windows is choppy). Also, wireless always disconnect from university network. SD Card doesn't work, Unable to cut power on devices, as I could under Windows, with Windows Vista/7/8 power settings (on Windows I can cut the power of my optical drive, SD card, firewire, set my USB under low power, reduce screen refresh rate down to 40Hz, and set the fan to passive mode (very difficult to make it spin), when on battery, and have everything full power as soon as I plug it in (or change power plan to one I specified (default actually) to have everything enabled).
My laptop was also hot, and the fan would not stop spinning, something that it rarely does under Windows (basically only when I play a game, or play hours of Flash video).
And as the Linux community said to me: that essentially told me that next time to pick a laptop where all the hardware are compatible with Linux, and that is also popular by the Linux community for getting help. I was recommended HP low end consumer laptops, and told me how great they were under Linux. If anyone knows anything about HP consumer laptop, especially those, like me, who worked on Retail.... if an HP low end laptop lives after a year, then it's a manufacture error, it should not be working. Same for quietness and cooling, and battery life, and overall built-quality Honestly I would prefer to use a Dell low end laptop (Inspiron) over an HP one. And we all know how Dell low end product are.

My point is that Linux has excessively a lot of work to do. I know that current Linux users are really exited about this, but thinking it's a ready OS for everyone, would be, I think, very harmful. People will see Linux as this impossible or difficult to use, and poor experience OS. And that reputation will stick with lay people. So even if Linux does another huge step forward where is able to have an xWindows environment that make Linux truly easy to use, and solves all it's problems. People will still have in their head that Linux is difficult to use, and not switch back, not even giving it another chance. Already many people trying a Windows in beta stages, have difficulty understanding what is beta. And from my experience, I know that lay people get easily scared. An example.. my mom. I put Linux on an old computer, and spent hours and hours trying to customize it to get the same feel and experience as Windows (this is was many years ago). I put her Linux, because I was in College, and Vista would not run on my old Pentium 3 800MHz with 512MB of RAM, obviously. Result... She turned on the computer and she freaked out by all the text appearing at startup of Linux. And she complained how hard text was to read (which I agreed). She didn't use the computer... She was afraid. xWindows looks very close to Windows 2000, which is what I had at the time, and she used. I even went over everything with her... she was just scared.and she never passed the fact that when you enter the user name and password, nothing appears on the screen, for "Privacy" reasons. Anyway, I was able to get a better computer, Vista ready computer. She never used Vista, and she actually like it (more so Windows 7 of course, as I got her the Nvidia ION with the dual core Atom when it came out).

In conclusion:
Linux is great, but is really far behind Windows and MacOS... and even if it's free... it has way too many issues affected greatly lay people, that I strongly thing that it will hurt Linux image, plus people would have no problem cashing out money for ease of use, which Windows and MacOS both offer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
NO linux already has indie games this will give it moar indie games AND steam games and it will be a small selection - that will grow. this is the thin end of the wedge. slowly but surely DRM is going. after all its a cost that is counter productive - the more you spend on DRM the more money you seem to lose on lost sales and higher counterfitting numbers.
Oh chee! Really?!
I think we all know that. I meant have more and push indie games, as now you'll have a new and easier distribution channel.

Quote:
anyways, games come out on linux and they are good
Yes it is. More options is always nice.
AmEv 27th April 2012, 06:39 Quote
I agree with you, to an extent.

Most of the Function+F1-12 keys on my 2 laptops don't work. Not that I use them, but might annoy someone else.

I'm hoping that the push to Linux will make manufacturers more willing to write decent drivers for them.
SexyHyde 27th April 2012, 07:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes

Windows 8 is a great OS. People want change, but don't want change. People complained about Windows 7 new task bar like no tomorrow, saying that will stick to XP... Windows 7 is now loved. People complained about every aspect of Vista, and somehow, even the instant search feature... now people want these things. Same will happen with Windows 8. Once you pass the learning curve, and adjust the Start Screen, like you adjust the Start Menu in Windows (assuming it will be exactly like the Beta version now), then Windows 8 provides a great experience...........Already many people trying a Windows in beta stages, have difficulty understanding what is beta.

Everybody pretty much loved Windows 7 from the go. everyone that i knew got it on release day.
Vista was/is/always will be, hated by most people for being one of the worst OS releases ever. it did things people didnt want in the background making fairly powerful machines seem in need of an upgrade.
Windows 8 looks good but is unusable things have moved all over the place or have been removed and there appears to be no logic to the moving of items to there new destination.
I know full well what a beta is. I have tried the consumer preview, which i'm assuming is what your saying by beta. maybe you don't understand what a beta is. a beta is regarded as code which feature set is finished but bugs need to be found and fixed. the general usability of windows 8 features just does not seem to be logical.

on the linux note its fine for most people. i gave my dad a computer with suse on over 5 years ago and he liked it over the xp machine we had. he went back to xp due to a program for work that required it, but after putting a dual boot of ubuntu on it he logs into ubuntu unless he has to use the work program. and he isn't technical at all. he has no idea how to do anything other than web and word and excel (sometimes he even struggles with them). i use linux mint and for most people it would more than be capable of replacing windows. If i could game on it too i would prefer it to windows.
Gareth Halfacree 27th April 2012, 08:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by javaman
My biggest concern is drivers. This will create issues for Nvidia and AMD having to support another OS which they barely do ATM (guess they have no reason to).
Both companies support Linux just fine already, with 'binary blob' accelerated drivers available for all desktop graphics products. Laptop support is a *bit* more sketchy - specifically with Nvidia's Optimus graphics-switching technology, for which the company has yet to release a Linux driver. The open-source community has, however, provided a means of telling individual applications - such as a game - to run on the Nvidia hardware rather than the Intel hardware as a work-around while Nvidia itself gets its act together and adds Optimus support to its Linux drivers.

Incidentally, Nvidia recently joined the Linux Foundation. Just thought I'd throw that in there...
thogil 27th April 2012, 09:47 Quote
Developers don't choose DirectX over OpenGL because "steam isn't supported on linux", so changing that fact isn't suddenly going to cause developers to change their mind on the matter.

DirectX is more popular than OpenGL because DirectX is a FAR nicer API to work with. The extra cost of developing with OpenGL can't be justified by the tiny extra market opened by supporting linux.
Gareth Halfacree 27th April 2012, 10:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by thogil
DirectX is more popular than OpenGL because DirectX is a FAR nicer API to work with. The extra cost of developing with OpenGL can't be justified by the tiny extra market opened by supporting linux.
Everyone always claims that Linux is a 'tiny market,' but is it true? Something I find *very* interesting is the sales of the Humble Indie Bundle, which are broken down by platform. Ignoring the current bundle - which still has six days to go - and the two previous Android-oriented bundles, Humble Bundle #4 saw almost as much cash come in from Linux users as it did from Mac users. Both, admittedly, were dwarfed by Windows users - but it indicates that the market for gaming on Linux is approaching that of the Mac, for which Steam is already available.

Another interesting fact: on average, Windows users paid $4.87 while Mac users paid $7.61. Linux users, on the other hand, paid an average of $10.43 - more than twice that of the average Windows user. With many people using the 'freetard' excuse ("Linux users didn't pay for the OS, so they'll never pay for any software at all ever") I think that's a particularly interesting statistic.
Snips 27th April 2012, 12:42 Quote
Can't think of a bigger waste of time
Beasteh 27th April 2012, 16:37 Quote
YEEEEEESSSSSS!!!!

One less reason to dual-boot...
Star*Dagger 27th April 2012, 16:48 Quote
This is the beginning of a REVOLUTION.

All Hail Comrade Vladimir Newell!!

Yours in Revolutionary Plasma,
Star*Dagger
Star*Dagger 27th April 2012, 16:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snips
Can't think of a bigger waste of time

I think your post counters your posts argument.

S*D
lp rob1 27th April 2012, 19:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by thogil
Developers don't choose DirectX over OpenGL because "steam isn't supported on linux", so changing that fact isn't suddenly going to cause developers to change their mind on the matter.

DirectX is more popular than OpenGL because DirectX is a FAR nicer API to work with. The extra cost of developing with OpenGL can't be justified by the tiny extra market opened by supporting linux.

No, the reason DirectX became more popular than OpenGL (OpenGL was king around DX7 and under) was due to Microsoft marketing. Microsoft created mass marketing around the XBox 360 and Windows Vista, forcing developers to use DirectX or loose customers. Microsoft even went as far as to purposely cripple OpenGL performance on Windows platforms - and due to the success of Windows at the time (OK, even I admit Linux wasn't great back then) developers needed to switch or start to loose sales. And due to positive feedback, DirectX became ever more popular.

See this page for the history of the API wars.
Aracos 27th April 2012, 21:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
Quote:
Originally Posted by thogil
DirectX is more popular than OpenGL because DirectX is a FAR nicer API to work with. The extra cost of developing with OpenGL can't be justified by the tiny extra market opened by supporting linux.
Everyone always claims that Linux is a 'tiny market,' but is it true? Something I find *very* interesting is the sales of the Humble Indie Bundle, which are broken down by platform. Ignoring the current bundle - which still has six days to go - and the two previous Android-oriented bundles, Humble Bundle #4 saw almost as much cash come in from Linux users as it did from Mac users. Both, admittedly, were dwarfed by Windows users - but it indicates that the market for gaming on Linux is approaching that of the Mac, for which Steam is already available.

