Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

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

  • The problem is that Linux never had an established big distribution network like Steam to serve games.

    With Steam and Desura on Linux and the fact that very popular Source engined games are going to be native Linux software, I'm sure it will finally gain momentum.
    I hope id Software is quick enough to have their Linux variants are on Steam once it hits Linux...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Scali View Post
      That's obvious: Because you want to use Windows software. Who's being obtuse?
      Your obtuse. You seem to not understand some pretty simple stuff. It's not the windows version that i care about. It is the software itself (ie: the OS agnostic code), meaning even if i had some way of running the AU versions - i would possibly be going that route. So it literally has nothing to do with wanting to run windows software specifically - and for not understanding that basic FACT - you are more than just obtuse, you dumb as a brick - unable to recognize very obvious things, concisely explained to you :\

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      You can't, actually. Windows can do < 1 ms latencies out-of-the-box. On linux you can only do that with special unofficial kernel patches (mostly from Ingo Molnar), but these come at the cost of higher CPU overhead once you reach the < 5 ms range, unlike Windows.
      Low latencies aren't exactly linux' strong point.
      If you want to make a technical argument, at least get your facts straight. Then again, that was never the linux community's strong point.
      AHAHA. Dude, Ingo has nothing to do with RT-linux (anymore) and hasn't for YEARS, now. <- And i need to get my facts straight(?), ya rihgt. Ingo was the original author of the RT patches, not a current contributor/maintainer... Windows sucks for these kinds of tasks, MacOSX OOTB has much lower latency than windows (and a superior audio subsystem aka: CoreAudio), but depending on your hardware and configuration - Linux can get lower than both. You say it's not one of linux' strong points - but you would be wrong - realtime, low-latency _deterministic_ behaviour in Linux can be a strong point (very easily) if configured properly... If you think it is not then Go tell that to the People at Harrison Consoles, Muse Research, embedded / industrial linux crowds... (rt)Linux is used all the time in the Music Industry and other industries by many companies - and there are systems built using linux that in terms of high-performance and reliability are killer. While it is true your average CPU-load will be higher (idling anyway) it doesn't have an impact on performance, nor does it have huge overhead. - and this overhead can be significantly reduced using proper hardware with proper configurations and testing.

      you tell me to get my facts straight, yet you have NO clue what you are talking about.

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      I'm not. I'm saying it's called the NT kernel because it's the kernel of Windows NT. So the kernel is named after the OS, not the other way around. I don't know why you are trying to argue that because so far you've failed horribly to prove otherwise.
      First, it was called NT BEFORE Windows used it. - we've been over this. you have provided not even one (good) citation/link to prove you point. Again, you claimed this;

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      As far as I know, the Windows kernel doesn't even have a specific name. It's just called 'Windows kernel' because it is named after the OS, not the other way around.
      Now, you are saying it's called the NT kernel because it is the kernel of Windows NT - when it was called NT before it had anything to do with Windows. Sorry loser, but you are contradicting yourself. You can't claim that it has NO specific name, but is just called 'Windows kernel' - when that isn't true - you are back-peddling to try to make yourself appear smarter than you are.

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      No, I claimed it doesn't have a specific name, like 'linux', or 'mach', or something like that. So people just call it the 'Windows kernel', 'Windows NT kernel', 'NT kernel' or such. In all three cases, the kernel is named after the OS, not the other way around (you can't argue otherwise, because Windows was around before Windows NT, and as such, before the Windows NT kernel).
      Windows is the OS - NT and the NT kernel are a chunk of the OS. it existed before it was used by that OS, and wasn't even originally intended for the windows platform - it was intended for OS/2 (a 32bit os) - end of story. I don't have to argue anything. You are straight up wrong. and if you are going to continue to claim otherwise - please provide citations/links that confirm this - you have yet to provide anything substantial. - while i have pushed several links all of which refer to it as the NT kernel, and cite that it existed before it had anything to do with Windows.

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      No it's not, look: https://www.google.com/search?q=windows+kernel
      Plenty of hits for "Windows kernel" as well. Even ones on the Microsoft site: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s...letin/ms12-042
      Not good enough, bud. First, since you use windows - why don't you open task manager and look at what the for the kernel process is called. hint: it contains 'NT' and 'kernel' (or krnl) in it's name. I don't have a MS machine in front of me, or i would direct to the exact name. Secondly, it doesn't matter if you can turn up places where it is called the 'Windwos kernel'. the NT kernel is the windows kernel. People may also refer to XNU as the "MacOS X kernel" (yes, google turns up results - big deal!) - but that doesn't change the fact that technically it is the XNU kernel. Thirdly;

      http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...=vs.85%29.aspx
      http://www.osnews.com/story/25574/Mi..._Use_NT_Kernel
      http://www.thetechherald.com/article...T-Kernel/9036/
      http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...=vs.80%29.aspx
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel#NT_kernel
      http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc750820.aspx
      http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc768148
      http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc750820.aspx

