Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wine Devs Have Mixed Feelings Over Direct3D In Gallium3D

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by mdias View Post
    You seem to be on a anti-microsoft-related-software movement for no reason at all.
    I don't understand how any knowledgeable Linux user can possibly say such a thing.

    The major problem with C#, .Net, IE, DirectX, Direct3D, MS Office formats, etc. is that they are from Microsoft. C# was created after their attempt to kidnap Java failed and Sun gave them the asskicking they deserved. Direct3D is an attempt to kill off 3D on platforms other than MS Windows, and this plan has almost succeeded.

    You should avoid them, boycott them, and use international standards which are NOT controlled by a convicted monopolist who is trying to kill the Free Software movement. There are always other options, which are at least as good as the MS offerings, and insisting that you need to avoid open standards to support MS is lunacy.

    If MS once accepts international industry standards and starts seeing itself as just one player among many, and doesn't have killing Linux as its stated goal, then one should think about using their ideas to aid cooperation. As it stands, each one of these technologies only exists to destroy interoperability.


    Having D3D support is a major milestone for running most MS Windows games on linux, which should slowly attract new users to linux or even allow developers to develop D3D apps without booting into windows to test.
    This is incorrect. Having D3D support is a tiny piece of the puzzle. After you recreate that, you will have to recreate DirectSound, DirectInput, MFC, and a million other proprietary technologies. In other words, you will have to recreate WINE.

    Games don't run on Linux because they were made for Windows, not because there's an API missing and everybody is waiting for it. Everything's missing because Linux is not Windows.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
      Any company which releases games for consoles and PC can EASILY make Linux ports, as long as they plan properly from the beginning. Linux is FAR more similar to Windows than PS3 is. They don't want to do it, because they don't care. And even with a fake windows environment that implements half of the Windows userspace libraries, they still won't care.
      Bullshit.

      Linux doesn't have

      a) stable hardware platform to develop for (neither has Windows, but situation with the drivers is much better on Windows than on Linux - see recent KDE woes for example).

      b) stable software platform to develop for (basically you can only target glibc, stdc++ and xlib... everything else you will have to bundle with your game - provided that licenses permit this)

      c) decent developer tools which would cater to Windows developers (that is, minimal commandline usage, everything integrated within single IDE, etc)

      The best way for Linux to attract more mindshare is to accept the fact that a lot of people (both users and developers) have already been exposed to Windows and one cannot re-teach them how to do things non-Windows way (which is sometimes no better, and only used in Linux community because of historical reasons)...

      Staying away from Windows just because it's Windows will eventually isolate Linux (note: not whole open source because there's a lot of Windows-centered FOSS projects) community to the point where Amiga community centered around MorphOS/AmigaOS is.

      Comment


      • #33
        You don't NEED any of that. Any game which is designed to be portable has solved the vast majority of the problem.

        All id games were ported by one guy (ttimo), mostly in his spare time. Many major titles were ported by one man.

        As long as the game is DESIGNED to be portable, and platform-specific parts are well isolated from the rest of the code, you can simply give the game to one or two talented coders, and they will port it for you. Ask Svartalf.

        The problems with libraries under Linux are nothing compared to optimising performance on the Cell processor.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
          You don't NEED any of that. Any game which is designed to be portable has solved the vast majority of the problem.

          All id games were ported by one guy (ttimo), mostly in his spare time. Many major titles were ported by one man.

          As long as the game is DESIGNED to be portable, and platform-specific parts are well isolated from the rest of the code, you can simply give the game to one or two talented coders, and they will port it for you. Ask Svartalf.

          The problems with libraries under Linux are nothing compared to optimising performance on the Cell processor.
          Look, I can code for the SPUs. But you need to compare apples to apples.

          Your point was: if you can create portable engine to run on PS3, making it run on Linux is an easy thing. That's not true.

          The majority of the effort needed to port the game to Linux wouldn't be centered on making the most of hardware. It would be centered on fighting various, weird and annoying compatibility issues. Linux is worse 10x than Windows in that regard.