Another interesting fact: on average, Windows users paid $4.87 while Mac users paid $7.61. Linux users, on the other hand, paid an average of $10.43 - more than twice that of the average Windows user. With many people using the 'freetard' excuse ("Linux users didn't pay for the OS, so they'll never pay for any software at all ever") I think that's a particularly interesting statistic.

They appreciate it more, it's like giving £5 to a wealthy 40 year old business man, you may get a little thank you but he likely won't think about it a day onwards, give it to a little 8 year old (assuming they have low pocket money, I used to get £1 a week) and they will be amazed and feel like their world has just opened with many more possibilities of what they can get at the corner shop.

Windows gamers have a choice of almost every commercial game ever released, Linux gamers have the choice of almost no commercial games and a few indie titles. They pay more because it means more to them.
Andy Mc 28th April 2012, 08:18 Quote
I'm wondering if this is due to their rumored console? Basing it on linux instead of windows would allow them to get more performance out of the kit.
GoodBytes 28th April 2012, 15:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Mc
I'm wondering if this is due to their rumored console? Basing it on linux instead of windows would allow them to get more performance out of the kit.

how so? Your hardware don't automatically overclock when Linux is detected.
If you mean that they have less memory and drive space with Windows. You know that their is Windows 7 Embed System, which is a super light, cut out to the bone of the latest Windows, but keeping Windows security features, and all that to use it. It's mainly designed for Point of Sale systems, or any low performance system. Also you have Windows CE, which powers the XBox, XBox 360, and also the Dreamcast. They all showed impressive performance and graphics for their hardware specs.
GoodBytes 28th April 2012, 15:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lp rob1
No, the reason DirectX became more popular than OpenGL (OpenGL was king around DX7 and under) was due to Microsoft marketing. Microsoft created mass marketing around the XBox 360 and Windows Vista, forcing developers to use DirectX or loose customers. Microsoft even went as far as to purposely cripple OpenGL performance on Windows platforms - and due to the success of Windows at the time (OK, even I admit Linux wasn't great back then) developers needed to switch or start to loose sales. And due to positive feedback, DirectX became ever more popular.

See this page for the history of the API wars.

I don't know about this crippling thing, but here is what I know, as I have a bit of experience in programming both:
-> DirectX is cleaning and easier to code than OpenGL

-> Easier and more helpful documentation from DirectX can be found over OpenGL (that was my impression)

-> DirectX can debug it's vertex shaders, and fragment shader components (this is where all the magic from the GPU happens). In OpenGL, you have very little tools (more tracers than debuggers), making developing on OpenGL very difficult. If something doesn't work, you don't know why. All you have to re-analyses EVERY line to code by yourself, of your program on somewhat and related to what you are trying to do, as it can be anything, anywhere. Very time consuming, and that is IF that is problem, it could very well be the math or approach that was wrong.

-> Nvidia and AMD essentially drop support for their developer tools for OpenGL. They are out of date, and don't work with their latest cards. A perfect example is Nvidia PerfSDK. We are in 2012, and it still doesn't support Fermi card for OpenGL. Nvidia PerHUD is largely more focused DirectX. NVIDIA Parallel Nsight Up until recently it didn't support OpenGL.
And it's the same story with AMD.
Gareth Halfacree 28th April 2012, 18:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Also you have Windows CE, which powers the XBox, XBox 360, and also the Dreamcast.
You know that's not true, right? Neither Xboxes run any version of Windows.
GoodBytes 28th April 2012, 18:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
You know that's not true, right? Neither Xboxes run any version of Windows.

Never the less, the Dreamcast was running Windows CE barely modified.
Actually, you are right, both XBox's OS's was based on NT architecture.
Andy Mc 28th April 2012, 18:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
how so? Your hardware don't automatically overclock when Linux is detected.
If you mean that they have less memory and drive space with Windows. You know that their is Windows 7 Embed System, which is a super light, cut out to the bone of the latest Windows, but keeping Windows security features, and all that to use it. It's mainly designed for Point of Sale systems, or any low performance system. Also you have Windows CE, which powers the XBox, XBox 360, and also the Dreamcast. They all showed impressive performance and graphics for their hardware specs.

By going with linux they would:

a) have more resources available
b) not have to pay a 3rd party any licencing fees.

The whole reason Valve started steam was to cut out the middleman and make themselves more profit. With this in mind why would they use windows for the console?
GoodBytes 28th April 2012, 19:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Mc
By going with linux they would:

a) have more resources available
b) not have to pay a 3rd party any licencing fees.

The whole reason Valve started steam was to cut out the middleman and make themselves more profit. With this in mind why would they use windows for the console?

1- RAM and storage space is cheap, unlike the old days. And we don't know how Windows Embeded OS or possibly be able to get an even lighter version (no interface, for example)

2- True that you don't have to pay 3rd party license fees, so instead you have to pay research and development, AND hire people who are expert in Linux source code (rare so $$$$), to tweak the OS specifically for the game console. So it ends up costing you more than paying a license fee. What IT DOES offer, and that is what you should have said instead, is maximum flexibility, as not only you are not tied to the limitation of a 3rd party solution, but also you are dependent on them. (waiting for a bug fix, tweak you requested, and all that).

3- Support OpenGL and DirectX, so that developer don't need to translate their DirectX game to OpenGL, which is NOT an easy task. You pretty much have to retype the entire game, or if the game is using an engine, possible change the engine, and now you have not only to retype the game, but the graphics and experience could change, depending on how flexible the engine is.
Gareth Halfacree 28th April 2012, 19:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Never the less, the Dreamcast was running Windows CE barely modified.
Actually, you are right, both XBox's OS's was based on NT architecture.
Not quite right either: while they share some APIs and the like with NT, neither are based on any version of Windows. They're both completely custom, and divorced from the development of Windows.

Don't take my word for it, though: here's one of the Xbox and Xbox 360 engineering team saying exactly the same thing. As I said: neither the Xbox nor the Xbox 360 run any form of Windows - not CE, not NT.

But yes, the Dreamcast was powered by Windows CE (I've got one under the TV right now, by coincidence.) It was also, you'll remember, the death knell for Sega's hardware division - not exactly the best advert for Windows as a platform on which to build a games console!
SexyHyde 29th April 2012, 00:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
But yes, the Dreamcast was powered by Windows CE (I've got one under the TV right now, by coincidence.) It was also, you'll remember, the death knell for Sega's hardware division - not exactly the best advert for Windows as a platform on which to build a games console!

lets not forget microsoft used sega, pulled out of some deal or other leaving sega with their pants down some what and using all their gained knowledge to make the original xbox. so in a way sega hardware died and microsoft console spawned.

Valve can just grow their own linux boffins - i'd go so much to say they have the last few years. i'm guessing the fact that they are letting this information out means they are fairly confidant they can make a good go of it.
javaman 29th April 2012, 01:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde


Valve can just grow their own linux boffins - i'd go so much to say they have the last few years. i'm guessing the fact that they are letting this information out means they are fairly confidant they can make a good go of it.

I wouldn't be surprised if they already had some experience after developing for mac. Similar problems too that theyre gonna face, namely lack of direct X.
Even if they don't, attracting developers shouldn't be a problem for valve. Like working for Microsoft or IBM, the company holds prestige.

Poses the question tho, will the move OpenGL to improve to where it needs to be or will Direct X be supported by all in some sort of agreement or third option, Nvidia, AMD and Steam develop a third API. The last option is nothing is done, and support remains limited.
Beasteh 29th April 2012, 15:01 Quote
That, and the PS3 uses (something close to) OpenGL - a console which Valve has developed games for in the past. It's not like there's no history of game devs working with OpenGL.
thil 30th April 2012, 19:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fooboi
If this happens, I can see it as a shot in the arm to open gl cl too!

And OpenAL. Well, I can dream.
ssj12 2nd May 2012, 06:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beasteh
That, and the PS3 uses (something close to) OpenGL - a console which Valve has developed games for in the past. It's not like there's no history of game devs working with OpenGL.

PS3 variation is OpenGL-ES, last time I checked. I think its like version 3 now or something.
impar 5th June 2012, 10:36 Quote
Greetings!

Click:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTExMzA
Possible to avoid Windows 8 entirely?
GoodBytes 5th June 2012, 16:24 Quote
You know that your games will still not work.
- The game will have to be translated from DirectX to OpenGL (DirectX can be debug, and is MUCH easier to program than OpenGL, and Nvidia and AMD provide packs of tools for it, and have barely anything for OpenGL, and documentation is very low for OpenGL).

- The game will need to have all it's API code translated from Windows to Linux. That means hire Linux programmers.

- The game will have to be retested from A to Z, for OpenGL, graphic glitches with Linux drivers, and re-optimized with the performance of OpenGL under Linux.