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      As I say, it doesn't have a specific name, so it is referred to in various ways, depending on the context. You also see MS referring to things like "Windows Vista kernel" here, for example: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../cc748650.aspx
      If the official name was the "NT kernel", then why didn't he just refer to it as the NT 6.0 kernel or something?
      They do refer to them by version, idiot they directly correspond to the version of NT - and i have already provided you with a wikipedia link that if you had bothered to read - you would've seen that already but here you go;

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Releases
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...ndows_versions
      http://support.microsoft.com/kb/238891

      it's interesting that you provide a single link to technet.microsoft.com - yet every white paper from that site that i have linked to does in fact state NT kernel often with the version they are refering to in the articles. - do you really expect the technical writers for that documentation to always have to write the specific or does it not make sense in some cases just to refer to it in a layman term. (obviously it makes sense to do that).

      your evidence for it's naming is PATHETIC - and false. You seem to not be able to see a distinction between layman terms vs. technical;

      layman = Windows Kernel, Vista kernel, MacOSX kernel, etc.
      technical = Nt kernel + version, XNU kernel + version, Linux kernel + version, etc.

      do you see the difference dummy?? because by the way you talk - it seems you don't.

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      And still the kernel would be named after the OS, not the OS named after the kernel...
      The OS is win95, WinXP, Vista, Win7, etc...again, NT was originally meant for another OS namely OS/2... NT is the core of Windows, but wasn't named after it - Windows added NT to the end of the name, after the fact... it had that name before it was used in Windows. Stop claiming to the contrary - you are simply WRONG.

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      I knew what it stood for. I just don't see the relevance of it, since it's not called OS XNU (which you were claiming, horribly far-fetched, and no sources to make that halfway believable), or XNU/MacOS or something.
      Besides, the XNU kernel is older than OS X, it was also used in NeXTSTEP before that. Again, an OS not named after the kernel.
      Actaully, no. As far as i know - XNU wasn't used in NeXtstep or OpenStep. It was a Mach kernel + BSD parts they used, which was a precursor to XNU - although without installing a NeXTStep VM and digging around i can't be totally positive. The wikipedia article on XNU says it is, however, the 'discussion' part of the article cites/debates the validity of that claim. I'm reasonably sure XNU wasn't used though. But if you can prove otherwise - go right ahead. I also didn't say X stood for XNU - i said they are referencing the same thing...

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      It's just far-fetched to think that the X would stand for XNU. Apple has no reason to stress that OS X is not UNIX, because MacOS was never UNIX in the first place. Their users don't know what UNIX is, and don't care about it. OS X is just OS 10, where the X is used because it looks more appealing in the name, and to stress that the OS is a departure from MacOS Classic.
      NeXTStep, XNU, MacOS X

      there is a pretty obvious pattern here. Some of it is marketing (and has appeal), some of it pays homage to it's historical roots and X is also the roman numeral for 10 - the tenth version of MacOS. it's not a coincedence that things have played out the way they have in the naming scheme. Quite frankly, it is interesting on a few levels, and i am pretty sure that was intended on their part...

      whether or not Apple users know what XNU stands for hardly matters, i doubt it was done for their benefit. Most people don't even know what a kernel is, either ~ so what is your point??? Most people don't realize all of the NSxxxxx code present in MacOSX is a direct link to NextStep, Apple didn't have to do that - they obviously chose to keep that lineage/history...

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      That IS the full statement, is it not? I could just have bolded (PPC)... Doesn't matter, your mention of PPC was just plain wrong.
      OS X may differ in many ways from MacOS classic, but PPC is not one of them.
      Or you could have actually ackknowledged what i said - refering to both hardware AND software. (which you did not) You may think that is a full statement but the fact is years before MacOSX was released for Intel, it had been developed to run on that platform from the start. So there is a big difference there. You can be a stickler - and i already admitted the PPC part was a bad choice in wording, but you can't argue the rest of it...

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      I know. I also know that Apple never released a MacOS based on the Rhapsody technology, so it is irrelevant to this discussion.
      Yes, they did - MacOS X Server 1.0 was essentially Rhapsody and MacOSX is built on technology that was developed during Rhapsody's development - that is where the work began, MacOSX would not exist without Rhapsody, dumbass.

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      No, they're spot-on, and hit you where it hurts.
      Nothing you have written is 'spot on'. Wine wasn't designed for people who want to use their 'hated' windows applications. it was designed so people 'could' run windows applications - you're a moron to still be claiming this nonsense which is nothing more than your own opinion. sorry but no dice.

