Lutris 0.5 Released With Much Improved GTK User Interface, GOG Support

[hrkristian]

Does any one has experince with Lutris?
It seems a platform like Steam, or a "netflix for games"..

Seems interesting

I'm not sure what the intended *purpose* is but it's great as a library for your Wine games.

Makes it really easy to configure each game with its own Wine prefix all contained in the game folder itself. You do this either through a predefined (and free) install script on the Lutris home page or manually in the Lutris program.

I spent maybe five minutes getting a proper hang of installing Wine games manually, though I have some experience with Wine from before. It's quite intuitive/sensible in my experience.

Lutris keeps a catalogue of Wine versions/flavors which you can base your install on, so if Wine 2.1-staging is best for X game, you just download and use that, and it's all fully contained in that game's folder.

It's not at all a netflix for games, it's steam, if steam was nothing but "add a game from your computer" but with the ability to install said game with Proton.

[clapbr]

In 1 year lutris went from unusable to my n.1 option to manage library and launch games. Only issue I have is the GUI hanging when closing steam games until I manually kill steam, even if enabling the option to automatically exit steam.

[codecxbox]

Actually Lutris is a great Wine front end for anything Wine, not just games.. the logger, which you can select while running Lutris, is a lifesaver

[GI_Jack]

It looks like a really nice tool. Does anyone here have experience with it? How do you find it?

Best thing since sliced bread. Adds a lot of polish to using wine, especially the configuration.

Especially for wine. For example, a lutris config can not only specify version of wine, but download a special patched version, as specified in the config, and specify all extensions needed, and the settings, and handles DXVK. It also has a mime type for the config file so all you need to do is download a lutris config from their website, and then open the file and bam, it sets everything up for you, and instances the windows game in its own prefix. Bam. Literally saves hours of poking and config.

[pal666]

You actually play WoW?

i did many years ago. now i prepared backup plan for my wife in case her windows computer will be unavailable

[WalterCool]

Lutris developer is an @sshole, he banned me from github by proposing making GTK libraries as optional.

He received a huge backlash of issues of Lutris failing due people lacking those libraries due not using Gnome.

https://github.com/lutris/lutris/issues/1816

[cybertraveler]

Lutris developer is an @sshole, he banned me from github by proposing making GTK libraries as optional.

He received a huge backlash of issues of Lutris failing due people lacking those libraries due not using Gnome.

https://github.com/lutris/lutris/issues/1816

GTK+ isn't Gnome specific. Other desktop environments use GTK+ (e.g. Xfce). As such, there's no major reason to bring Gnome into a discussion about this topic.

If the Lutris GUI is written in GTK+, then "making GTK libraries as optional" isn't a simple task, like changing a build option. It would involve creating an abstraction layer for all interaction with the GUI, writing a GTK+ layer and then writing a layer for each other GUI library you want to support (e.g. QT & Tk). I can see why users of QT-based desktops would want the Lutris devs to do this, but I can also see why the Lutris devs might not want to do this: for starters, it would be a lot of work.

My personal preference is for GTK+ apps, but these days I'm thankful if an app is written in GTK+, QT, TK or almost any other GUI framework so long as it's not written using Electron :P

[WalterCool]

GTK+ isn't Gnome specific. Other desktop environments use GTK+ (e.g. Xfce). As such, there's no major reason to bring Gnome into a discussion about this topic.

If the Lutris GUI is written in GTK+, then "making GTK libraries as optional" isn't a simple task, like changing a build option. It would involve creating an abstraction layer for all interaction with the GUI, writing a GTK+ layer and then writing a layer for each other GUI library you want to support (e.g. QT & Tk). I can see why users of QT-based desktops would want the Lutris devs to do this, but I can also see why the Lutris devs might not want to do this: for starters, it would be a lot of work.

My personal preference is for GTK+ apps, but these days I'm thankful if an app is written in GTK+, QT, TK or almost any other GUI framework so long as it's not written using Electron :P

Lutris at 0.4 was already using GTK python bindings, that's not the problem, but the developers decided to introduce GnomeDesktop python bindings as mandatory, and used at some interface points like https://github.com/lutris/lutris/blo...ication.py#L30 or https://github.com/lutris/lutris/blo...isplay.py#L222

That library is outside PyGTK context.

Actually my point wasn't about if that's a good or bad idea, is just people would get mad if you started a neutral application (just using QT/GTK bindings), but then you start using desktop specific ones as mandatory. If you want to introduce a desktop specific library, should be optional. Usually unless you are doing desktop specific apps, is totally discouraged to do it and against xdg desktop standards.

[cybertraveler]

Lutris at 0.4 was already using GTK python bindings, that's not the problem, but the developers decided to introduce GnomeDesktop python bindings as mandatory, and used at some interface points like https://github.com/lutris/lutris/blo...ication.py#L30 or https://github.com/lutris/lutris/blo...isplay.py#L222

That library is outside PyGTK context.

Actually my point wasn't about if that's a good or bad idea, is just people would get mad if you started a neutral application (just using QT/GTK bindings), but then you start using desktop specific ones as mandatory. If you want to introduce a desktop specific library, should be optional. Usually unless you are doing desktop specific apps, is totally discouraged to do it and against xdg desktop standards.

Ah OK. I didn't get that from your previous comment.

If these GnomeDesktop bindings only work on Gnome, then I agree with you. It's actually really strange that they would add that as a dependency.

[fuzz]

Ah OK. I didn't get that from your previous comment.

If these GnomeDesktop bindings only work on Gnome, then I agree with you. It's actually really strange that they would add that as a dependency.

I have this "gnome desktop" library installed on its own perfectly fine along side kde plasma, but the requirement was extremely poorly communicated.