Also the drivers for Linux, are rare, and total crap. You have to be lucky, or have to purchase a Linux ready system, due to lack of drivers, let alone ones that provides good performance.
Gareth Halfacree 5th June 2012, 16:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Also the drivers for Linux, are rare, and total crap. You have to be lucky, or have to purchase a Linux ready system, due to lack of drivers, let alone ones that provides good performance.
What crap.

Nvidia Display Drivers for Linux.
AMD Catalyst for Linux.

Wow. Rare.

EDIT: Documentation? There are 220 books on Amazon when you search for "DirectX programming." There are 469 books on Amazon when you search for "OpenGL programming."
GoodBytes 5th June 2012, 16:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
What crap.

Nvidia Display Drivers for Linux.
AMD Catalyst for Linux.

Wow. Rare.
Yup, have fun with them. Tell me how they work out for you, and how much of the same performance as under Windows you get.
Gareth Halfacree 5th June 2012, 16:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Yup, have fun with them. Tell me how they work out for you, and how much of the same performance as under Windows you get.
You *are* aware I'm writing this from a Linux machine with an Nvidia graphics card, right? The drivers work fine.

Admittedly, I can't compare performance with Windows - 'cos I don't run Windows. Games seem to work, though, so I'm happy.
GoodBytes 5th June 2012, 17:00 Quote
And hows your motherboard, dedicated (if any) sound card performance? Do you have ALL the features that you get under Windows, or just the bare minimum? And is your computer brand new (under a month old)?

And on laptops it's uncompilable. If your don't buy a laptop that you checked if it had full Linux support, then you usually have to wait 2-3 years, most likely 3 years before everything works, and performs somewhat as good in Windows.

In my case, putting Linux on my (at the time) 2 years old laptop, meant:
-> Mouse cursor was choppy, and impossible to control
-> Performance was non existence (despite being a Core 2 Duo (last gen))
-> I could not get Linux to detect my Nvidia Quadro. So I could not use the fancy GPU rendered interface
-> Laptop fan always spin at high speed, while in Windows is RARELY spinned (only when playing a game)
-> Laptop battery based from 10hours under WIn7, down to 3hours.
-> No wireless drivers
-> No motherboard drivers.. well ok I lie, they were, but I was not convinced they were working
-> high latency issue
-> No ability to cut power on devices: reduce USB power, cut power on optical drive, firewire, SD card read nor smart card reader, which you all have under Windows with the motherboard drivers.
-> And as expected Dell software (Control Panel) was also non existence, and no ability to update the BIOS (you need to be under Windows)
Similar experience with my desktop (I never tried it with my computer on my signature).

Yes I saw MANY people with amazing experience under Linux, and mine today (after 4 years), my laptops runs great under Linux as well. I still don't have all the features I had under Windows, nor battery life (6 hours under Linux, ~11 hours under Windows 8), and now everything is smooth.

Don't get me wrong, I know why Linux is left aside by companies (low market share), and I want Linux to be more popular (competition is good). But saying that JUST because Steam is on Linux, that magically everything will run under Linux the same as under Windows, is wishful thinking.
Gareth Halfacree 5th June 2012, 17:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
<snip>
My desktop is about two years old; it's a self-build. They're always self-builds. I get far more features under Linux than under Windows. That's mostly because I - as I mentioned - don't use Windows, so features of my graphics card under Windows is equal to zero.

Before you say "oh, well of course Linux works on a two-year old system:" I installed Linux on it the day I built it. Everything worked fine - 3D accelerated graphics, sound, all the various features of the motherboard, front-panel audio, USB, yadda-yadda.

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "uncompilable" - the drivers are provided as binary blobs. There's no compiling to do. Download driver, double-click the file, wait for it to install. That's it. Drivers installed.

I know that's true for laptops as well as desktops, 'cos I also have several laptops - all of which run Linux as well. My current laptop, admittedly, uses on-board Intel Sandy Bridge graphics - but the one before that had an AMD Radeon of some description. Installed the drivers from AMD and away it went - fully accelerated graphics, power management, the works. All worked fine, on a brand-new laptop. Battery life was about eight hours, which is an hour more than the manufacturer claimed it would get. (Again, I don't know how long Windows would have got, 'cos I don't run Windows.)

Actually, I tell a lie: there is *one* thing on my laptop which doesn't work under Linux. The fingerprint scanner. Apparently the company that makes the scanner is working on a Linux driver, though.
RedFlames 5th June 2012, 17:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Yup, have fun with them. Tell me how they work out for you, and how much of the same performance as under Windows you get.

Linux drivers, for nVidia at least, are nowhere near as bad as they were... as for performance it's hard to judge.

Plus if/when they port steam/source to linux then maybe the drivers will improve.
RedFlames 5th June 2012, 17:36 Quote
I have both windows [7] and linux [kubuntu quantal] on my pc atm, and had it installed on my old laptop -
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
And hows your motherboard, dedicated (if any) sound card performance? Do you have ALL the features that you get under Windows, or just the bare minimum? And is your computer brand new (under a month old)?

yes i did, and the pc in question was brand shiny new at the time.
Quote:
And on laptops it's uncompilable. If your don't buy a laptop that you checked if it had full Linux support, then you usually have to wait 2-3 years, most likely 3 years before everything works, and performs somewhat as good in Windows.

I can't recall the last time i had to *compile* anything on linux... and performance wise it's on a par with windows
Quote:
In my case, putting Linux on my (at the time) 2 years old laptop, meant:
-> Mouse cursor was choppy, and impossible to control
-> Performance was non existent (despite being a Core 2 Duo (last gen))
-> I could not get Linux to detect my Nvidia Quadro. So I could not use the fancy GPU rendered interface

no such problems here... there were basic drivers for my card from the start and it prompted me to install the full linux drivers when everything was done installing.
Quote:

-> Laptop fan always spin at high speed, while in Windows is RARELY spinned (only when playing a game)
-> No wireless drivers

No fan problems here as it's all controlled by the bios, not software/drivers.

I did have wireless problems upgrading a laptop from one version of ubuntu to the newest version, install the driver from the old version and all working again. I've had to do the same on windows too.
Quote:
-> Laptop battery based from 10hours under WIn7, down to 3hours.
-> No ability to cut power on devices: reduce USB power, cut power on optical drive, firewire, SD card read nor smart card reader, which you all have under Windows with the motherboard drivers.

Power saving is admittedly a little spotty under linux, but battery life was longer under linux than windows.
Quote:
-> And as expected Dell software (Control Panel) was also non existence, and no ability to update the BIOS (you need to be under Windows)
Similar experience with my desktop (I never tried it with my computer on my signature).

Dell's software not working? - blame Dell not the linux devs.


As for steam on linux, imo it'll be the same as steam on mac, some games will be ported, some already have mac/linux ports and some with remain windows only. I'd rather have some games than none.
GoodBytes 5th June 2012, 17:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFlames

I can't recall the last time i had to *compile* anything on linux... and performance wise it's on a par with windows
*Incompatible. Typo.
Quote:

No fan problems here as it's all controlled by the bios, not software/drivers.
Yup, but when you lose all CPU, northbridge/southbridge and GPU power management, or a combination, it's not funny.
Quote:

Dell's software not working? - blame Dell not the linux devs.
I never blamed linux dev. Where did I blame them?

Quote:
As for steam on linux, imo it'll be the same as steam on mac, some games will be ported, some already have mac/linux ports and some with remain windows only. I'd rather have some games than none.
Exactly.
AmEv 6th June 2012, 03:23 Quote
Lemme chip this in:

On completely minimal settings, I'm getting over 4-500FPS in vanilla Minecraft. On a 550Ti.
Same ain't happening on my XP install.
With the NVidia drivers installed on both.

So, there you go.
impar 2nd August 2012, 10:17 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Faster Zombies!
...
Running Left 4 Dead 2 on Windows 7 with Direct3D drivers, we get 270.6 FPS as a baseline. The data is generated from an internal test case.
When we started with Linux, the initial version we got up and running was at 6 FPS. This is typical of an initial successful port to a new platform.
...
After this work, Left 4 Dead 2 is running at 315 FPS on Linux. That the Linux version runs faster than the Windows version (270.6) seems a little counter-intuitive, given the greater amount of time we have spent on the Windows version. However, it does speak to the underlying efficiency of the kernel and OpenGL. Interestingly, in the process of working with hardware vendors we also sped up the OpenGL implementation on Windows. Left 4 Dead 2 is now running at 303.4 FPS with that configuration.
GuilleAcoustic 27th September 2012, 18:06 Quote
I'm in !!!!!!
Lantizia 30th September 2012, 01:57 Quote
I hope Valve don't do what they did with the Mac version and forget all the other great Source games. They got the main ones done like L4D and Portal but forgot the oldies like Half-Life: Source. Additionally I think they made it harder for Source based mods like Portal: Prelude and Black Mesa to be installed.
schmidtbag 30th September 2012, 02:46 Quote
The level of ignorance spewing in this topic is unworldly. OpenGL is absolutely more popular than directX, because it is used on EVERY PLATFORM, including windows. It is just as good as DX, but not as platform centric, therefore, harder to use.

