Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Here's How To Setup Clear Linux For Intel Steam Linux Gaming

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

  • #11
    I would like to warn you. The Clear Linux Project is all about performance. You will lose control and the hardcoded systemd Google DNS servers seem to be used by default(Edit: When not reconfigured by DHCP):

    Originally posted by Dimitri John Ledkov, former Intel Corporation - now Canonical Ltd.
    No files should be shipped in /etc fullstop. I even dislike the commented .conf files in /etc and for clearlinux we even purge those.
    Source

    So yeah, writing the configuration to binaries/directly in the source code and using all default values possible can be faster but this is squeezing out every little piece of performance at all costs - even if it's compromising your security. And it's against all approved dogmas.

    I'm always for lightweight systems using OpenBox for myself. But I would never go this far just for tiny fractions of performance increases.
    Last edited by oooverclocker; 01-17-2017, 08:51 PM.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by oooverclocker View Post
      So yeah, writing the configuration to binaries/directly in the source code and using all default values possible can be faster but this is squeezing out every little piece of performance at all costs - even if it's compromising your security. And it's against all approved dogmas.
      Precisely. That's exactly the point. Clear Linux is not intended as an example of how things should be done. It's purpose is to explore what is possible, when you remove these traditional limitations. Yes there are tradeoffs involved, which is why nobody else is doing the things they do, but it's certainly interesting to see what the real performance delta of those tradeoffs is. Besides, there are niche markets where such tradeoffs are indeed acceptable, compute nodes in a supercomputer perhaps, or embedded devices. Clear Linux is not competing with RHEL or SLES.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Yorgos View Post
        I wonder if you are getting paid or sth, to promote this thing.
        if it was just to give ppl a good distro and help them you could do it with promoting gentoo and giving them the chance to have the same optimizations for every machine....
        Especially for those who tinker around with many cpus, intel amd and arm, these distros are, how ppl say it, pos.

        A couple of days ago a dude asked you to make some particular benchmarks, and you told him that those won't make you revenue, thus doesn't worth your does! Does this produce you revenue? Prolly yes. Does this topic have more hits than a benchmark article? No!
        So it seems that you make reveneu beyond ads on the clorox linux
        He's making notes about 10 lines of command line being too complicated and you're suggesting gentoo???? He doesn't choose the readers or the subscribers, but clearly they have a different world view than you do.

        Comment


        • #14
          I would like to use Clear on my steambox. Does anyone know if it is possible to install a nvidia driver, without spending days to get it running? Did anyone try?

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by oooverclocker View Post
            I would like to warn you. The Clear Linux Project is all about performance. You will lose control and the hardcoded systemd Google DNS servers seem to be used by default(Edit: When not reconfigured by DHCP):


            Source

            So yeah, writing the configuration to binaries/directly in the source code and using all default values possible can be faster but this is squeezing out every little piece of performance at all costs - even if it's compromising your security. And it's against all approved dogmas.

            I'm always for lightweight systems using OpenBox for myself. But I would never go this far just for tiny fractions of performance increases.
            huh??? What do you mean? We allow all the normal configuration files in Clear Linux. We just separate our copy from your copy, so that you can clearly see which files you changed versus which came from the OS. How is this compromising security?

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by hansg View Post
              As long as this proces cannot be described as "double click setup.exe, and then next-next-next-finish", Linux is not ready for the desktop. You want Linux to make that one final step? FIX THIS.

              Repositories are not the solution; repositories are in fact the problem. What Linux needs is a single, standardized format that can be installed as described above, on any distro. A guarantee to software developers that their software can be distributed, without it needing to be blessed by a repository maintainer, to people without technical skills.
              Unlikely to make a big difference. Surely a problem, but unlikely to matter much.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                Unlikely to make a big difference. Surely a problem, but unlikely to matter much.
                Don't underestimate the effect it has on software vendors. "Should we support Linux?", someone will ask. Then someone will ask "which one?" followed by a long list of incompatible choices. This most certainly has a dampening effect on the enthousiasm of companies to actually port to Linux, and even if they do, they will choose a specific distro and stick with that.

                For example, National Instruments has chosen to only support Red Hat for their VISA package - I realize that's pretty darn uncommon, but for me that's the one thing keeping me tied to Windows. The software I write is also pretty darn uncommon (it's a huge closed-source package for testing spacecraft), and as it happens right now our distro of choice is Ubuntu - this was chosen by the administrators, not by me, on the grounds of it supporting some weird configuration they really like.

                From my point of view, I would really like to deliver my software as a generic "setup.exe" style installer that just works on any distro. I would also very much like to have the VISA package, because honestly I don't see where else we can go in the Windows "Telemetry and Unscheduled Reboots" 10 future. At the same time I'm terrified that NI will say "screw it, we stop supporting Linux altogether but the package still runs as long as it runs" (i.e. locking you into some old Red Hat version).

                Of course these are just two examples, but I imagine the same issues arise throughout the software industry. For better or for worse, closed source software is a fact of life, and even if software is open source, distro maintainers are not always going to include every package. For those software vendors, having a unified installation system for all distro's would make it much easier to support Linux.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by hansg View Post
                  Don't underestimate the effect it has on software vendors. "Should we support Linux?", someone will ask.
                  Then someone will answer, "why? 95% of marketshare is on Windows anyway", then they will all laugh, and move to the next point in their meeting's schedule.

                  And that is also assuming they didn't have parts of their software still in VB, some obscure C++ dialect, or use a ton of windows-only stuff in their .net, which isn't a given.

                  Please understand me, I'm not saying linux won't benefit massively from a secure wrapper to keep proprietary applications in their own little isolated world with their own outdated unsafe libraries and whatever because they can't release the source and they can't be bothered to keep libs up-to-date, I'm saying that this alone isn't going to matter much in Linux adoption for software vendors because of the catch-22 of the marketshare.

                  Sure those that already need or want to ship stuff for Linux will have a easier time (and that's already quite a bit of stuff), but will that convince software vendors that have traditionally sticked to Windows to make a Linux version of their software? ummmm.... I doubt it.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by arjan_intel View Post
                    huh??? What do you mean? We allow all the normal configuration files in Clear Linux. We just separate our copy from your copy, so that you can clearly see which files you changed versus which came from the OS. How is this compromising security?
                    When I have read the original statement it looked like you delivered the system without configuration files to save resources.
                    So when you reconfigure compromising default settings like forcing the DNS servers to be set by the user or DHCP server before the OS lands at the end users I have misunderstood your former collegue. In this case it doesn't matter whether the configuration files are stored where they are usually and there is no reason for criticism.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by hansg View Post
                      As long as this proces cannot be described as "double click setup.exe, and then next-next-next-finish", Linux is not ready for the desktop. You want Linux to make that one final step? FIX THIS.

                      Repositories are not the solution; repositories are in fact the problem. What Linux needs is a single, standardized format that can be installed as described above, on any distro. A guarantee to software developers that their software can be distributed, without it needing to be blessed by a repository maintainer, to people without technical skills.
                      You mean like Flatpak?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X