Matthew Garrett: How-To Drive Developers From OS X To Linux

[Luke_Wolf]

Android, you mean the OS with a GPL-licensed kernel, but a BSD-licensed userland specially crafted in order to prevent this ? (this is why people should *really* say GNU/Linux...).

And you don't really run the games on a Linux distro but a VM it hosts, which is being ported to BSD's : https://gitorious.org/freebroid

And that's kinda my point here :P It's about as reasonable to expect PS4 games to run directly on FreeBSD as it is to expect Android games to run directly on a normal Linux distro. We know Sony is using it's own graphics stack for instance, because they have their own proprietary direct3d-like language. Now that said I'm sure if someone cared enough that they could write a WINE-like wrapper for PS4 games to run on FreeBSD particularly as some of sony's work has already been upstreamed.

[jimbohale]

So when can I play PS4 games on FreeBSD ?

If you think that having a GPL licensed kernel would lead to you being able to do anything more with PS4 games then you are wrong and are part of the problem that we have. You are under the assumption that companies such as Sony wouldn't just write their own specialized OS as opposed to open source their games. Sure, it costs money and time to write their own OS but they only have to do it once and it would cost them less. They wouldn't get anything out of open sourcing it. Certain things like games do not work well with the open source philosophy, because they are very difficult to do correctly and if there isn't an incentive to do it correct, it will fail. It's the same reason that I don't enjoy Nexuiz, it LOOKS good and the code is nice, but it's just not a fun game to me, I played quake like 10 years ago I don't want to play it now.

You guys are so far up your own asses that you fail to see the original point. Comments like 'Why listen to a fourth-rate laptop vendor' are just so unhelpful that if Linux ever fails YOU are the reason. You have to look at what OS X does right. Obviously the closed source should be avoided but BESIDES that what do they do right. I can name quite a few things that they do right.

1. VERY good hardware. If you drop a macbook, will it break? Chances are, no. Battery is good, screen is good, keyboard is good, touchpad is good.
2. Stable OS. I'm running OS X on a hackintosh and it's more stable than Linux EVER was. I've tried every distro and they all have issues that I just don't care enough to deal with.
3. Looks pretty and functions nicely. They are two things that are really important to pair together. GNOME shell is the only one that looks nice and Unity is the only one that has a good workflow. With GNOME shell though, multitasking is difficult and requires tons of extra clicks (no, I don't want to use keyboard shortcuts that is effort) and on Unity it doesn't look nice and Compiz. Enough said.
4. It's easy. OS X is easy. When I'm busy, I don't want to have to fiddle with things to get it working. I just want it to work. Please, work. That's all I ask. Linux (Fedora, Ubuntu, OpenSuSE, ElementaryOS, Scientific Linux, and even Arch although Arch was by far the best in terms of stability but requires the use of a brain to install which I don't generally feel like lending to something that I don't care about) has not been able to provide that to me.

So, take from there what you can. Get the best non-Mac laptop and try to add in support for everything that you can. The touchpad (GUESS WHAT DOESN'T EXIST IN MOST LINUX DISTROS??? MULTI TOUCH COME ON WE ARE IN 2014!!!), the display, the keyboard, the battery, the wireless ALL need to be supported extremely well as opposed to the half-assery that we have right now. Encourage LTS's. There is no reason that people should have to care about the latest and the greatest if they don't want to. If people want to use their computer for work let them. Then, after you've done that, focus on the user interface and take that Elementary OS so far has got it the most right. It's easy to use and it looks nice. The fewest clicks and keyboard presses as possible. Align UI elements. Use Photoshop, don't be religious and use GIMP when it's not ready for UI design yet. BE PRAGMATIC. EMBRACE SYSTEMD. EMBRACE PULSEAUDIO. EMBRACE WAYLAND. Systemd and pulseaudio are some of the best things ever. They make it easy and as few thoughts as possible to deal with things that are just so basic. Prior to Pulseaudio it was the case that unless you ran extra bullshit you only had one application outputting audio (don't tell me ALSA because it didn't work like it should have), and sound for me is one of the most important things and extremely crucial. I listen to music.

I support Linux whenever possible but I'm becoming very disillusioned because it seems like people just aren't getting it. Red Hat so far has figured out the most but they still haven't completely figured out UI design and that I don't want to click my mouse twice as much as I should (also, NO I won't install frippery it looks terrible. It's not frippery's fault it's GNOME's fault).