As for Linux having terrible hardware support, I greatly beg to differ. It might not have every little optimization that Windows has, and it might not have the micromanagement and integration of Mac (which results in cleaner code and better performance due to such a restricting set of systems), but it generally operates with most things you throw at it without having to do anything at all. Get a pre-prepared distro like Mint and you generally don't need to do anything, nearly all hardware just works without typing or clicking anything. You waste disk space and lose performance from that tho so I personally stick with Debian and Arch. You can't get this out-of-the-box experience with Windows, not without having to restart at least once anyway.

Linux currently struggles with video drivers the most, but in terms of functioning GPUs, their feature set and performance is barely behind windows or Mac, and in some situations they're better. AMD, nvidia, and VIA don't have much of a reason to care about Linux graphics support since there aren't enough commercial products that need it. With valve's attention, that might fix this issue. With linuxs new display server, Wayland, performance could improve further.
GoodBytes 30th September 2012, 03:41 Quote
The problem with OpenGL is that its a pain in the ass to program. And just until recently, we only have some sort of half ass debugger which only works for AMD graphic cards.

DirectX is by far significantly better documented, easier to find resources, easier to program, fully debugger with analysis which works on any GPU. Plus each GPU manufacture has a complete GPU analysis to allow you to perform deep optimization:
http://developer.download.nvidia.com/devzone//devcenter/tools/images/ParallelNsight_SSledFrameTiming.png
http://developer.download.nvidia.com/devzone/devcenter/tools/images/ParallelNsight_SSledShaderDebugging.png?q=sites/default/files/devcenter/tools/images/ParallelNsight_SSledShaderDebugging.png
Above, screenshots of Nvidia ParallelNsight plug-in for Visual Studio

And DirectX is just as powerful as OpenGL. But as it is easier to program, and easier to debug, learn, access resources: nicer things can be done, whether its more money/time to invest on visuals, or game play, bug fixing, more profit, or sound.

The problem with Linux isn't hardware support. That will come in time. Nothing in the OS blocks a features of working.

The problem with Linux are, in my view:
-> Too many distro's
-> Software don't work between distro's easily.
-> No easy install/uninstall system like in Windows.
-> Tries to be too much like Windows, but tries to differentiate itself. The UI has no focus. The exception is Ubuntu Unity interface.
-> Abysmal font rendering and OS fonts. (no effort, plain and simple. I know font rendering is very complicated, but it's being put aside for other stuff, when it's critical for the OS day to day usage)
-> The developer community is too focus in maintenance the OS, and working on the core and NOT working on the front end (user experience).
-> Developer community and support community in general, aren't helpful, and don't like lay people (computer illiterates). Even Linux new comers aren't welcome in most communities.
-> Developer community isn't ready to dumb down the OS, and let go of the Terminal, which is a critical step in opening the OS to lay people. If you think the Start Screen/ Desktop switch is bad, then Linux with its constant need of the terminal is astonishing.
-> Applications don't follow any standard GUI guidelines
-> Applications aren't focus for easy usability. Example, look at the option panel. In most Linux program, you are blasted with options, while good, most of them are useless, and simply buries with other more important options. This makes configuration programs difficult. VLC has a good balance approach. You have the standard settings, but you have a button to access advance options, where, now, you are buried in options. So it satisfies both group. Ideally is to not have this advance option section at all, but it is a step in the right direction.

Basically, on the last few points mentioned above, what Linux really needs, I believe, is a UI team, which focuses on new, original interface, which take into account today's technologies (large, high resolution displays, for example). Microsoft does it with the ribbon bar, Aero Snap, and other UI features, and now Metro/Zune look. MacOS has it's own layout. For Linux.. well... let me say that Gnome and KDE, the major xWindows, tries to be Windows 95, but not exactly to avoid potential lawsuit from Microsoft, and ads useless features like over the top animated window going "Me too, I can do like Vista! No wait, look how over the top it is, even when you drag a window it does wacky animation... ooooouuuuuuuu, be impressed! be impressed! oh god please be impressed! I am begging you!". This team, can focus on settings guidelines to the OS user interface and developer on how to layout things for developers. This will also make software have a consistent layuot. The problem with this, mean that xWindows system will be gone. You'll have only 1x GUI, as else, other software interface won't work (as it would be using the API code for this new GUI design, and not another, unless implemented as well), and/or it will make programs look out of place in the other xWindows environment. Like if you take a MacOS application, and put it as is into Windows, without a single layout change. Meaning it will be missing it's menu bar, for starters.

They are more issues, but the above, is in my view, the big culprit.

Oh and the above stuff on the UI can't be done by a distro, as again, programs won't fit in. So I know what I am saying means this massive restructure and redirection of Linux. But I think, if they want Linux to compete against Windows, seriously, that is what they need to do.
AmEv 30th September 2012, 04:06 Quote
I use KDE personally, and I have turned off a LOT of the eyecandy. Even linux-fan me says that's taking things a bit far. I find that KDE is a simple interface, but powerful enough to set it to how you like it.
schmidtbag 30th September 2012, 04:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
The problem with OpenGL is that its a pain in the ass to program. And just until recently, we only have some sort of half ass debugger which only works for AMD graphic cards.
I've never coded in either OpenGL or directX but I have heard DX was easier. Easier isn't always better though. What you're doing is like comparing java to C++. One is a bit easier than the other, they both perform very comparably, they can both overall accomplish the same things, but one allows more microoptimizations than the other. OpenGL is so widely used because its relatively easy to make it work on any platform you need and remove features you don't care about, and then make it perform great on crappy hardware. that's why console games can work on hardware that was considered mediocre even when they were new.
Quote:

The problem with Linux are, in my view:
-> Too many distro's
-> Software don't work between distro's easily.
-> No easy install/uninstall system like in Windows.
-> Tries to be too much like Windows, but tries to differentiate itself. The UI has no focus. The exception is Ubuntu Unity interface.
-> Abysmal font rendering and OS fonts. (no effort, plain and simple. I know font rendering is very complicated, but it's being put aside for other stuff, when it's critical for the OS day to day usage)
-> The developer community is too focus in maintenance the OS, and working on the core and NOT working on the front end (user experience).
-> Developer community and support community in general, aren't helpful, and don't like lay people (computer illiterates). Even Linux new comers aren't welcome in most communities.
-> Developer community isn't ready to dumb down the OS, and let go of the Terminal, which is a critical step in opening the OS to lay people. If you think the Start Screen/ Desktop switch is bad, then Linux with its constant need of the terminal is astonishing.
-> Applications don't follow any standard GUI guidelines
-> Applications aren't focus for easy usability. Example, look at the option panel. In most Linux program, you are blasted with options, while good, most of them are useless, and simply buries with other more important options. This makes configuration programs difficult. VLC has a good balance approach. You have the standard settings, but you have a button to access advance options, where, now, you are buried in options. So it satisfies both group. Ideally is to not have this advance option section at all, but it is a step in the right direction.
Ill do this one by one as you did:
- I agree, there are way too many distros. however, you can easily ignore most of them as they either serve a specific purpose (such as servers, recovery live CDs, uncommon platform, etc) or are blatantly half-assed. In my book there's maybe only 5 distros worth a bother for desktop and server users.
- Most software does work fine between distros. If you have a Debian based distro, the majority of modern packages will work. If you intend to use older programs, centos is probably the better bet. But, lets say you use something like Arch. You can still install dpkg for the small amount of programs that aren't available, and you can install alien to convert the remainder packages to work with dpkg.
- Linux is extremely easy with install/uninstall. Everything is pretty much in 1 place. Everything updates together, there's no stupid waste of time setup wizard, and you can skip the entire step of google searching something and either do a package search or install it directly in a command line. it might not be the prettiest way to get something but it sure is a hell of a lot faster and CONSISTENT.
- Absolutey false. This is the exact stereotype that Linux wants to avoid. It never was and never has attempted to be like windows. While I agree some desktop environments are a little inconsistent and share features of windows, you can't expect to get into the OS and treat it like windows. If you do, you get confused and frustrated. Forget everything you know about windows and it gets easier.
- What problems do you get with font rendering? it's fine for me
- You do realize Linux is a community project, right? If someone is developing the kernel, they're not obligated to drop what they're doing to fix a GUI they might not even use. That would be like telling a game developer at Microsoft to work on Internet explorer.
- The friendliness of the community depends on your question and what distro you use. If you ask a question like "Where is synaptic package manager?" when you're running Gentoo, you're going to get impatient community members. If you ask "why can't I play <insert windows game>" without specifying anything you tried, then on any forum you'll get impatient members. While there aren't many up to date useful guides on where to begin with Linux, some people ask questions that are just simply ignorant.
- Linux doesn't rely on the terminal anymore, assuming you don't screw up something. Do you know why people give you apt-get commands and the like? it's because it's more informative to answer your question, it's a LOT faster than clicking your way through, and unlike the windows CLI, the Linux CLI is actually practical. I use the terminal nearly every day by choice. I don't need to, I want to.
- If you install a KDE program on a GTK based environment, then yea, you're going to get that problem. Desktop environments tend to revolve around a toolkit, so if you get a program that uses a different toolkit, you'll need to install 50+MB worth of packages and it won't visually fit. However, windows gets this same problem. The only difference is Windows corrects the graphics between every toolkit to match your current theme, so you don't notice it so easily.
- This problem depends on your distro, I know openSUSE has this problem. I have a Linux setup that doesn't even have a control panel. I customized it so I have a folder with maybe 5 preference changers. I can customize my system just as much as the windows control panel (which btw has the problem you're complaining about) but all the things I need to customize I can do by keyboard shortcuts that I created, or pop up when I need them to.