          Creating engine that runs on Windows and PS3 does not guarantee easy porting to Linux because the problems on Linux are elsewhere - the major one being that you cannot rely on anything, being abstracted from actual hardware by numerous layers. That's totally opposite to console and - less so, but still - even Windows development.

          You will probably have to only target proprietary NVidia drivers and some major distribution. Still, that is going to be a QA nightmare and I can see why companies are not keen on officially supporting Linux.

          That's not to mention that average game developer treats Linux as some bizarre relic from 1990s that is completely alien to their world, where even people using Total Commander are labeled "geeks".

          Comment


          • #35
            There are obviously issues unique to Linux when it comes to creating bleeding-edge sound and graphics stuff.

            But I don't think that this is the major problem. Pretty much all the native Linux ports I've used (must be more than a dozen) managed to get it right. Most ports were done by a single guy or a tiny team, often as an afterthought.

            The reason why we don't have Linux games is that the game publishers and programmers don't give a crap about us, and even if you manage to trick their software in to thinking that you are running Windows and fake a "Z:" drive by linking it to a mounted directory and whatnot, they still won't give a crap about us.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
              This is incorrect. Having D3D support is a tiny piece of the puzzle. After you recreate that, you will have to recreate DirectSound, DirectInput, MFC, and a million other proprietary technologies. In other words, you will have to recreate WINE.
              Why is almost everyone pretending that D3D support didn't exist before now? The new state tracker doesn't add anything new (well, except maybe D3D11 support), it just simplified D3D->OpenGL->TGSI to D3D->TGSI, cutting out a step and possibly giving cleaner code and more speed at the same time. I'm not getting what's so controversial about this...

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                I don't understand how any knowledgeable Linux user can possibly say such a thing.

                The major problem with C#, .Net, IE, DirectX, Direct3D, MS Office formats, etc. is that they are from Microsoft. C# was created after their attempt to kidnap Java failed and Sun gave them the asskicking they deserved. Direct3D is an attempt to kill off 3D on platforms other than MS Windows, and this plan has almost succeeded.
                What I meant is that being against Microsoft just because it's Microsoft isn't a valid argument. He didn't use valid arguments like you are using now.
                Having D3D implemented on linux will not kill 3D on linux, it's the other way around, as long as it's legal. But I sure agree that the ideal solution would be to have a new free API, which I personally believe wouldn't be much different from modern D3D.

                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                You should avoid them, boycott them, and use international standards which are NOT controlled by a convicted monopolist who is trying to kill the Free Software movement. There are always other options, which are at least as good as the MS offerings, and insisting that you need to avoid open standards to support MS is lunacy.
                Easy talk for the end user. I, as a developer, feel like microsoft is treating me better giving me excelent tools with excelent documentation. Why should we be spending energy fighting off D3D instead of spending it developing a better replacement?

                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                If MS once accepts international industry standards and starts seeing itself as just one player among many, and doesn't have killing Linux as its stated goal, then one should think about using their ideas to aid cooperation. As it stands, each one of these technologies only exists to destroy interoperability.
                MS will bend to industry standards when they're proven to be superior. Look at HTML5 for example.


                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                This is incorrect. Having D3D support is a tiny piece of the puzzle. After you recreate that, you will have to recreate DirectSound, DirectInput, MFC, and a million other proprietary technologies. In other words, you will have to recreate WINE.

                Games don't run on Linux because they were made for Windows, not because there's an API missing and everybody is waiting for it. Everything's missing because Linux is not Windows.
                Sorry, I didn't mean to leave WINE's existence out of the scope of my argument. MFC is barely used for games. DirectInput is a simple enough library to be a no-problem. DirectSound is a little more complex, but Direct3D is the most critical component. You can play a game with no sound, but you can't play it without graphics.


