SDL Adds A DirectX 12 Renderer Backend

[phoronix]

Phoronix: SDL Adds A DirectX 12 Renderer Backend

Somewhat surprisingly, the open-source SDL library that is widely used by games for cross-platform handling and abstracting of various software interfaces has added a Microsoft DirectX 12 renderer...

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=SDL2-Adds-DX12-Backend

[Jabberwocky]

TL;DR Ideally M$ would not prevent open APIs from running on their systems. It is what it is, so it's good that SDL is branching out to be a good solution for all developers.

I would have like to remind people that M$ is still not open source because they believe in the idea, they are in this semi-open-source state because it's the best place for M$. VS Code is the most simple example of: Hey look we are open source! You just can't use all the features without the proprietary backends, but we are open source fuu*** yeah!

Personally having to support vendor lock-in APIs and exclusive digital stores with tons of DRM and MTX takes the fun out of it for me. Regardless I wish SDL devs and contributors the best of luck with keeping SDL open and making it a viable solution for all developers.

[dragon321]

I would have like to remind people that M$ is still not open source because they believe in the idea, they are in this semi-open-source state because it's the best place for M$. VS Code is the most simple example of: Hey look we are open source! You just can't use all the features without the proprietary backends, but we are open source fuu*** yeah!

They probably won't be open source in near future because they built their position with proprietary products. It's not easy task to switch from closed source to open source, it takes much more than just releasing code. Since their proprietary products are still popular and important then they probably don't have reason to switch to open source.

Aside from that VS Code is not good example. VS Code is fully open source and closed source version doesn't provide any additional features. The only difference is that some proprietary extensions, that are not part of VS Code, require proprietary version. And those extensions are not needed by VS Code to be usable. They are for specific things and if you don't need those things (for example you are not C++ developers and don't need C++ extension from Microsoft) then you can use VS Code just fine, especially due to fact that many extensions works fine on open source build as well. You are even able to use it for same purpose if you replace those extensions with something else that provides same or similar features. Just like Linux is not closed source if you run some closed source drivers or firmware.

[Drago]

They probably won't be open source in near future because they built their position with proprietary products. It's not easy task to switch from closed source to open source, it takes much more than just releasing code. Since their proprietary products are still popular and important then they probably don't have reason to switch to open source.

Aside from that VS Code is not good example. VS Code is fully open source and closed source version doesn't provide any additional features. The only difference is that some proprietary extensions, that are not part of VS Code, require proprietary version. And those extensions are not needed by VS Code to be usable. They are for specific things and if you don't need those things (for example you are not C++ developers and don't need C++ extension from Microsoft) then you can use VS Code just fine, especially due to fact that many extensions works fine on open source build as well. You are even able to use it for same purpose if you replace those extensions with something else that provides same or similar features. Just like Linux is not closed source if you run some closed source drivers or firmware.

I have been using VSCode for over 7 years now. Hearing for the first time of closed source version, honestly. JS/TS and Go primarily.

[ssokolow]

Aside from that VS Code is not good example. VS Code is fully open source and closed source version doesn't provide any additional features. The only difference is that some proprietary extensions, that are not part of VS Code, require proprietary version. And those extensions are not needed by VS Code to be usable. They are for specific things and if you don't need those things (for example you are not C++ developers and don't need C++ extension from Microsoft) then you can use VS Code just fine, especially due to fact that many extensions works fine on open source build as well. You are even able to use it for same purpose if you replace those extensions with something else that provides same or similar features. Just like Linux is not closed source if you run some closed source drivers or firmware.

For the record, the terms for the Microsoft extensions gallery for VSCode explicitly forbid using it with open-source builds. That's why Open VSX exists.

[dragon321]

I have been using VSCode for over 7 years now. Hearing for the first time of closed source version, honestly. JS/TS and Go primarily.

I used to use binary build of VS Code from Microsoft but some time ago I switched to open source edition (VS Codium). I'm still able to do my work just fine and I'm not missing anything from Microsoft build.

For the record, the terms for the Microsoft extensions gallery for VSCode explicitly forbid using it with open-source builds. That's why Open VSX exists.

I'm aware of that and you also posted solution for that - Open VSX. Popular extensions are available there.

[ssokolow]

I'm aware of that and you also posted solution for that - Open VSX. Popular extensions are available there.

By "for the record", I meant "for anyone, either in this thread now or reading the archive in the future, who didn't already know that".

[rabcor]

Well this is great, doesn't matter how much better microsoft advertises DX12 than khronos advertises Vulkan if SDL supports both and devs can just be convinced to get the best of both worlds.

[Jabberwocky]

Warning: This comment has nothing todo with SDL.

TL;DR Market proprietary features then you call it proprietary (optionally with open source core). Don't market proprietary features, clearly explain what is open and what isn't then you can call it open source.

They probably won't be open source in near future because they built their position with proprietary products. It's not easy task to switch from closed source to open source, it takes much more than just releasing code. Since their proprietary products are still popular and important then they probably don't have reason to switch to open source.

