Quoting: MohandevirBut what I would like to know is how many people, in Steam user pool, is like me:

One computer for work, supplied by the company that hired them and a personnal gaming rig that is used only for that: gaming. Everything else is done on smartphones nowadays... My daughter has a Win10 laptop and it's barely used anymore. Little gaming, here and there and all else, from video editing to photos/photo editing is done on cell phone too... Similar for my son, except he's more of a gamer. Are we weird phenomenons?

I know plenty of people like you so I doubt you're weird, but I'm pretty much the opposite. I've also got a computer at work (a proper desktop, not a laptop; I like leaving my "tools" at the office) and another at home for gaming and other entertainment. And then there's my wife's graphics workstation, which I borrow when I need to edit photos or something, but that's not very often. All of these systems run Linux obviously. ;)

But my phone I only use when I absolutely need to. It simply feels silly to try to do anything productive on a tiny touch screen when I've got more powerful hardware with better input methods and larger screens at hand. A smartphone has its advantages, mainly to do with it being small and easy to carry around with you, but it's never my first choice for getting something done or entertaining myself.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mr-victoryWait... Is that browser Google Chrome?!

Why is that surprising? It has officially supported Linux for more than a decade.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapulwe complained a lot about not being 100% an native port

Most of the complaints I saw about the Witcher 2 port were because it was released before it was anywhere near ready. It was more or less broken in many ways and performed like crap. There was lots of talk about VP's wrapper tech being the reason, but you wouldn't have seen a fraction of the backlash if the release wasn't so badly botched. You see exactly the same kind of response when a bad or broken console port is released on Windows.

Personally I was fine with the port and enjoyed the game after they fixed the most glaring problems, quite a while after release. The tech doesn't really matter that much to me as long as the release is properly supported on Linux. Emphasis on "support". I still don't really buy games that don't officially support Linux.

Quoting: elmapulsorry if it sounds like conspiration theory, it is.

It definitely is a conspiracy theory with very little technical understanding to back it up.

Quoting: elmapuli always thought that free software was made by people for people, and companies had an symbiotic relationship with us.

Some companies understand the long-term benefits and work with Linux and the community, but most take what they can and give nothing or very little back. It's naïve to expect anything else, when most business decisions are made by people who have very little interest or expertise in the technology or anything beyond short term profit.

Quoting: elmapulits harder and harder to believe that narrative, mint broke compatibility with snapes claiming that they were an proprietary form of distribution or that canonical was the only repo or something, but then, why they support steam?

They didn't break anything. You can just install snapd and go nuts, but Mint decided that flatpak was the more universal solution and better for their users, and went with that as the default instead. I don't think any distribution officially supports both out of the box.

Quoting: elmapulwe may demonize an proprietary codecs because they arent open source or compatible with open source, they are evil , etc.
we may demonize drm and anti cheat.
we may demonize everything for the sake of freedom, but at the end of the day, what we end up with?

Lots of demons?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Chapter 2 was in one of the huge Itch.io charity bundles, but there's no Linux build available. Looks fun though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKillerWhile AMD should get all the kudos and headstart from releasing their open-source cross-vendor scaling tech first, I hope Nvidia's similar one will also ultimately get integrated for those developers that want to use movement vectors to help their scaling. It would be a shame for that use case to only be covered by DLSS.

Does the open source Nvidia Image Scaling actually make use of motion vectors? As far as I understood, it's just a clever single-pass scaling + sharpening algorithm, much closer to FSR than DLSS. I don't see any mention of motion vectors in the readme on the github page [External Link].

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Yeah I should have clarified that my dislike of procedural generation does not extend to strategy games like Civ. And it definitely makes sense in survival games and roguelikes, and anything else where permadeath is a thing. You can probably think of other examples as well.

But enough of that. The game looks like it might be fun despite the generated world.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Once again, I'm very interested until I see the words "procedurally generated". I know replayability is important to many gamers, but I'd rather just thoroughly explore and enjoy a well-designed game world once and move on.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: GuestI think it was a change that can potentially impact everyone, made without due consideration, all because a youtuber wanted more page views. If distros are going to start doing such things then it can't be a good road to go down, no matter what change is made.