                Currently, graphics and sound on linux is too dodgy to be worth the effort for many companies. The situation is improving drastically though.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by chaos386 View Post
                  Why is almost everyone pretending that D3D support didn't exist before now? The new state tracker doesn't add anything new (well, except maybe D3D11 support), it just simplified D3D->OpenGL->TGSI to D3D->TGSI, cutting out a step and possibly giving cleaner code and more speed at the same time. I'm not getting what's so controversial about this...
                  AFAIK D3D support existed only though WINE. Maybe I'm wrong? But if I'm not, it doesn't simplify D3D->OGL->TGSI into D3D->TGSI. It simplifies WINE->D3D->OGL->TGSI into D3D->TGSI, which is a huge difference.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    If there was a way to make Direct3D 11 a default 3D graphics API on Linux, I would vote for it.

                    OpenGL is a bloody mess and has always been.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by mdias View Post
                      What I meant is that being against Microsoft just because it's Microsoft isn't a valid argument. He didn't use valid arguments like you are using now.
                      Having D3D implemented on linux will not kill 3D on linux, it's the other way around, as long as it's legal. But I sure agree that the ideal solution would be to have a new free API, which I personally believe wouldn't be much different from modern D3D.


                      Easy talk for the end user. I, as a developer, feel like microsoft is treating me better giving me excelent tools with excelent documentation. Why should we be spending energy fighting off D3D instead of spending it developing a better replacement?


                      MS will bend to industry standards when they're proven to be superior. Look at HTML5 for example.



                      Sorry, I didn't mean to leave WINE's existence out of the scope of my argument. MFC is barely used for games. DirectInput is a simple enough library to be a no-problem. DirectSound is a little more complex, but Direct3D is the most critical component. You can play a game with no sound, but you can't play it without graphics.


                      Currently, graphics and sound on linux is too dodgy to be worth the effort for many companies. The situation is improving drastically though.
                      Glad somebody is clear headed here about this. The D3D1X part does belong into Galium3D because it's a graphic layer, on the same foot that OpenGL is. May it be Microsoft I don't care. In fact, Microsoft wont care neither. Linux is so small and insignificant that it won't steal Windows market share. But spreading DirectX share will make MS more than happy. I'd compare this a bit like Moonlight and Mono. Now, you are free to grow yourself a beard and join over RMS and his jihadis. Myself I'll be more than happy to be able to play the game I like on the OS I love.

                      The DirectInput and DirectSound part shouldn't be hard to implement. Anyway, those should be part of Wine. Or be coded independently. In fact, there's nothing stopping someone from doing the whole SDK for Linux.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Yay, praising MS, dissing RMS, and making a racist comment, all in just two sentences.

                        Let's see if anyone jumps on this troll.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                          AS LONG AS WINE EXISTS, NOBODY'S GOING TO BOTHER.
                          The only reason Epic ever entertained the notion of UT3 on Linux was because it didn't work in Wine? They blew off Linux once they figured Wine will get it working someday?

                          Or it could have had nothing to do with Wine at all. Much like the rest of the gaming industry, they simply do not care about Linux. Wine's existence is just as irrelevant to them.

                          Here's one for you.... Prey worked in Wine just fine BEFORE they released a native Linux port. Wine sure was relevant there wasn't it?

                          Here's another. Broadcom recently released native drivers for Linux despite ndiswrapper being a workable solution. Not much different than Wine, really. Why did they bother? Why didn't they just tell their users to use the "emulator"?

                          Some software will never be ported to Linux, ever. Is Wine going to hurt Linux adoption in those many, many, cases?

                          Firefox hurts Linux adoption. By offering a Windows version, people don't see much value in Linux because the same software exists in both places. Clearly we should only support technologies that only work on Linux. (Care to guess how many other software projects are hurting Linux in the same way?)

                          Or it could be that Firefox helps Linux adoption by providing a familiar face for Windows users who try Linux. It could also be that software running on more than one platform isn't a bad thing.

                          Lets take it a bit further. Kopete and Pidgin hurt Linux adoption. They depend on reversed engineered protocols that are incomplete. They don't offer the complete experience that their Windows counterparts do.