So, I will continue to use OS X. It does what I want it to, it looks like, it supports whatever I throw at it, it doesn't crash (ON NON-MAC HARDWARE MIND YOU) and just seems to understand what people like me want, and I suspect there are more of me than the people who are willing to die for the GPL.

[johnc]

1. VERY good hardware. If you drop a macbook, will it break? Chances are, no. Battery is good, screen is good, keyboard is good, touchpad is good.
2. Stable OS. I'm running OS X on a hackintosh and it's more stable than Linux EVER was. I've tried every distro and they all have issues that I just don't care enough to deal with.
3. Looks pretty and functions nicely. They are two things that are really important to pair together. GNOME shell is the only one that looks nice and Unity is the only one that has a good workflow. With GNOME shell though, multitasking is difficult and requires tons of extra clicks (no, I don't want to use keyboard shortcuts that is effort) and on Unity it doesn't look nice and Compiz. Enough said.
4. It's easy. OS X is easy. When I'm busy, I don't want to have to fiddle with things to get it working. I just want it to work. Please, work. That's all I ask. Linux (Fedora, Ubuntu, OpenSuSE, ElementaryOS, Scientific Linux, and even Arch although Arch was by far the best in terms of stability but requires the use of a brain to install which I don't generally feel like lending to something that I don't care about) has not been able to provide that to me.

The only issue I have with those four points is that they're completely not true. And Apple is a fourth-rate laptop vendor (in terms of US sales at least, and I suspect they do no better in worldwide shipments). So why should we be bowing down in amazing deference to a product that has single-digit marketshare and is generally awful as an all-around system?

Because of the "magical" hype?

Because it's "different"?

[finalzone]

1. VERY good hardware. If you drop a macbook, will it break? Chances are, no. Battery is good, screen is good, keyboard is good, touchpad is good.
2. Stable OS. I'm running OS X on a hackintosh and it's more stable than Linux EVER was. I've tried every distro and they all have issues that I just don't care enough to deal with.
3. Looks pretty and functions nicely. They are two things that are really important to pair together. GNOME shell is the only one that looks nice and Unity is the only one that has a good workflow. With GNOME shell though, multitasking is difficult and requires tons of extra clicks (no, I don't want to use keyboard shortcuts that is effort) and on Unity it doesn't look nice and Compiz. Enough said.
4. It's easy. OS X is easy. When I'm busy, I don't want to have to fiddle with things to get it working. I just want it to work. Please, work. That's all I ask. Linux (Fedora, Ubuntu, OpenSuSE, ElementaryOS, Scientific Linux, and even Arch although Arch was by far the best in terms of stability but requires the use of a brain to install which I don't generally feel like lending to something that I don't care about) has not been able to provide that to me.

Apple need to have good hardware. However, most drivers are optimized to run on specific devices and likey closed.
The refusal to use keyboard for better experience only shows your own habit and laziness. Gnome Shell is excellent on multitasking with features like dynamic workspaces which is lacking on OSX, basic tiling (advanced version available via extensions) allowing you to split windows of applications. If you have worked in graphic related design elements, Gnome Shell is definitely better than OS X having myself used.
A challenge for you, try to install OS X or iOS on any laptop other than Apple.

[johnc]

I tried playing L4D2 once or twice on OS X. Amazingly awful frame rates and no raw mouse input. It was a complete trainwreck.

All credit goes to Microsoft for providing such a well-performing system on a vast, vast, vast wide range of hardware. That goes for Linux, too, which really isn't too far behind.

[zanny]

I tried playing L4D2 once or twice on OS X. Amazingly awful frame rates and no raw mouse input. It was a complete trainwreck.

All credit goes to Microsoft for providing such a well-performing system on a vast, vast, vast wide range of hardware. That goes for Linux, too, which really isn't too far behind.

There is a difference between the kernel accommodating the hardware and the hardware accommodating the kernel.

In the case of Windows, all this hardware is designed and implemented in house to work on Windows. The last time that was an issue was the Vista transition, where MS changed the driver model and it took years for the mean market hardware to start shipping Vista default drivers rather than targeting XP.

Microsoft is not putting in any effort here on hardware compatibility, because all the hardware vendors are making sure their stuff works on Windows before they ship it. Complete opposite of Linux, where the kernel has to try to support every esoteric piece of hardware in existence because the manufacturers are assholes.