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      I didn't, and I said that you should quote me if I did. I don't see you posting a quote. So stop accusing me of things I never said. You REALLY are looking way too hard for insults... again.
      Isn't going to work anyway, I'm not exactly ignorant about Macs. I've used Macs from time to time, and developed a bit for OS 9 in the past. And these days OS X is one of the many platforms I target. I think I have a pretty good idea of what OS 9 and OS X are.
      Especially since OS X is partly based on FreeBSD, which I have been using for many years (yea, I even use MacPorts on OS X).
      You contradicted yourself and i pointed you to where you did that. sorry about your luck. I don't have to look for insults - you insult yourself by showcasing you're lack of knowledge, fallacious claims and peddling incorrect BS...Wow, you use macports - am i supposed to be impressed or something. I used freeBSD once a opun a time too - big deal.

      oh and please point me to the software you have developed for MacOS 9, if you can?

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      No, I never said any of that. All I said was: "Likewise, OS X uses the XNU kernel from the Darwin project, but neither XNU nor Darwin are in the name 'OS X'."
      I later said: "Yes, so the X stands for 10, not for 'X Not Unix'. It's the same thing as Windows NT still being called Windows, but essentially being an entirely new OS. Has something to do with strong brandnames and all that."
      no it/s not the same thing. NT has been extended, parts rewritten, etc - Nt's versions do not match up to the OS (ie: win7 uses NT6). - While from os9 to MacOSX is very much a completely different operating system (from OS 9) that had rosetta for backwards compatibility (sort of like wine)... X represents more than just a number, you can claim otherwise all that you like and we've already been over this - you are simply wrong. Your just like some other idiot who claimed that X was used solely because it sounds like 'sex'. it's likely for a variety of reasons, but they essentially are all referencing to the same thing ...

      Originally posted by Scali View Post
      I really don't see why you are trying to build a case for this, the futulity is mindnumbing.
      it's only mind-numbing because you are thick in the skull, and make incorrect claim after incorrect claim.

      ...oh and it doesn't matter that Steve Jobs calls it 'MacOS ten' ~ no one was arguing that. It is called MacOS ten, but is written MacOS X. So it's really a moot point. - in fact, it's kinda dumb that you even felt that you needed to write that out :\ lol.
      Last edited by ninez; 14 August 2012, 02:01 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ninez View Post
        AHAHA. Dude, Ingo has nothing to do with RT-linux (anymore)
        Yea whatever... he laid the groundwork, and it's still an unofficial patch, hence 'RT-linux', rather than just the regular linux kernel

        Originally posted by ninez View Post
        Windows sucks for these kinds of tasks
        No it doesn't, but you sound like such a zealot that you probably never even TRIED.

        Originally posted by ninez View Post
        MacOSX OOTB has much lower latency than windows (and a superior audio subsystem aka: CoreAudio)
        Again, nope. OS X is good (much better than linux), but so is Windows. Besides, ASIO on Windows is perfect. CoreAudio is not bad, but it is not specifically made for low-latency professional audio as ASIO is. CoreAudio is more comparable to DirectSound (which you don't use on Windows with professional apps), sitting on top of audio drivers, where ASIO is a direct interface to the audio drivers, giving you direct access to hardware buffers. It doesn't get any better than that.
        Besides, Windows can do < 1 ms latency out of the box (without extra CPU overhead obviously). Anything below 1 ms is purely theoretical anyway. It doesn't get better than that.

        Originally posted by ninez View Post
        First, it was called NT BEFORE Windows used it. - we've been over this.
        Uhhh, whatever. You just posted some quote about the development of Windows NT, as inthe OS, not the kernel.
        The thing is, you are asking me to prove that there is NO name for the kernel, which you cannot prove. If the kernel has a name, then you *can* easily prove it. Because you can easily refer to various sources that define that name. So the burden of proof is on you: you need to prove that the NT kernel is the name, which you can't, because as I demonstrated, not even Microsoft themselves refer to the kernel as such.

        If anything, 'Executive' would be the closest to the name of the Windows kernel. But since that only describes the microkernel itself, and not the Windows subsystem, it is not what people commonly see as 'the kernel' of Windows.

        Originally posted by ninez View Post
        Now, you are saying it's called the NT kernel because it is the kernel of Windows NT - when it was called NT before it had anything to do with Windows.
        What a bunch of nonsense. Unlike linux, Windows and most other OSes don't develop the kernel separately from the rest of the OS.
        Windows NT is an OS, the kernel is a part of that development. The NT kernel has ALWAYS had EVERYTHING to do with Windows NT, because it was designed as part of the Windows NT OS.