Aside from that VS Code is not good example. VS Code is fully open source and closed source version doesn't provide any additional features. The only difference is that some proprietary extensions, that are not part of VS Code, require proprietary version. And those extensions are not needed by VS Code to be usable. They are for specific things and if you don't need those things (for example you are not C++ developers and don't need C++ extension from Microsoft) then you can use VS Code just fine, especially due to fact that many extensions works fine on open source build as well. You are even able to use it for same purpose if you replace those extensions with something else that provides same or similar features.

Remote development and liveshare is really the bee's knees around here. You can increase your productivity when you are using remote servers, working in WSL, developing in containers or accessing Github Codespaces. This is applicable to any language used within the program. There is no open substitute AFAIK. It isn't some ancient code that is patented. It's brand new code.

Again, I am not saying M$ is not allowed or should not be developing these useful extensions. On the contrary I think it's smart idea to have an attraction to the proprietary version. The problem that I have is that M$ calls VS Code open source and it's not. I questioned a few VS Code users if they knew that they were using proprietary extensions (while my sample size is basically nothing) I found it surprising that none knew that they were using proprietary extensions because the parts were installed by default. Most people are under the impression that Visual Studio is the proprietary version and VS Code is the fully open source version. There's no feature matrix between open source code and proprietary versions. No blog posts about built-in proprietary plugins. Search engines do not give useful information on it. Wikipedia doesn't mention anything about it.

Just like Linux is not closed source if you run some closed source drivers or firmware.

I'm glad you made this point because this highlights our different perspectives. Linux does not include closed source drives and actually goes so far to say that you are not allowed to package closed source drivers with it. VS Code is the opposite where M$ markets the product as open source but the package that you install contains proprietary parts that runs the instant you launch the application. As I have mentioned this is confusing to users. Also if M$ disappears then your proprietary plugins could stop working.

Firmware is another topic. You have options to get hardware with no proprietary firmware, limited or ring-fenced proprietary firmware or no constraints on proprietary firmware. You won't expect a vendor selling no proprietary firmware hardware who secretly loads proprietary firmware into the device.

[dragon321]

By "for the record", I meant "for anyone, either in this thread now or reading the archive in the future, who didn't already know that".

I get it, my mistake. Thanks for clarification.

Warning: This comment has nothing todo with SDL.

TL;DR Market proprietary features then you call it proprietary (optionally with open source core). Don't market proprietary features, clearly explain what is open and what isn't then you can call it open source.

Remote development and liveshare is really the bee's knees around here. You can increase your productivity when you are using remote servers, working in WSL, developing in containers or accessing Github Codespaces. This is applicable to any language used within the program. There is no open substitute AFAIK. It isn't some ancient code that is patented. It's brand new code.

Again, I am not saying M$ is not allowed or should not be developing these useful extensions. On the contrary I think it's smart idea to have an attraction to the proprietary version. The problem that I have is that M$ calls VS Code open source and it's not. I questioned a few VS Code users if they knew that they were using proprietary extensions (while my sample size is basically nothing) I found it surprising that none knew that they were using proprietary extensions because the parts were installed by default. Most people are under the impression that Visual Studio is the proprietary version and VS Code is the fully open source version. There's no feature matrix between open source code and proprietary versions. No blog posts about built-in proprietary plugins. Search engines do not give useful information on it. Wikipedia doesn't mention anything about it.

I'm glad you made this point because this highlights our different perspectives. Linux does not include closed source drives and actually goes so far to say that you are not allowed to package closed source drivers with it. VS Code is the opposite where M$ markets the product as open source but the package that you install contains proprietary parts that runs the instant you launch the application. As I have mentioned this is confusing to users. Also if M$ disappears then your proprietary plugins could stop working.

Firmware is another topic. You have options to get hardware with no proprietary firmware, limited or ring-fenced proprietary firmware or no constraints on proprietary firmware. You won't expect a vendor selling no proprietary firmware hardware who secretly loads proprietary firmware into the device.

It's similar situation to AOSP vs Android roms on smartphones. AOSP is fully open source but Android roms preinstalled on smartphones have proprietary components like Google services or drivers. But core Android is open source and nothing stops you from using it without mentioned componets. Sure, you won't get everything as you would get with proprietary build but it's usable without them and don't need them to work. Same goes for VS Code. Sure, there are useful things that are proprietary, but there are many things that are not and completely open source build of VS Code can be still useful for many things. Open source is not forbidding proprietary extensions. Sure there is difference between extension and core functionality but in VS Code case core functionality and many extensions are open source so it is open source product.

Linux doesn't stop you from using proprietary drivers or firmware. In fact it can load closed source firmware just fine or even lets you bundle it in kernel binary itself. Some of open source drivers that are part of Linux are not working for some hardware without proprietary firmware (like WiFi cards). That's why Linux libre was created. But that doesn't mean Linux is not open source as core functionality is still there. Also on VS Code official download page there is no information that VS Code you are downloading is open source. There is information that it is built on open source which is not false because proprietary build of VS Code is based on open source code.

You have also options to get alternative extensions in VS Code. Sure, not all proprietary extensions have good open source replacement but same goes for devices and firmware in Linux as well.