Steam On Linux Usage Climbs Higher Thanks To The Steam Deck

[blackiwid]

Now, you should really stop with this mean argumentation of yours, you are just humiliating yourself in front of everybody.

You saying that doesn't make it true I got already by my 2-3 comments at least 1 like you have maybe 1 like of your 10 or so comments here, the people you talked to got often 10 likes or so.

Also if you don't want to answer my question why the loss of the argument hurts you so much, don't answer a question I never asked I did not ask what generally hurts you in your live, I was very specific with the question.

Also who is "everybody" the 30 people that read this threat around the world? That I have either no relationship, I have not even any meaningful para social relationships with anyone here, because I am only seldom comment here. Not that I buy that people think that I am here the one that is humiliating myself, but again even if in your fantasy absurd world would be true it would not matter much.

None of the hurts you listed are related to microkernel vs monolitic. You could even make the case that a microkernel would make that worse, because evil blobs like the nvidia proprietary driver would probably work with less problems, because more stable api/abis. So a evil company that puts out there proprietary rootkit drivers would have a better stance.

I see btw a at least theoretical advantage of microkernels just not much for gaming and not for desktop more for cli stuff. piping the wildest stuff together, is more useful for devs / servers and stuff but not noob desktops. And more important the gigantic development cost to make out of linux this thing would be so gigantic that it would not be worth.

Also I don't get why you would not either fork linux or more likely have a new project, it sounds a bit like a plan to coerce or manipulate / trick people that has no interest in microkernels by let's say the dictator Linus to focus their dev time on this endevour just because you have the brand.
Like Hollywood that uses known brands to shove us down some other content, like bat women instead of inventing new own heroes. I don't think that would be so unrealistic to get something good going especially on how forever long it would take to port linux. And it doesn't have to support all drivers but a good amount of it to be useful if it's microkernel advantages can come out, I just don't think gaming will be a first thing to focus a lot on.

But I write as if you would engage in anything I wrote in a meaningful way and not just that your 3 secret points counter all that and that I am dumb.

[Emmanuel Deloget]

The loss of argument can't hurt me. On the other hand, if what I am saying is true, but people don't know about it, that can hurt both me and many other people.

Therefore, I have to popularize my argument. At the same time, the discussion in this thread can better ascertain whether my argument is true or not. I belive it is. But the discussion could prove that I have made some error.

<snip>

Oh damn.

Man, some of us are engineers. Some of us are scientists. Some of us were actually born when Linus and Andrew had their famous discussion about why Linux was not a microkernel (and we were able to understand that discussion). Some of us have witnessed the evolution of kernels through the years only to see that no real breakthrough happened in the field of microkernel (for that matter, I'm affraid that no real breakthrough happened in the field of any kind of kernel).

Do you really expect us to not understand your Incredibly Novel Idea?

Also, stop using bold here and there to make your discourse more discoursey. It pains me and you just sound like a troll.

[blackiwid]

Therefore, I have to popularize my argument. At the same time, the discussion in this thread can better ascertain whether my argument is true or not. I belive it is. But the discussion could prove that I have made some error.

You make wild assumptions that you have to make this absurd style of guessing pseudo arguments to make people guess that we all are to stupid to understand you if you directly make your argument, that you have to slowly somehow train us like a a.i. to then at the end understand your argument or something.

Over 4000 views so far, in 2 days.

Can you link to site 10 or 11 of this comments and show your proof that this has 4000 views? Still let's assume it's 4000 let's assume it's 40.000 not only do not many agree with you because you got nearly 0 likes so if nothing else you made yourself look bad at least as much as I, and again I write something under a pseudonym so whatever... But still give me the proof that so far 4000 read page 10 of this comment section I don't believe you, probably you have some numbers for the article, but not everybody that reads the article reads 10 pages of comments...

This is so misguided; it makes it obvious that you don't know anything about microkernels. I suggest that you continue reading this thread, but it would be much better if you refrain from making any additional posts.

Yes nobody ever except you understood something from microkernels, if you said that only to me, you might have a point, but your job would be to tell me why it's so important and linux will fail in your measurement if it does not change to it, but you refuse to do that, so saying to somebody that is willing to listen why he is wrong just that he is wrong is really stupid and nobody can see the difference between somebody that itself knows what he is talking about and somebody that just says that without any own knowledge or important facts. I hope certainly that you have some knowledge about microkernel if you talk nonstop about it, otherwise it would be really embarrassing, yet that does not mean that you are correct your unwillingness to state your argument is a big circumstantial evidence that your argument is very weak or not existent.
If it would be a very strong argument you could only win by telling it.

[blackiwid]

Btw how does it come that I see berdie's posts, I have him as so far only person on my ignore list since a long time and as bad as his arguments are in this thread I am reassured that this was a good decision.

[AlanTuring69]

What you and a few other misguided and insolent people on this forum have managed to do is to scare away anyone who tries to point out to the advantages of microkernels for the desktop use-case.

Just look at the "arguments" so far. Instead of a constructive contribution, I got a wave of incorrect, brassy, and misguided answers.

Shame on you, blackiwid, and on others who misbehaved.

You won't discourage me.

Honest forum members, don't be scared by blackiwid and please contribute to the discussion on finding the three issues where microkernels can help.

You make a lot of very good points. I really respect the way that you conduct yourself with thoughtful and insightful points and respect the opinions of others. I hope that you continue to make posts like these and educate the infidels on the errors of their ways. I too pray to the direction of Jochen Liedtke and may the microkernel be with us.