Regarding the paragraph you mentioned after, as I've said before, Linux is a community and it isn't supposed to be treated as a monolithic interface, so if that's what you expect then you won't be happy. As for stuff like compiz, only the Linux noobs use that to impress people. I rely on built in kernel abilities to show off my Linux setup, such as direct access to symlinks, creating RAM drives, pausing and killing processes, multiple workspaces, and multiple users on 1 computer.
GoodBytes 30th September 2012, 05:06 Quote
For the font rendering issue, is that the font is hard to read. Changing the font to something more readable, or "thin" makes things worse. Every version of Windows, Microsoft improves, either or both it's main font, or its front rendering engine, and you can see this. Small steps, as it's its not easy stuff, especially if you want an optimize solution. Firefox took a lot of time to get its font rendering good since they integrated hardware accelerated engine system, and that's just a web browser... the underlining of the font rendering system is already done. So I don't expect, by tomorrow, to have Linux font easy to read and clean looking like in Windows 7, but its been how many years since someone touched this under Linux?

Anyway,

I program in OpenGL (GLSL shading language) at my work. They are several reason for this, but it was mainly due that we had clients on both, Linux and Windows. Now, we focus more on Windows environment as we have no longer any clients in Linux. If we ever decides to scrap what we have, and start from scratch, we will be using DirectX. I have only touched a bit DirectX, and I can tell you. DirectX is a peace of cake in comparison to OpenGL.

Your comparison between C++ and Java is.. not great... But I read between the lines, and know what you are trying to say. So it's all good. The reason why OpenGL is popular is because of console gaming. DirectX is exclusive for Windows. And even if Microsoft opens DirectX up to other platforms, you won't have Visual Studio, which is a key part of debugging DirectX. The XBox supports DirectX, as this was the ultimate allure for getting developers, make games for it. BTW, fun fact, Nintendo strength is it's easy to program, and has the best developer tools. Nintendo has always been master at that. This is of course, comparing to the other consoles, not PC.
schmidtbag 30th September 2012, 05:29 Quote
Have a screenshot? I just can't think of a place where fonts are hard to read, or even visually ugly (like no AA). You can download the MS fonts, the free open source ones might have render issues I'm not sure. IIRC, there are certain desktop environments and GPU settings that can impact fonts specifically. I think kwin has this feature somewhere.

I figured someone would have commented on my java vs C comparison and I know myself it isn't perfect, but you got the gist of my point and that's what's important. Anyways, I wouldn't say visual studio is a necessity for DX, just as you don't require to use the barebone libraries of OpenGL when there are several engines or shortcut libraries to ease the pain of using it. you mentioned yourself that Nintendo makes development easy, and games look relatively nice in wii and GameCube considering how abysmal the hardware is. That being said, if you used such a library for the software you develop, you'd probably lose the same amount of performance as DX and your job would be a lot easier.

While I know my last post was lengthy, you might get something useful out of it if you intend to seriously go after Linux again. I've used it for about 5 years now and didn't have anyone to help me. Learning it surprisingly gave me a lot of respect for macs.
AmEv 30th September 2012, 22:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
- If you install a KDE program on a GTK based environment, then yea, you're going to get that problem. Desktop environments tend to revolve around a toolkit, so if you get a program that uses a different toolkit, you'll need to install 50+MB worth of packages and it won't visually fit. However, windows gets this same problem. The only difference is Windows corrects the graphics between every toolkit to match your current theme, so you don't notice it so easily.

I'd like to add something quickly: I have QuickScan on my Kubuntu install, a GTK app.


When I first got it, it didn't look quite right. Clearly a GTK app.

After a few updates, I could barely tell that it was GTK at all, the integration was near perfect.

So, yes, while it may have been true a few years ago, it isn't true anymore.
lp rob1 30th September 2012, 23:49 Quote
Wow, it seems I missed quite a significant flame war. Seeing as it is my favourite topic, here is my view:

GoodBytes is perfectly right in saying that DX has better documentation and tools than OpenGL. Documentation is always a tricky thing to cover completely, and with a massive specification like OpenGL it takes time, and sometimes even money to make proper documentation. As DX is backed with billions, if not trillions of dollars, documentation gets its own team, while with GL it is left as an afterthought to the whole 'make it faster, add more features' objective.
As for the tools - there are more DX tools simply because it is used in more products than GL. Many companies who would pay nice royalties to use debugging tools create quite a demand for effective tools. Again, see above for why OpenGL lacks sometimes.

Now to the whole Linux vs Windows thing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
The problem with Linux are, in my view:
-> Too many distro's
-> Software don't work between distro's easily.
-> No easy install/uninstall system like in Windows.
-> Tries to be too much like Windows, but tries to differentiate itself. The UI has no focus.
-> Abysmal font rendering and OS fonts. (no effort, plain and simple.
-> The developer community is too focus in maintenance the OS, and working on the core and NOT working on the front end (user experience).
-> Developer community and support community in general, aren't helpful, and don't like lay people (computer illiterates).
-> Developer community isn't ready to dumb down the OS, and let go of the Terminal, ...
-> Applications don't follow any standard GUI guidelines
-> Applications aren't focus for easy usability.
  • Too many? For a beginner, yes, but this is what Canonical are trying to do by promoting Ubuntu as a beginner-friendly Linux distro. Too many is also subjective to the individual.
  • Wherever you heard that software between distros hits incompatibilities - it was either written in 1998 or was an outright lie. You install the libraries (often done automatically), you build or install a binary file - it will work. Again, Canonical are making this whole process easy so that 'normal' people do not need to build their applications from source.
  • Wow. I did not think that someone as smart as you would say something like this. Actually use Synaptic Package Manager, or even the Ubuntu Software Centre if you are so inclined, and say that again. Compare that to having to download everything manually, then install each package one by one.
  • 'Tries to be too much like Windows'. When a design works well, it is going to be used in many places. The GUI layout of bars at the top and/or at the bottom, with applications showing up as individual boxes and background processes showing a basic interface in a secluded area of the screen (aka the tray) - this is an example of a good GUI layout that many people find effective and is actually quite efficient, therefore many platforms use it. Linux isn't trying to be like Windows - it is just that both Windows and Linux share the same philosophy of presenting a GUI that appeals to its users, and is efficient. This is why Unity got such an uproar when it was included by default into Ubuntu - most of the Ubuntu users are used to the classic menu bars style, and Unity simply isn't efficient for production use. There are people that I know that like Unity and use it on a daily basis, but these are people that use their computer mainly for gaming and basic work, not heavy computer based work (like programming).
  • I have heard you bring this one up many times, but personally I have found no problems what so ever with the fonts on Ubuntu or other Linux distros. It may just be that it only occurs in certain distros that you work with, and not the ones that I work with. Or it may be subjective as before.


Now take a breather before going on to the next section.

  • For the Linux and application developers - yes, core program stability is the number one priority. This is why we have projects such as GTK+ and Qt, that attempt to provide a standardised graphical interface and ABI, thus taking that load off the application developer, at the same time as standardising the look of the user's desktop.
  • Perhaps on mailing lists, and technological forums, yes this is true. But there are also plenty of forums dedicated to 'newbies'. If someone came on this forum and asked for help on how to get their web browser out of 'big window' mode (fullscreen), we would all laugh quietly to ourselves and move on to a different topic, wouldn't we?
  • Developers do not want to dumb down the OS because they use it, and they require access to advanced tools. It is organisations such as Canonical that take the advanced versions of applications and package it into a 'dumbed down' OS for 'normal' people to use. The inverse is true for Windows - there are many things that I can do on Linux with ease which I cannot do in Windows, like open a Terminal/CMD at a folder, or save a screenshot without needing to open something to paste it into. Yes, there are probably applications to do it for me, but this is basic enough to be part of the core functionality.
  • See above for the GTK+ and Qt talk. It is up to the developer to decide on which library they want to use, and each library presents a different UI. Although, as AmEv said, it is still possible to get them to merge together seamlessly. The reason this doesn't happen on Windows is that developers are basically locked into using Win32 - with Linux this isn't the case.
  • There are plenty of applications for Windows that do not focus on useability. There are also plenty of applications for Linux that do focus on useability. Ubuntu happens to package these 'usable' applications by default. Sometimes I replace them with other things because they do not give me enough freedom to do what I want. No easy way to do that with Windows though... (for core programs)

I hope that wasn't too much of a block of text, but I really do hate it when people spout out of date idioms to the internet, and sit high up on their Righteous Seat while doing it.
GoodBytes 1st October 2012, 02:41 Quote
Just to be clear, I was expressing my opinion, not facts. It's all subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lp rob1

[*]Too many? For a beginner, yes, but this is what Canonical are trying to do by promoting Ubuntu as a beginner-friendly Linux distro. Too many is also subjective to the individual.
Excluding the "special destro". Even if you have 2 distro.. it's 1 too much.
Already most consumer can't even tell if they have XP, or Windows 7, let alone get confused with Office. It's a mess for the consumer, and a headache to all. Imagine you buy an HP computer, with Linux, and people go "Oh Linux sucks it's choppy, and not responsive". Then you go 'Nooooooo!! It's not Linux, it's the studio xWindows made by HP, it's made with people that don't have a clue on optimization due to their lack of any proper education, etc..."
Basically, exactly like what Android is. I can't even count the number of conversation of Android users complaining about how Android sucks, despite their super fancy speed phone, and you have other Android going "You need to root it, and get this and do that... the default distro sucks" What a headache to all. I don't even have a cellphone, and I am annoyed by all this.
Quote:
[*]Wherever you heard that software between distros hits incompatibilities - it was either written in 1998 or was an outright lie.
got you.
Quote:

You install the libraries (often done automatically), you build or install a binary file - it will work. Again, Canonical are making this whole process easy so that 'normal' people do not need to build their applications from source.