[jimbohale]

The only issue I have with those four points is that they're completely not true. And Apple is a fourth-rate laptop vendor (in terms of US sales at least, and I suspect they do no better in worldwide shipments). So why should we be bowing down in amazing deference to a product that has single-digit marketshare and is generally awful as an all-around system?

Because of the "magical" hype?

Because it's "different"?

Because a lot of users like it. Myself being one of them. It works for me, I really like it, and it's less clicks. I'm not suggesting to bow down in any way, I'm saying to realize what they've done right and try to design a user interface that uses those ideas. The ideas being EXTREMELY easy switches between applications and seeing what's open and where. If I have photoshop and an IDE open at the same time (and a browser for documentation) it's beyond easy to switch for me, and on GNOME shell it's just not.

Apple need to have good hardware. However, most drivers are optimized to run on specific devices and likey closed.
The refusal to use keyboard for better experience only shows your own habit and laziness. Gnome Shell is excellent on multitasking with features like dynamic workspaces which is lacking on OSX, basic tiling (advanced version available via extensions) allowing you to split windows of applications. If you have worked in graphic related design elements, Gnome Shell is definitely better than OS X having myself used.
A challenge for you, try to install OS X or iOS on any laptop other than Apple.

Yes it shows my laziness. A lot of users have this feature, I'd say most. They need to be catered to somewhat (i.e. use the thought 'what if someone doesn't want to think about this?') because they're really common. That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. I have installed OS X on non-Apple hardware (not a laptop, but non-apple hardware). But that's not my point, my point is that it should work really well and Linux has never worked well on any of my laptops, and has been missing things I love such as multi touch.

There is a difference between the kernel accommodating the hardware and the hardware accommodating the kernel.

In the case of Windows, all this hardware is designed and implemented in house to work on Windows. The last time that was an issue was the Vista transition, where MS changed the driver model and it took years for the mean market hardware to start shipping Vista default drivers rather than targeting XP.

Microsoft is not putting in any effort here on hardware compatibility, because all the hardware vendors are making sure their stuff works on Windows before they ship it. Complete opposite of Linux, where the kernel has to try to support every esoteric piece of hardware in existence because the manufacturers are assholes.

You're right and I know why it's happening, but people such as Red Hat could really take a ultra high-end laptop and put their efforts to supporting it, and once people see how good it runs on one laptop they might consider switching to it and let's be real once you stop using Windows it's hard to go back. That means using the NVIDIA proprietary driver because in my experience that's the only one worth using for high-end systems. The Intel one works well too but that's generally not going to support that much and gets bogged down when the CPU is used a lot.

I tried playing L4D2 once or twice on OS X. Amazingly awful frame rates and no raw mouse input. It was a complete trainwreck.

All credit goes to Microsoft for providing such a well-performing system on a vast, vast, vast wide range of hardware. That goes for Linux, too, which really isn't too far behind.

Don't game on the computer so I don't care. That's a non-issue. That said, when I have played games the framerates have been fine. I have a GTX 680. I work on my computer (on my workstation, which is running OS X) and OS X makes it easier for me to do that.

[johnc]

Because a lot of users like it. Myself being one of them. It works for me, I really like it, and it's less clicks. I'm not suggesting to bow down in any way, I'm saying to realize what they've done right and try to design a user interface that uses those ideas. The ideas being EXTREMELY easy switches between applications and seeing what's open and where. If I have photoshop and an IDE open at the same time (and a browser for documentation) it's beyond easy to switch for me, and on GNOME shell it's just not.

It's a dock. It's no easier than Unity or Windows 7 or any other dock on Linux. And none of the dock concepts are easier / less clicks than a Windows XP / gnome-panel style task bar.

[jimbohale]

It's a dock. It's no easier than Unity or Windows 7 or any other dock on Linux. And none of the dock concepts are easier / less clicks than a Windows XP / gnome-panel style task bar.

Which is exactly what I said in the first place. The thing is that subjectively (to me and many others) OS X looks much nicer than Unity. They should do research as to why we find it more appealing (I suspect alignment is a particularly big factor) to use OS X. Unity has the features but lacks the looks (and uses Compiz).

You want to know why people don't use it? I'm telling you why. If you don't care then by all means don't listen but I suspect the developers care.

ElementaryOS is the most usable to people like me, but the problem is that it's not exactly actively developed and can't be relied on for any length of time.

[johnc]

There are a million reasons why people don't use Linux and we already know them all.

The question I have is why practically nobody uses OS X. The marketshare is pathetic. Basically in the noise.