[AlanTuring69]

"The problem" of linux desktop actually is not a technical one. It's organizational/economical one. As long as there is no a single and clear industry standard linux distribution, linux desktop won't be a thing, because nobody wants to deal with a vortex of distribution segmentation. Simple as that, but of course, there are a lot of details to unpack in this topic and I won't go through them.

To drop the idiot persona for one second, it really is as simple as that. As someone who *actually* knows what they're talking about it really is just this. Why would someone (or a huge AAA studio) invest thousands of dollars at minimum when it will get them a fraction of the money they spent back? Note that for AAA studios it would likely veer into the hundreds of thousands or even millions depending on how many people they dedicated, not to mention the QA resources required to support such a build. There is actually no way to justify it if they're publicly traded because they have an obligation to the shareholder to not waste money and typically Linux builds actually require __more__ work than Windows builds because you have to get it working with the 20,000 possible combinations of software and you never know when some random library is going to have a bug that fucks up your basically-hieroglyphics physics code or, heaven forbid, your networking code. Even if it was 1:1 in terms of effort it wouldn't be worth it when >95% of your userbase is using Windows and the rest are using Proton anyway which is a much better target.

[AlanTuring69]

But, I have already answered that question in this post:
"The relevant actors in this situation are really big players, which hold about 50% of the leverage, with another 50% of the leverage held by the end-users."

Honestly that makes no sense. Leverage?

Yes, but in that case what you have said is completely irrelevant.

Just because you say that this doesn't make it true. Heard that a few times I imagine; consider taking it more seriously because you're going to keep hearing it. Notice that other people don't get that a lot?

Here is my counter-argument: the puny game developers and many other actors commonly mentioned are mostly irrelevant. They are just like a leaf in the wind. They are going to be forced (by the conditions of the situation) to change course. Noone is going to ask them.

I'm sure I'm missing something here because this doesn't really make sense. Not reading the whole thread though so you do you.

Besides, game developers would certainly prefer to develop for a free and open-source platform. Microsoft is a dangerous actor from their point of view, which can try to rob game developers of their profits. So, game developers will change course with delight.

Citation needed. Last I checked I did it for the money because bills to pay. There is no risk of Microsoft robbing game developers of their profits, perceived or otherwise. You can either develop your own library manager or use Steam, there are pros and cons to either.

The relevant actors in this situation are really big players, which hold about 50% of the leverage, with another 50% of the leverage held by the end-users.

I'd ask who you're talking about but I don't think you are operating in reality here. I can only speculate that you're talking about big studios who are interested in turning a profit to pay their shareholders?

[Tuxee]

You make a lot of very good points. I really respect the way that you conduct yourself with thoughtful and insightful points and respect the opinions of others. I hope that you continue to make posts like these and educate the infidels on the errors of their ways. I too pray to the direction of Jochen Liedtke and may the microkernel be with us.

Very nice sarcasm. Unfortunately totally wasted on Xfcemint who clearly just forgot to take his pills.

[Luke_Wolf]

I don't see Ubisoft, EA, Microsoft, Activision porting anything to Linux. I haven't seen any modern AAA titles ported to Linux in the past three years. Again, Proton makes porting redundant.

I'm sorry what... EA? Activision? You do realize the very last game that EA released that most gamers care about (Dragon Age: Inquisition) was almost a decade ago and the fact is they're dead in the water at this point. Activision's heyday is long over at this point too. At least Ubisoft is still relevant but their games from my playing work with Proton just fine, and until fairly recently Microsoft Game Studios was mostly focused on Xbox exclusives that not even Windows got. This isn't 2008 anymore.

The fact is these giants of yesteryear are almost irrelevant today and the vast majority of the games most people are buying today are from much smaller companies that are as often independently publishing through Steam, but I can still point to big games like Total War: Warhammer III which was released february this year which just like its predecessors was still given targeted Linux support.

But sure, show the class you aren't actually a gamer and are ill informed to speak on the subject.

[Weasel]

I would ask you a question then: "How do you get a stable ABI without a microkernel?". Notice that all the attempts to produce such a thing in the Linux ecosystem have failed miserably. A stable ABI does not exist for the desktop Linux ecosystem. How do I know that? If a stable ABI was available, then developers would ship their applications as executables (i.e. binaries), not as source code.

Same way you get a stable ABI with a library? Look at the entire Windows API userland.

Of course it doesn't exist on Linux. Thanks for stating the obvious. That's their decision. They want to freely change the interfaces within the kernel without maintaining old interfaces. It's a choice.

Just decide on a fucking ABI and interface and never change it, only add to it. That's how stable ABIs are born. It's the same way with microkernels, you must decide on an interface, and never break it.

Linus does that, with userspace, but not with kernel. It's his stupid choice, not a technical limitation.

I say that a microkernel has a significant impact on stability of ABIs, therefore your claim is wrong.

I can also turn this argument back to you: How can you be so sure in this claim? What evidence can you provide in support of a claim that a microkernel does not push ABIs towards stability? The burden of proof is on you, since microkernels and monolithic kernels have significant differences with regards to ABIs.

I already gave 3 analogies with userland libraries and IPC. Not sure what kind of evidence do you want.

Windows has stable ABI with both microkernel and in-process interfaces (i.e. "monolithic" stuff).

To be fair, you don't really need evidence if you knew what you were talking about. This is basic programming concepts. Feels like I'm talking to oiaohm. Are you sure you're a developer? Do you know basic assembly at least? (required for binary stability)