And yes, the more I think on it, the worse the change is. As I wrote - anyone forcing things through by putting in a configuration override (which is almost certainly going to start to be recommended on random internet comments) now won't be warned of potential breakage.

Note that I'm not saying nothing should have been done, I'm instead saying that (in my view) the change wasn't an improvement and doesn't fix anything.

But no warnings were removed. The wishy-washy "You are about to do something potentially harmful." was changed into "Removing essential system-critical packages is not permitted. This might break the system." and the silly prompt was removed in favour of a flag. You'll still see the list of relevant packages and unmet dependencies.

You can easily check the relevant changes in their Gitlab [External Link]. You're arguing against a strawman.

Am I though? Tell me you think internet comments aren't going to start recommending that flag be applied. So how does changing apt help here?

Are you really trying to tell me that I shouldn't be in favour of better changes, things that might actually improve the situation?

You said "anyone forcing things through [...] now won't be warned of potential breakage." which is clearly a misunderstanding on your part. You invented a problem and argued against it. That's a strawman.

And of course I'm not telling you what you should do or think. Personally I think this change does improve the situation, though admittedly not by much. Then again, there's not much of a problem to fix.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Samsai

Quoting: NociferWell, this change is actually all about completely preventing the package manager from uninstalling essential packages when told to do so, either explicitly or implicitly. What produced the error Linus faced was trying to install a misconfigured package combined with his/the system's failure to first update the package listings before he tried to install it; it's just that this misconfigured package ended up firing apt's "remove essential package" routine and from thereon there was nothing to prevent apt from doing exactly as ordered, beyond that one silly "fail-safe" (which shouldn't ever have been implemented in the first place).

I am aware of the scenario. Apt still retains the ability to uninstall essential packages and that counts as having the ability to explicitly order such a removal for me. The only difference is that now the fail-safe mechanism is stronger and will better dissuade users who don't actually know what they are doing.

I still disagree that the apt change was useful. The KDE Discover change, absolutely, but for apt people are still just going to follow something they found online to force modifications without fully understanding it. It's a knee-jerk reaction, and doesn't actually fix anything in my view.

So is your only argument against the tiny apt change that it happened too fast? You say it doesn't fix anything, but does it break anything either? Do you actually think the UX is worse now, instead of better?

People making a mountain out of a molehill, as is tradition.

I think it was a change that can potentially impact everyone, made without due consideration, all because a youtuber wanted more page views. If distros are going to start doing such things then it can't be a good road to go down, no matter what change is made.

And yes, the more I think on it, the worse the change is. As I wrote - anyone forcing things through by putting in a configuration override (which is almost certainly going to start to be recommended on random internet comments) now won't be warned of potential breakage.

Note that I'm not saying nothing should have been done, I'm instead saying that (in my view) the change wasn't an improvement and doesn't fix anything.

But no warnings were removed. The wishy-washy "You are about to do something potentially harmful." was changed into "Removing essential system-critical packages is not permitted. This might break the system." and the silly prompt was removed in favour of a flag. You'll still see the list of relevant packages and unmet dependencies.

You can easily check the relevant changes in their Gitlab [External Link]. You're arguing against a strawman.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Samsai

Quoting: NociferWell, this change is actually all about completely preventing the package manager from uninstalling essential packages when told to do so, either explicitly or implicitly. What produced the error Linus faced was trying to install a misconfigured package combined with his/the system's failure to first update the package listings before he tried to install it; it's just that this misconfigured package ended up firing apt's "remove essential package" routine and from thereon there was nothing to prevent apt from doing exactly as ordered, beyond that one silly "fail-safe" (which shouldn't ever have been implemented in the first place).

I am aware of the scenario. Apt still retains the ability to uninstall essential packages and that counts as having the ability to explicitly order such a removal for me. The only difference is that now the fail-safe mechanism is stronger and will better dissuade users who don't actually know what they are doing.

I still disagree that the apt change was useful. The KDE Discover change, absolutely, but for apt people are still just going to follow something they found online to force modifications without fully understanding it. It's a knee-jerk reaction, and doesn't actually fix anything in my view.

So is your only argument against the tiny apt change that it happened too fast? You say it doesn't fix anything, but does it break anything either? Do you actually think the UX is worse now, instead of better?

People making a mountain out of a molehill, as is tradition.

View this comment - View article - View full comments