Quoting: Zer0Cool

Quoting: RavenWingsWould it be possible to have a full OS (Windows) running on the Dock-M.2, connect two monitors and have it all run somewhat useable for non-gaming-purposes? I doubt this will be possible over the single USB-C on the Deck, but I lack any serious experience on this topic.

More I/O is very high on my wishlist for a Steam Deck 2. To this day I´m still amazed by the amount of ports my little old GPD Win 1 had :happy:

considering that you can put windows on the sd card and not have much issue i assume this would too. but id still personally just dual boot on a 1TB nvme internally if i wanted windows

Maybe I'm living in the past, but . . . will Windows even run from an SD card, or anywhere else that isn't a computer's primary hard drive? I remember back in the day it was certainly the case that Linux would boot from a USB but for Windows that wasn't remotely a thing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: FisterfrankAm I missing something or are we going backwards? Hasn’t the point & focus been to speed up load & boot times? Not make it 3 times longer.

I will repeat:

Quoting: Purple Library GuyIt's an option. The change thing says "max length" was increased. So I don't see what the problem is; you might have no desire for it, but plenty of people seem to want to fiddle with this. Is there a reason Valve should be telling them, "No, thou shalt have no videos longer than 10 seconds"?

OK, in case you're unaware, in the last few days there have been several articles on GoL about how users figured out ways to substitute their own boot splash videos for the official one, how Valve responded by making this easier to do, how someone then made a script to make it still easier. Now Valve have made it so people substituting their own boot splash videos do not have to stick to a strict 10-second limit for the substitute video they drop in. How evil?

And it's just amazing me how in a space about Linux, where I might expect people to be happy at more freedom to tinker being enabled, everyone's totally dissing this move of Valve to let people do what they want to do. Really, WTF?!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: kuhpunktI mean it's good that they give people the freedom to do what they want, but I get the impression that some people just want to do it for the sake of it - and not because they actually want to watch a 30 second boot video every time. There's no benefit to it.

Indeed, I've never once said I wish my boot times were prolonged by a stupid video

Quoting: Skipperioand I was thinking it takes hella long to boot.

It's an option. The change thing says "max length" was increased. So I don't see what the problem is; you might have no desire for it, but plenty of people seem to want to fiddle with this. Is there a reason Valve should be telling them, "No, thou shalt have no videos longer than 10 seconds"?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShabbyX

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Samsai

Quoting: ShabbyXPretty sure can't license code written against unity as GPL. That would require unity's code itself to be GPL-compatible.

I don't think so. The GPL license requires derivative code to be licensed under GPL, and obviously Unity is not derivative work, more like the opposite. It should be possible for you to write a GPL'd piece of code that plugs into a non-GPL system and still enforce all the requirements of GPL when it comes to your code. Obviously you cannot enforce them on the whole system.

Yeah . . . seems to me something like Unity is closest legally/conceptually to being like a programming language & compiler, and it's clearly possible (if not all that common) to compile GPL software on proprietary compilers.

Unity is not really a compiler, not even an interpreter. The application links against it. So no, this isn't the same as compiling with a proprietary compiler.

So Unity games have to include a copy of Unity with the game?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedjeIt isn't simply a notion. If you're coming from say Windows or mac (macs don't even let the users deal with drivers outside of random third party devices) and either your video driver is updated via Windows Update, or via downloading some installer from a website. Coming to Linux you are suddenly asked to enable third party package repositories to replace your kernel and 3d libraries?

Well, no. Only if you want something later and greater than the distro just naturally provides and updates. I personally have never messed with my AMD driver at all, and I'm on Mint. But my gaming isn't heavy, heaviest thing I ever play is Stellaris and it's not exactly new, so I have no need to worry about what's current.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: Purple Library GuyTo be honest, I feel much more confident about sticking a file in a folder or two than I do about installing applications from Github. Especially on a system that will dump non-Flatpak applications after a while.

As already mentioned, nothing about this gets overwritten and it is a Flatpak application. Not sure where you got either idea from in this.

Apologies; I don't usually go off half-cocked. I just read "there's an easy to use app (GitHub)" and concluded that it was something I'd have to install from Github, which normally means "not packaged in any user-friendly way".

And I didn't know from stand-alone scripts or whether this was one; all the article says is that it's an "app", which last I checked was short for "application", and my understanding is that normally "applications" other than Flatpaks are not persistent in SteamOS past the next update. Now that I've been corrected it's clear there's something technical about the nature of this "application" that makes it not like that, but as I say, there's nothing in the article that says so.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: rcrit

Quoting: MarlockThis is a widespread notion but I honestly don't get it...

If we were talking about some cryptic app that only exists in AUR I would be agreeing, but we're talking about Mesa here.

How's adding Kisak's (Stable) Mesa PPA in any way difficult on Ubuntu and derivates?

What about for non-Ubuntu and derivatives?

So, you're saying it might be true of distros that are neither rolling release and/or Arch derivatives, nor Ubuntu and derivatives?
Are there distros that are intended for ease of use that also don't fit either of those baskets?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This sounds quite interesting. Definitely will look into it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Samsai

Quoting: ShabbyXPretty sure can't license code written against unity as GPL. That would require unity's code itself to be GPL-compatible.

I don't think so. The GPL license requires derivative code to be licensed under GPL, and obviously Unity is not derivative work, more like the opposite. It should be possible for you to write a GPL'd piece of code that plugs into a non-GPL system and still enforce all the requirements of GPL when it comes to your code. Obviously you cannot enforce them on the whole system.

Yeah . . . seems to me something like Unity is closest legally/conceptually to being like a programming language & compiler, and it's clearly possible (if not all that common) to compile GPL software on proprietary compilers.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

To be honest, I feel much more confident about sticking a file in a folder or two than I do about installing applications from Github. Especially on a system that will dump non-Flatpak applications after a while.

View this comment - View article - View full comments