[*]Wow. I did not think that someone as smart as you would say something like this. Actually use Synaptic Package Manager, or even the Ubuntu Software Center if you are so inclined, and say that again. Compare that to having to download everything manually, then install each package one by one.
Ok here is the big problem with Linux. Any open source or free project for Windows, you ALWAYS have binary, ready to be used. In Linux, the main author doesn't provide, many times, binaries. They are like: here is the source code, compile it yourself because I am too lazy. I hate this, I don't go: "Yea get Visual Studio Express, here it my source code, compiling it, and leave me alone". No! You just don't do that. And the main problem with this, is that you ALWAYS, missing something to make it work:
-> Designed for an older compiler, and code or configuration or makefile needs to be updated to make it work
-> Missing libraries.

That's what I like about Windows.. you see a software, you want it, you hit download, run the setup, enjoy!

Under Linux, in order to get something as easy to install, you need to use some package manager, hope the software is inside, and install it form there. If you are going to do this system, at least have it regulated, like iOS or Windows 8 Store.

It has nothing to do with smartness. I know I CAN do all of this. It's easy for me, but is it convenient? Not so much. The worst part is that you have NOTHING blocking someone with enough time on his hand to do a setup manager like in Windows. All you need, is to have an executable that contains a the program in some fashion compressed, and easy to decompress. And simply have, in the OS, a panel where you see a lit of installed via that method, programs. It's nothing more than an entry in a database, which has the name of the program, and the path to the executable of the uninstaller.

Quote:
[*]'Tries to be too much like Windows'. When a design works well, it is going to be used in many places. The GUI layout of bars at the top and/or at the bottom, with applications showing up as individual boxes and background processes showing a basic interface in a secluded area of the screen (aka the tray) - this is an example of a good GUI layout that many people find effective and is actually quite efficient, therefore many platforms use it.

Linux isn't trying to be like Windows - it is just that both Windows and Linux share the same philosophy of presenting a GUI that appeals to its users, and is efficient. This is why Unity got such an uproar when it was included by default into Ubuntu - most of the Ubuntu users are used to the classic menu bars style, and Unity simply isn't efficient for production use. There are people that I know that like Unity and use it on a daily basis, but these are people that use their computer mainly for gaming and basic work, not heavy computer based work (like programming).
That is not what I am saying. I know that. Its xWindows environment that simply copies Windows prototype or official feature.
Simple example, which everyone that touch Linux at some time in their life knows. Windows 98 has the the silly IE icon on the corner of each window. Immediately after KDE has the same thing. Longhorn is shown with the file property on the left side... KDE copies that. Search bar on all folder windows.. it's being copied. Gadgets.. Widgets (well to be fair it's from MacOS), live preview, copied. Of course I am pointing the most KDE, because they are the most guilty of this. Gnome in the other hand is actually taking its own approach, design, and vision, lately. So big tip of the hat to them.

Quote:

[*]I have heard you bring this one up many times, but personally I have found no problems what so ever with the fonts on Ubuntu or other Linux distros. It may just be that it only occurs in certain distros that you work with, and not the ones that I work with. Or it may be subjective as before.
[/LIST]
Ok let's have a look.
I took this screenshot: http://www.gnome.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/files-recent.png, and cropped it. This is a PNG file, which is Gnome 3 (latest version), so we know there is no jpeg compression, or an old version, and it's directly from Gnome official website: http://www.gnome.org/gnome-3/

Let's have it a look (I cropped it, and kept everything in super high quality, and still in PNG):
Original:
http://www.helpweaver.com/linux.png

Now, I have a quick work, but here it how it look, if Gnome 3 used Windows 7 font engine:
http://www.helpweaver.com/windows.png

Go download both, and compare by switching between the 2. Notice how Windows 7 font engine, is able to display its font crisp and sharp, making it easier to read, while under Linux its a blurry, and more difficult to read in consequence.
The most obvious one, is "Timetable.pdf". Look at the Linux one, notice how the T and e is blurry.

You can see how Linux looks so much attractive with a better font rendering engine, and actual font.
Quote:

[*]Perhaps on mailing lists, and technological forums, yes this is true. But there are also plenty of forums dedicated to 'newbies'. If someone came on this forum and asked for help on how to get their web browser out of 'big window' mode (fullscreen), we would all laugh quietly to ourselves and move on to a different topic, wouldn't we?
Nope. I would explain, and point to Windows OS document, which is filled with diagram, and easy to understand terminology, where each sentences has been thoroughly thought out to be 100% clear.
Quote:
Developers do not want to dumb down the OS because they use it, and they require access to advanced tools. It is organisations such as Canonical that take the advanced versions of applications and package it into a 'dumbed down' OS for 'normal' people to use. The inverse is true for Windows - there are many things that I can do on Linux with ease which I cannot do in Windows, like open a Terminal/CMD at a folder, or save a screenshot without needing to open something to paste it into. Yes, there are probably applications to do it for me, but this is basic enough to be part of the core functionality.
You can do all that in Windows.
Legacy Windows: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/320148
Windows 8:
http://media.askvg.com/articles/images3/Windows_8_Explorer_Ribbon_File_Menu.png

As for screen shot:
- Win+Print Screen (Windows 8) (saves screen shot as PNG in Picture folder)
- Snipping Tool for Vista and 7
Quote:
[*]See above for the GTK+ and Qt talk. It is up to the developer to decide on which library they want to use, and each library presents a different UI. Although, as AmEv said, it is still possible to get them to merge together seamlessly. The reason this doesn't happen on Windows is that developers are basically locked into using Win32 - with Linux this isn't the case.
Exactly, like on MacOS and Windows, it should be locked. Beside you are not really locked. How many programs in Widows decides to use it's own thing, let alone GTK+ and QT. It's not a hard lock in Windows.
jrs77 1st October 2012, 03:30 Quote
For the font on linux... Use Arial or any other bitmap-compatible font and select "monochrome" for rendering. Your text will be as crisp as possible.

For hardware-issues... I'm using Ubuntu 10.10 LTS on my Thinkpad x121e (i3-2357M with UMTS). It works like a charm and even manages the integrated UMTS-slot. Trackpad and Thumbstick work out of the box aswell.
Yes it might have some issues with more specialized hardware, but even Windows and OSX might have some issues with some specialized hardware.

For OpenGL vs DX... Microsoft is funding DX with tons of money, supporting the developers with tools and documentation. OpenGL is opensource and doesn't have these ressources available. Still OpenGL is basically as good as DX when we talk about the graphic results. The only thing currently missing in OpenGL 4 is tesselation when we talk about graphics.
Sure DX offers input, sound and stuff like that, but that can aswell be done without DX.
So yeah, coding in OpenGL and for Linux might be more difficult, but atleast you're not restricted by Microsoft.

Win8 will be a real test for Microsoft when it comes to gaming, as Microsoft requires all software to certify.
Blizzard and Valve have allready stated that they refuse to support Windows, aswell as Notch (the Minecraft-reator).

Win8 certification is required for the Win8-marketplace, and gamestudios need to pay money to Microsoft to get there, just like Apples iTunes. So Microsoft is trying to lock down their OS basically.

