Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Updates To Linux As A Gaming Platform

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Ericg View Post
    This isn't a gripe against Linux, its a gripe against Windows too... I really wish all programs assets-- especially games-- just got dumped into their specific folder instead of being spread around /usr/bin /usr/share/games and ~/.local/share

    Like I want to just be able to copy the game's folder and run with it.
    Originally posted by zanny View Post
    I've always liked the idea of when installing a binary, drop it in its own folder (in Linux-space, it would be $GAMES/$GAMENAME and symlink all the relevant stuff where it needs to go (ie, link /usr/bin/$GAMENAME to $GAMES/$GAMENAME/$GAMENAME.elf, etc.

    One of the biggest hassles with source ports on Linux is that they always throw their files in random places, like .zandronum or /usr/local/games/doom.
    Both of you would look to this 'revolutionary' distro where each program gets its own specific folder

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoboLinux

    Apparently it has failed to get interest from the linux community.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by juanrga View Post
      Both of you would look to this 'revolutionary' distro where each program gets its own specific folder

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoboLinux

      Apparently it has failed to get interest from the linux community.
      I started using Linux full time as my main desktop after it got depreciated (I was way too big on my pc gaming in college...), and I don't think the filesystem layout is a critical consideration for me as a user. It is an annoyance as a developer, though. I value pacman / rolling release / the AUR more than I do a more logical fileystem layout (albeit, Gobo has a really good one I think). The /Depot doesn't make much sense to me, though - have VFS top level subdirectories depending on context would be great, like in plan9, but I'm not sure Linux has generic virtual directories that can support that behavior, so I'd rather see all a users "stuff" in the users filesystem under their username. I'd also rather see a replication of user owned files of the same types as those under /System under the users home directory. Better yet, I'd rather see traditional /bin /lib etc for the system under /Users/root/Lib, /Users/root/bin, etc, since system files and root-owned files blur here.

      Another way to think about it is / is the root home folder, and Users/<name> is the users "root". Maybe not even have a /root or Users/root at all? Same way Ubuntu doesn't come with a literal root user account, just sudo permissions and the root group.
      Last edited by zanny; 07-15-2013, 07:54 PM.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by plonoma View Post
        The %appdata% has a subfolder structure with the application name in it.
        Duh... just like .config and .local/share

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Cyber Killer View Post
          Duh... just like .config and .local/share
          And /opt, and /usr/local, and /usr/share, and ~/.<appname>.

          Also, I like how the name for the "application state" is local/share. Because share used to mean network shared resources, and local meant system local files per box, and both names lost all meaning and mutated, and then we threw a dotfile in the home directory to just make even less sense. Wtb ~/Data and ~/Config (without being hidden).

          Comment

          Working...
          X