                          Ready for another one? GIMP hurts Linux because it's not Photoshop. (Yes, even if you rearrange the menus a bit and rebrand it with the word "shop".)

                          Speaking of Photoshop, has Adobe ever said their reason for not porting Photoshop to Linux is "because of Wine"? I believe their response has been that their software is good enough that users will use it regardless of the platform it pins users to. From their perspective porting it would be pointless because it's not like they are loosing customers over it. Again it has nothing to do with Wine.

                          Also how can you claim that Wine never works while also claiming it's a good excuse not to port software? How is Wine a good excuse if it doesn't work? Pick one please. The two troll lines are incompatible. One says Wine doesn't work good enough and the other says it works so good that companies need not bother porting.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Look, I like WINE (though I don't use it), and I respect the effort that goes in there, as it does help some people run software they absolutely need. It's good to have such an option around, as a last resort.

                            But calling for Linux to be a graveyard of poorly implemented MS technologies just so kids can play their gamez without having to reboot is shite, and people like that should please go and kill some other operating system instead.

                            As long as companies do not develop native applications, software on Linux will always be poor, will perform poorly, and will be unsupported and unimportant. No amount of faking Windows is going to change this.

                            WINE is a last resort, not the direction Linux should be heading in. Screw Windows, screw .Net, screw MS Office formats, screw Silverlight, screw Direct3d. As soon as you make any of this work (poorly), they will introduce a new technology which won't work, and everybody will switch to that. They've been doing this shit for 15 years, and you're still falling for it.

                            Open standards, and open source whenever possible.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                              People, trying to out-Windows Windows has never worked for any operating system in history. And it has managed to kill at least one major heavyweight: OS/2.

                              More importantly, it has been tried with Linux for more than a decade, and it has NEVER worked for Linux either. Despite Cedega and Codeweavers, and despite Lindows, and other major experiments, which are either dead, or serve niche markets.

                              Marketing yourself as a cheap, almost compatible substitute for the Real Thing (tm) is not going to get Linux taken seriously. Even if it could, it's never been achieved.

                              There is no magic wand, and we have to keep gaining ground the hard way -- through relevant apps (such as Firefox, Webkit, OOo, server stuff, cross-platform toolkits, etc), offering a better system, and fighting for open standards and formats. The solution is NOT introducing all the broken monopolist standards which CANNOT be implemented correctly, and which open us up for all sorts of patent litigation, hoping that if we can implement them better than MS, then everyone will switch.

                              The reason we don't have games is that major companies are not interested in us. You can implement D3D, and they STILL won't be interested in us. You'll be stuck running things through (half-working) emulation layers and wondering why everyone isn't switching, while the companies are developing for that other platform and you're stuck playing catch-up. The same story for the last 10 years, and people still don't learn.

                              Any company which releases games for consoles and PC can EASILY make Linux ports, as long as they plan properly from the beginning. Linux is FAR more similar to Windows than PS3 is. They don't want to do it, because they don't care. And even with a fake windows environment that implements half of the Windows userspace libraries, they still won't care.
                              Heh... Couldn't have said that any better if I'd tried.

                              Keep repeating those last two paragraphs folks. It's not a lost cause, mind- but...

                              Having WINE will not make things better. It's been around for more than a DECADE and hasn't really made all that much of a difference in the positive like people keep trying to paint it as being.

                              Having D3D isn't going to be any different and presents a potential litigation target. As a curiosity and something to rub people's noses in, it's kind of a neat idea. As a solution to anything in the Linux space, it's not so much one.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Jimmy View Post
                                Here's another. Broadcom recently released native drivers for Linux despite ndiswrapper being a workable solution. Not much different than Wine, really. Why did they bother? Why didn't they just tell their users to use the "emulator"?
                                Oh, the drivers sort of worked well enough with ndiswrapper (WINE for drivers, after a fashion...). They didn't do it out of the kindness of their little old black hearts- they did it because a majority stake holder told them to do it. I'll leave it as an exercise as to whom I might be referring to. If you're clever enough and your Google-fu is strong, you'll figure out whom that might be.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X