So we'll see how many devs might consider OpenGL in the future to get around Microsoft and DX.
GoodBytes 1st October 2012, 03:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
For the font on linux... Use Arial or any other bitmap-compatible font and select "monochrome" for rendering. Your text will be as crisp as possible.
Won't that make me lose the font smoothness, and then the font will look like Windows 9x?
If not, then why it's not default? Why set as default, a primitive font rendering engine?
Quote:

Win8 will be a real test for Microsoft when it comes to gaming, as Microsoft requires all software to certify.
No it does not. If the software is not certified, then if SmartFilter is enabled it will marked the program as unsafe, and the user will get a warning. The SmartFilter is based on popularity. If a program is popular it won't prompt for anything. SmartFilter can be disabled, And you are asked if you want to enable/disable it as you login for the first time in the account.
Quote:

Blizzard and Valve have allready stated that they refuse to support Windows, aswell as Notch (the Minecraft-reator).
None said that. Only Notch. Blizzard and Valve said that they finds Windows 8 not good.
Quote:
Win8 certification is required for the Win8-marketplace, and gamestudios need to pay money to Microsoft to get there, just like Apples iTunes. So Microsoft is trying to lock down their OS basically.
If you want to make a Metro app, then yes. The fees are less than Apple.
Quote:
So we'll see how many devs might consider OpenGL in the future to get around Microsoft and DX.
That won't change anything on Windows side.
GuilleAcoustic 1st October 2012, 08:56 Quote
As a professionnal 3D engine developper, I can tell you that OpenGL is not more difficult than D3D. I purposely used the old name D3D as DX is the whole package, including input, sound, network, etc.

This is exactly why devs do not want to use OGL. Dx offers everything in a single package. But you have portable alternative like OPENAL for sound, etc.

The point about book, code sample is purely not acceptable. I never had hard time finding book or white paper or tricks about OPENGL. And to be honest, the best books about 3D are the ones that makes total abstraction of the coding languagr and hardware.

Then I arrive at my final point : dev are too lazy ! If you do not want to learn and find things by yourself, then don't be a dev as a living. Programming is all about learning and studying for you entire "life". And this is the most interesting part of coding, finding solutions, not just using pre-made piece of code.

I do not see the link between ogl and the font rendering. It sounds more like linux vs windows. The strength of linux is that you can change it if you don't like it. With windows, you're stuck with what microsoft gives to you.

Software install / unsintall .... have you used a linux distro recently ? even 3 years Ubundu had an easier tools than windows.

On some points win is better than linux, and on others it's the opposite. They are just different. It's the sale for ogl vs dx, dev should just take they fingers off their ar$$.
lp rob1 1st October 2012, 19:36 Quote
Package Managers

I want to focus on your statement 'Under Linux, in order to get something as easy to install, you need to use some package manager, hope the software is inside, and install it form there.'. What that should have read, is that under most common Linux distros, in order to get something to install easily, you go to the package manager and install it. Nothing more, nothing less. All common, and some exotic pieces of software for Linux are packaged into nice easily installable packages in the package manager. Select the ones you want and click 'Go'.

With Windows you need to do every step manually, for each individual program. Bulk installers such as Ninite have managed to get the situation a little closer to the unified package manager system, but it supports few packages in total and is missing quite a few important ones. The reason that Windows cannot have a package manager system is that developers of software hold all the rights to the software, including the right to distribute it. Therefore a manager whereby you select the packages and it downloads and installs them in the package manager will not work.
The way Ninite and other installers do it is by interfacing with the installers from the developer, sometimes with tweaked installers made just for this purpose, that automates the process. The installer is downloaded from the developer's website, and no rights are broken. But again, the problem is that installers need to be specially designed to work with bulk installers like this, and many developers do not want to create them. And so we go back to the problem of no package manager.

As for the whole idea that the package managers in common Linux distros are not regulated - they effectively are. By default in Ubuntu, the only sources available are the official sources which are strictly regulated for maximum stability on every software package. Should a user want either more exotic software not available in the default channels, or a bleeding edge version of some software, they are free to add a PPA (in the case of Ubuntu) that will add or replace the software packages available in the package manager. This integrates perfectly with the package manager and the install process becomes as seamless as with the default channels.
Actually, this whole package manager discussion actually answers your other gripe - that developers do not release binaries for Linux. This is true to a degree, for the reason that each Linux system is different in the placings of libraries, as well as versions. This is why package managers were developed in the first place - all dependencies are sorted out automatically when you install a package, and all libraries are in default paths that are the same for every system using that particular distro. On Windows, the system is that a software package installer needs to decide whether the dependencies are met on that system - if not, it needs to download and install the required libraries at the same time. Unfortunately, this system doesn't update the libraries when a newer version is available, and often will only work with older versions of that library. This is why most Windows systems have Visual C++ 2005 Redistributable, 2008, x64 versions etc. With Linux it is all kept in one central place (the package manager) that makes sure each packages dependencies are met, and that all libraries are of the correct version.

Fonts

Although the Windows style font is a more traditional looking font that is proven to be legible and efficient, I actually prefer the look of the first font. And yes, in some senses it is more difficult to read than the traditional font, but rmebemer taht the hmuan mnid rades wrdos as a wlhoe, rtaehr tahn as idviunidal lrteetrs, and that is why you could read that without really thinking all that much. But I digress, fonts are a personal choice, and while Linux makes it easy to change system fonts and the rendering engine if one so wishes to, Windows makes it painfully difficult to do so (go to Control Panel -> Appearance and Personalization -> Personalization -> Window Color -> Advanced appearance settings... -> choose the item you want -> change the font. Note that you have to do the last bit for every item that uses a font - there is no 'change the default font' setting).

Windows UI Decisions (bad ones)

So to be able to right click and open a CMD here, I need to go into the registry? Even for a seasoned geek like me, the registry is still a scary and unforgiving place. I wouldn't poke a registry with a metaphorical stick, if a digital one existed.

The Snipping Tool on the other hand strikes me as useful, just hidden away by needing to go into the start menu to access it, or having to change the keyboard layout to configure it to open on Print Screen.

Other things

I am going to leave the discussion on too many distros right here. I think that the notion of too many is subjective and open to the perceptions of different people. In my humble opinion, people are educated enough to realise that Ubuntu is the main Linux distro out there. If there are some people that cannot tell XP from 7, then fair enough, but they are most likely part of the previous generation of Digital Tourists (whereas most of us on here are Digital Locals).
This is also my answer to your musings that Linux should have a locked down windowing system - while some hate choosing between competing products, others relish the chance to choose what they like best. I believe this is what our entire worlds business model is based on, no?
GoodBytes 1st October 2012, 20:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lp rob1
Package Managers

I want to focus on your statement 'Under Linux, in order to get something as easy to install, you need to use some package manager, hope the software is inside, and install it form there.'. What that should have read, is that under most common Linux distros, in order to get something to install easily, you go to the package manager and install it. Nothing more, nothing less. All common, and some exotic pieces of software for Linux are packaged into nice easily installable packages in the package manager. Select the ones you want and click 'Go'.
What if the program I want isn't in the package manager? It's brand new, I want it.
What if I make a program, but I don't want to provide it to the mass. What if I have a Beta version to give to a user? Plus, I lose control of my installation by putting it on the package manager.
Quote:
With Windows you need to do every step manually, for each individual program. Bulk installers such as Ninite have managed to get the situation a little closer to the unified package manager system, but it supports few packages in total and is missing quite a few important ones. The reason that Windows cannot have a package manager system is that developers of software hold all the rights to the software, including the right to distribute it. Therefore a manager whereby you select the packages and it downloads and installs them in the package manager will not work.
Exactly, and I don't want anyone else touch my setup with my permission. The last thing I want is malware with my software or ads delivered with my software, where I am not getting a penny. Including useless toolbars.
Quote:
As for the whole idea that the package managers in common Linux distros are not regulated - they effectively are.
So they are regulated or not? If they are not, then allow me to post malware on it. This is dangerous, as it makes people think its a safe place, but its not regulated. Imagine every Windows program, including malware and viruses, that exists on that Linux package manager. Not only it will be a huge mess, but with the number ofo application using the same name and icon as another, but has malware or a virus in it, would be astonishing. It needs to be regulated. Like a retail store. Retail store decide if a product maked to the shelf or not. Those that are rejected/

Quote:
By default in Ubuntu, the only sources available are the official sources which are strictly regulated for maximum stability on every software package. Should a user want either more exotic software not available in the default channels, or a bleeding edge version of some software, they are free to add a PPA (in the case of Ubuntu) that will add or replace the software packages available in the package manager. This integrates perfectly with the package manager and the install process becomes as seamless as with the default channels.
If it's a click of a button, then ok.
Quote:

Actually, this whole package manager discussion actually answers your other gripe - that developers do not release binaries for Linux. This is true to a degree, for the reason that each Linux system is different in the placings of libraries, as well as versions. This is why package managers were developed in the first place - all dependencies are sorted out automatically when you install a package, and all libraries are in default paths that are the same for every system using that particular distro. On Windows, the system is that a software package installer needs to decide whether the dependencies are met on that system - if not, it needs to download and install the required libraries at the same time. Unfortunately, this system doesn't update the libraries when a newer version is available, and often will only work with older versions of that library. This is why most Windows systems have Visual C++ 2005 Redistributable, 2008, x64 versions etc. With Linux it is all kept in one central place (the package manager) that makes sure each packages dependencies are met, and that all libraries are of the correct version.
The reason why it doesn't update the libraries, is that some program might not work properly with the new library files. You don't need to have the "Visual C++ 2005 Redistributable". You can have all the dll files with the program. Some are just lazy and installs the entire package of library files, even if they just use 1 dll file. Stupid and lazy people are everywhere.

Fonts
Although the Windows style font is a more traditional looking font that is proven to be legible and efficient, I actually prefer the look of the first font.[/quote]
Ya right.