        Originally posted by ninez View Post
        Windows is the OS - NT and the NT kernel are a chunk of the OS.
        I hate to point it out, but Windows is not just one OS.
        It is a variety of OSes that share some common APIs.
        Windows NT was designed for 32-bit and newer processors (386, MIPS, PowerPC, Alpha etc). Before that, an earlier version of Windows existed for 16-bit x86 machines.
        It's pretty obvious that Windows existed before the 32-bit kernel existed. But what does that have to do with anything?
        All 32-bit and newer versions of Windows have *always* used a kernel based on the NT branch. The first ever 32-bit version of Windows was Windows NT 3.1. And since 32-bit Windows was a completely new OS (just like OS X is completely different from MacOS 9 for example), the older 16-bit versions of Windows and the kernel they used are completely irrelevant.
        So what exactly are you trying to say? It seems you are drowning in your own argument.

        Originally posted by ninez View Post
        it was intended for OS/2 (a 32bit os) - end of story.
        Yes, we all know that. It is however painfully irrelevant.
        The kernel never officially had a name, not 'NT kernel' or anything else. And you can't prove otherwise. Links directly from microsoft.com contradict you.

        Originally posted by ninez View Post
        Not good enough, bud. First, since you use windows - why don't you open task manager and look at what the for the kernel process is called. hint: it contains 'NT' and 'kernel' (or krnl) in it's name.
        Hint: the kernel is not a process.
        Hint: whatever you're referring to (could you be any more vague? I suppose you mean ntoskrnl.exe) is not a process on a modern Windows machine.
        Hint: just because the executable is named a certain way doesn't mean it's the official product name. Heck, most of my 64-bit DLLs are called *32.dll. Are you going to argue that they're actually 32-bit? No, they just kept the same names for better backward compatibility (there's that term again).
        Hint: You've lost the argument 3 or 4 posts ago, give up.

        For the rest, I've had just about enough of you. You just pile insult upon insult. If you actually had some proper arguments, you wouldn't need insults to get your point across.

        Comment


        • When OS X is so good why is there no OpenGL 4.x for it?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kano View Post
            When OS X is so good why is there no OpenGL 4.x for it?
            Poor timing. Apple uses a similar strategy as Microsoft, where they generally roll out major API updates only with major OS updates (eg, Vista->DX10, Win7->DX11, Win8->DX11.1).
            Apple uses a common OpenGL framework (for improved compatibility and stability between different vendors), just like DirectX has a common runtime provided by Microsoft.
            On Windows/linux/FreeBSD/Solaris, the OpenGL API is not provided by the OS itself, but by the drivers, so a simple driver update is enough to get the latest OpenGL.
            But where Microsoft controls both the DirectX API and OS, and they can more easily make them coincide with a release, Apple is dependent on Khronos.
            So the latest MacOS has *just* received OpenGL 3.2 support. By the time OpenGL 4.x was final, Apple was probably too far in the development cycle already to integrate it in the 10.8 release.
            So you have to wait for al least another release.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Scali View Post
              Poor timing. [...] By the time OpenGL 4.x was final, Apple was probably too far in the development cycle already to integrate it in the 10.8 release.
              So you have to wait for al least another release.
              OpenGL 4.0 saw the light in March 2010.
              Mac OS X 10.7 was released in July 2011.
              Considering Apple is even a member of the Khronos Group,
              they should have a very good idea of OpenGL 4.0 way ahead its release.

              I really don't see your point.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by entropy View Post
                OpenGL 4.0 saw the light in March 2010.
                Mac OS X 10.7 was released in July 2011.
                Considering Apple is even a member of the Khronos Group,
                they should have a very good idea of OpenGL 4.0 way ahead its release.

                I really don't see your point.
                That's because you didn't read this sentence in my post, I suppose:
                "Apple was probably too far in the development cycle already to integrate it in the 10.8 release."
                It's all about scope creep.
                Apparently it just wasn't in the 10.8 scope, and Apple didn't feel like letting it creep in.

                Comment


                • Btw. Apple sells OpenGL 4 hardware since ages. With the exeption of SNB, IVB and all dedicated chips are capable of OpenGL 4. So this is really stupid - at least for Nvidia + Amd chips i think Linux has got a better OpenGL stack.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Kano View Post
                    So this is really stupid - at least for Nvidia + Amd chips i think Linux has got a better OpenGL stack.
                    The thing is, linux does *not* have an OpenGL stack (just like Windows/*BSD/Solaris/etc). They are part of the driver.
                    So on linux, if you use the binary driver releases from nVidia or AMD, you get a fully up-to-date OpenGL implementation (I believe there are already beta drivers with 4.3 support from both vendors).
                    If you install open source drivers from the MesaGL project, you are limited to 3.0 at this point.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Scali View Post
                      That's because you didn't read this sentence in my post, I suppose:
                      "Apple was probably too far in the development cycle already to integrate it in the 10.8 release."
                      It's all about scope creep.
                      Apparently it just wasn't in the 10.8 scope, and Apple didn't feel like letting it creep in.
                      I read that sentence and still don't see your point. They were too far in to the development cycle... 2 years before it was released? They were too far into the development of 10.8 A YEAR BEFORE 10.7 was even released?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X