[quote]And yes, in some senses it is more difficult to read than the traditional font, but rmebemer taht the hmuan mnid rades wrdos as a wlhoe, rtaehr tahn as idviunidal lrteetrs, [/quote]
Wow, I know I do typos a lot, but come on! I don't understand a thing. Sorry dude. I'll wait until you edit that. :)
Anyway, if you think the Linux font is easier to read, than I think you need a new monitor.


[quote]But I digress, fonts are a personal choice, and while Linux makes it easy to change system fonts and the rendering engine if one so wishes to, Windows makes it painfully difficult to do so (go to Control Panel -> Appearance and Personalization -> Personalization -> Window Color -> Advanced appearance settings... -> choose the item you want -> change the font. Note that you have to do the last bit for every item that uses a font - there is no 'change the default font' setting).[/quote]
I don't think you ever used Windows.
First of all, you can adjust the ClearType level with a nice cool wizard. Start > type: Font, and you have all the font related options. Also, it's available in Personalization panel. Also the cool thing about windows, is that you can click on the picture which font you want to change, and picks it from the box. Makes it easy to know what you are changing, plus you can mix font based on your preferences.


Windows UI Decisions (bad ones)
So to be able to right click and open a CMD here, I need to go into the registry? Even for a seasoned geek like me, the registry is still a scary and unforgiving place. I wouldn't poke a registry with a metaphorical stick, if a digital one existed.
[/quote]
That was for legacy Windows.
GuilleAcoustic 1st October 2012, 20:10 Quote
it turned into a linux windows fight ....
GoodBytes 1st October 2012, 20:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuilleAcoustic
it turned into a linux windows fight ....

No it has not. You have not read the thread since the beginning.
lp rob1 2nd October 2012, 18:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodBytes
No it has not. You have not read the thread since the beginning.

The original topic was that Steam is coming to Linux. Now it is a slagging match between me and you about Linux vs Windows. So I guess it is time to spend another half an hour attempting to rationalize your arguments...

If the program you want is not in the official repositories, then there is a high likelihood that it is in a PPA or the equivalent if it is geared to be a consumer-friendly release. This also weeds out those true developmental programs from those that a developer actually wants to work for the masses. If they put their program in a PPA and/or get it included in the repositories, then they have taken the first step into getting normal people using their software.
Of course, there are also those developmental or cutting-edge software that is not available from the repository. Often there is a PPA for the developers themselves to ease installation as a team, but when there isn't, you just have to remember that this is developmental software not geared for public use. It is designed for the developers (who compile their software on a daily basis) and 'beta-testers' (who need to know how to compile things). The common man never needs to use a beta release like this, and shouldn't anyway as the release is probably full of bugs and very unstable. In fact, if you read my comment on how the Ubuntu official repositories are regulated for stable software, this explains why beta software is often not in there.

Please do not quote only part of my reply on that topic. You say that 'Are they regulated, or are they not?'. If you quoted that entire section as one instead of that one line, that statement is irrelevant and invalid.

Now, the dreaded Redistributables. Although it often makes sense to only include the DLLs that a program needs, there are benefits to going the shared library approach, for both the developer and the user. This still doesn't explain why newer versions of the library cannot simply expand over the previous library, instead of creating a completely new one.

I do not believe that I ever said that I thought the first Linux font was easier to read. I just said that it looked nicer. Fonts, along with most customizable options, are a personal preference (that's why it comes under Personalization in Windows).
And that sentence reads to most people: but remember that the human mind reads words as a whole, rather than as individual letters. There was actually some research done on this at Cambridge, which proves to be an interesting read.

As for changing fonts for the entire system easily - nope, the method that you describe is changing the look of ClearType fonts, not the actual font. To do that I either need to go into the registry or change the font of each element manually - both arduous tasks.
And finally - the registry. It is still horrendous, even in Windows 7. Personally I think that any kind of registry structure is bad for application data, as each application often needs to do things differently than the next one, but directories like the registry enforces a schema. I much prefer the configuration file system, which is easily maintainable.
GoodBytes 2nd October 2012, 18:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lp rob1
The original topic was that Steam is coming to Linux. Now it is a slagging match between me and you about Linux vs Windows. So I guess it is time to spend another half an hour attempting to rationalize your arguments...
You are the one that is making this into a flame war. I just expressed my opinion onto why I think Linux won't get widely adopted. It is my opinion, based on my experience with Linux. I mentioned that several times.

I never said that Windows has 100% perfect everywhere, at every version of Windows, either.

My opinion stated that Linux isn't ready for the mass market yet. People say that the WiiU won't sale at all, and be Nintendo biggest flop. That's fine. That's their opinion. Unlike Windows 8 bashers, I provided points.
It's one thing saying "Windows 8 is a catastrophe", and another saying "I don't think it will be good, because of this, that, and this and that". I maybe wrong, which I invite anyone to clear this up. Which you did. But you are the one turning this as a flame war.

I guess next time, I'll go and say "Linux (or wtv OS) sucks! It's crap, A 5 year old kid can do better in 5min. Yea it will be a black screen, and it would better than Linux". And just leave. But I am not an idiot, nor a troll. I provide reason to what I don't like, and try to understanding the vision behind the OS or product.
Quote:
Please do not quote only part of my reply on that topic. You say that 'Are they regulated, or are they not?'. If you quoted that entire section as one instead of that one line, that statement is irrelevant and invalid.
The quote was for reference purposes. If I did not reply correctly, that means simply I didn't understand you properly.

Quote:
Now, the dreaded Redistributables. Although it often makes sense to only include the DLLs that a program needs, there are benefits to going the shared library approach, for both the developer and the user. This still doesn't explain why newer versions of the library cannot simply expand over the previous library, instead of creating a completely new one.
My and your current knowledge can't answer that reason. I am sure Microsoft has its reason.
My only guess is that Microsoft deprecated code, and replaced with new ones. Some software might work, other, very old, might not. I guess, that the reason why the deprecated them, is to have a more powerful versions of the function, in either providing more info or be adapted to modern hardware, all by not having a mess of old API codes. This is my assumption. Maybe in a few more of years of experience in my work field, I'll better be able to answer this.

Quote:
I do not believe that I ever said that I thought the first Linux font was easier to read. I just said that it looked nicer.
So you admit that what I was saying is true. Why don't you simply admit it then. "Yes, I agree, it's not Linux xWindows forte, yet".
Quote:

Fonts, along with most customizable options, are a personal preference (that's why it comes under Personalization in Windows).
And that sentence reads to most people: but remember that the human mind reads words as a whole, rather than as individual letters. There was actually some research done on this at Cambridge, which proves to be an interesting read.
Good point. But I think, if you can make it better, do it.
Quote:

As for changing fonts for the entire system easily - nope,
Heuu yes. The option is there in Personalization panel. However, Microosft did decide to remove it in Windows 8. So you'll be right after October 26.
Quote:

the method that you describe is changing the look of ClearType fonts, not the actual font. To do that I either need to go into the registry or change the font of each element manually - both arduous tasks.
That was to inform, that if you prefer Linux font look, than you can get something like this using ClearType panel.
Quote:

And finally - the registry. It is still horrendous, even in Windows 7. Personally I think that any kind of registry structure is bad for application data, as each application often needs to do things differently than the next one, but directories like the registry enforces a schema. I much prefer the configuration file system, which is easily maintainable.
Software can choose either. Some uses ini (or any text base file they want), other choose to use the registry. Other choose to mix things up.
GuilleAcoustic 2nd October 2012, 18:53 Quote
I'm learning many things, thanks to you too :D .... please go on, but without the flames
lp rob1 2nd October 2012, 20:26 Quote
First off, I apologize that I referred to this thread as a 'slagging match', and I apologize for giving the impression of flaming. I do not want a flame war, I want a perfectly justified discussion (if a heated discussion at that). Over these last few days I have always looked forward to your dissection of my arguments, and how I will structure my counter-arguments. Still, pressing on...

Fonts - again. What I said was: "Fonts, along with most customizable options, are a personal preference". I personally cannot fault the first font that you presented, but then again I am not a font designer or a person that looks at all the details, which you may be (and certainly present the knowledge of). So to me, the fonts look fine, and in the case that you presented, the first font looks better than the second Windows-like font.
Now I still cannot find any option that lets me change all of the system fonts with one option. Say, for example, if I preferred Comic Sans to the default Sergoe UI - without going into the registry, or having to manually change each and every element of Windows to the new font, can I set it as the font for everything? If so, how? Just to get it clear, I hate Comic Sans with a passion, and am just using it in this example.

The good thing is, we seem to have whittled down the number of arguments we have in each post now. So it seems that this discussion is coming to a close. It is good that others like Guille are learning from it though.
GoodBytes 13th October 2012, 06:06 Quote
About opening the command prompt in Windows 7. I just remembered.
You can press and hold Shift key, and right-click on a file/folder, you get additional items like (varies depending on where you do it and on what):

-> Open command windows here
-> Open in new process
-> Open in a new window
-> Open as read-only (Office files)
-> Open as protected mode (Office files)
-> Pin to Start Menu
-> Copy as path
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums