free is still expensive considering the crap emulator its bundled with.
hell i saw windows users complaining about the performance of that thing with an geforce 1070 , and i dont know if they fixed it already if they provide an crap support like that for windows users, imagine on linux.
get the rom and play elsewhere, free is still expensive considering you will need an expensive machine to use their emulator.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

i dont know when, but the update is finally here on ubuntu 18.04 lts

it freaking works! but i have to speak loudly otherwise my voice is supressed too, the quality is not perfect, but i think the issue is mic related, in any case its an night and day difference to what i had before.

looks like i wont be need audacity to remove the noise anymore... and... maybe i dont need an mic, if i put an music in the background of the videos of my future channel...

holly shit! i turned on my fan that i use to cool down the computer, and guess what, the mic didnt captured the sound of the fan this time!
an mic that is embed to the notebook didnt get the sound of the external fan, thanks to this feature, now i'm really impressed!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: whizse

Quoting: aluminumgriffinNice, however I really wish they would keep mesa somewhat up to date without forcing one into a FrankenDebian, maybe start with yet another "distro sub-section" (akin to non-free) that is "gaming" with the note that it is a slight sacrifice of stability for the sake of more bleeding edge (would also be a good place to put things like fresh OBS).

(mesa in Debian/Stable is at 18.3.6 , the iris drivers (matters if you uses intel iGPU) became good quite a bit after that (in the 19.x series) - to make it all that much funnier debian stable ships with libdrm 2.4.97 (to build the 19.x mesa and later you need at least libdrm 2.4.100)
In Debian/Testing it is mesa 20.1.8 and libdrm 2.4.102 so it is a night-and-day difference in terms of performance you get in stable and testing)).

You want unstable, possibly with Mesa packages from experimental if you're interested in in rc-releases.

Backporting Mesa to stable would be difficult. You would need backports for drm, llvm, and the kernel too.

They've done it for Stretch. I'm betting it's just going to take time. They have support backports of software a lot more than they used to, it does keep Debian much fresher than it used to be.

Still, I recently was bored when I found an old hardrive that had Debian 5 installed on it. Tested the theory that it'd still upgrade to 10 without issue.

Left it on overnight as it was going at it, and then the motherboard died... I swapped motherboards and then it finished. Only thing I changed was instead of using Gnome 2.x, I changed to using lxde, as the original motherboard I was using was only a P3@466mhz. The motherboard swapped in was an Athlon 64 @.. 3.5 I think?

Try doing that with any version of Windows... or most other Linux distributions! I bet even Ubuntu would puke along the way.

its possible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WP7AkJo3OE [External Link]

from windows 1.0 to windows 8.
i'm not sure if you can update from this 8 to an 10, but you're being spoiled too much at that point ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GamewizardGood to hear it's still happening as there is a packaging sprint planned to get more DSFG games packaged up. As there are a ton that some people have requested to be packaged that still are not and a few of them it would probably help them get more exposure as a project. It's not like Debian is unaware about gaming if they where well then Steam wouldn't be one of the most common packages on the non-free section on the repo to be installed by desktop users.

EDIT: Words are hard.

DSFG?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: FauconNoirI do not see any interest in that feature. It already exists in KDE and I found it not really useful. Alt+Tab + multiple desktops is already good enough.

its usefull when you dont have an proper IDE for your job.
for instance, for years we didnt had any good game engine for linux, so i tried alternative workflows like opening an text editor+the project directory to manage the assets+an tile map editor and so on to make an game on it.
nowadays i just use godot, its an much better workflow, but depending on your task, you may not have an proper IDE for it...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

i'm not crazy as RMS, i'm willing to run some proprietary code for convenience or anything.
but if we accept anything, we may end up with an system more close than windows...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: RandomizedKirbyTree47If the game can only be built with a proprietary engine, is it really an open source game? I don't think so. Or have I misunderstood and the game they will be making won't depend on Unity?

yeah, that is the point.
that is like saying:
my game is open source, here is the source code:

"c:\program files\my copany name\game.exe"

if you run this line of code, you can run my game! see? its open source!

no, its not.

if you're calling an pre built library to calc physics for you and your game depend on physics to work (eg: angry birds or similiar), you dont have acess to the source code of this library, then your game is not trully open source.

i quoted the example of drivers in another reply and drivers, let me better formulate on then:
html5 is an open standard, wich means any company can work on implementing it.
it may be an open source implementation (eg firefox) or proprietary (internet explorer).

if you make an open source game in html, then it may be open on the game layer (html5), browser layer (firefox) and operating system layer (linux), or you can replace some of those layers for other that you prefer...

if you use some engine to make such game, then you add another layer to it that may be libre (godot) or not (unity).

i can understand why people would be tempted to use some proprietary engine, it may have some features only avaliable on it (eg: rendering optimizations, physics library, etc), what im saying is:
lets not fool ourselves, if your code can only run on unity game engine, on windows, or something like this, its still not 100% our code, it still locked to some proprietary layer.

if you're ok with this, then, go for it, just know what you're doing and dont ask me for help later on to try to kill an monster that you helped to feed, and now is trying to "kill" you somehow.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: elmapulreplace the word: unity technologies (company) with microsoft, and the unity game engine with directX and tell me: whats happens?

The same as most companies, including Valve.
there is a big difference here, valve is doing a lot of things that improve linux in general.

paying developers to improve the drivers makes linux better for all of us, not just steam.
i can buy an game in an drm-free service like gog or an opensource game from github, and play it using the drivers that valve helped making, or improvments to the kernel that they did, without touching steam if i want.
maybe proton is too tied to steam, but they're still improving wine in general.

Quoting: Liam Dawe" They're all out for financial gain in some way. We all know this. Open source isn't about being entirely free of cost remember."

i'm not saying that they shouldnt make money, you're the one implying that
being open source mean you cant monetize it, take godot for example, makes money despite the fact that its open source.
sure, they're not making as much money as unity, but it will grow over time, the question is, why should we help unity instead of somehting like godot? we're locking ourselves to an proprietary runtime to run our open source code, if you dont see the issue here, why do you use linux to begin with?

sure, godot is used to make proprietary games, and part of the money used to funding it comes from developers who made those proprietary games on it, trying to contribute back to an project that helped then.
both godot and unity are making money here, the difference is that if i want to make an open source game on godot, my game will be open source on the game code and engine code, the only proprietary part will be the operating system that the player use to play (if they play on windows), the drivers (if they're not using floss drivers) and any firmware that their computer may have (if they dont purchase from system76 or change their firmware somehow)
Unity add another layer of being proprietary, if you make an open source game on it, good luck removing the unity "layer" later on, maybe you coulde replace it with some floss engines like godot, if that move from unity technologies dont kills it...

another example:
if i make an site open source site, using open standards like html5, i can run this site on free browser like firefox, or an proprietary like internet explorer (if it work on legacy browsers) but if i make it using proprietary standards like active X, it will only work on IE on windows, regardless of the code of my site being open or not.

the same goes for open source games made in directX.

Quoting: Liam DaweNot sure what your entire post is really trying to get at. Yes they're a company selling a product which is proprietary, doesn't change what they're doing with this.

the question is that they're asking the open source comunity to help then with open source code, while then thenselves arent willing to opensource their code.

so, if they cant find an way to monetize their game engine if they open its code, why should i write open source code for it?
to improve their ecosystem and gain nothing in return? if they're willing to pay for those open contributions, then sure, its an fair deal.

but no, they cant find an way to make money with open source code, so they want me to figure out it instead, or, if i cant, work for then for free, while theyre not willing to do the same.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

lets not be naive here.

replace the word: unity technologies (company) with microsoft, and the unity game engine with directX and tell me: whats happens?

unity is not doing that because they want to help the open source comunity, they want to take advantage of the open source comunity to help their proprietary game engine to compete against other engines like godot (wich is trully open), and unreal (wich is source code avaliable or something), they want to improve their ecosystem with the power of "open source", not to empower the open source ecosystem with the power of unity, otherwise they would just open source their engine.

now, if doing that is better than not doing anything open source, or not, its up to you readers to decice, in my personal option, it still is a good thing, but its fair away from ideal, epic sending an mega grant to godot was an better deal for us.
unity could help some open source libraries that they use, or some thirdy party tools like blender who are helpfull for any developer regardless of game engine, but instead they want us to help then for... at least they are paying, or its for free?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

btw, purple is my favorite collor, so this background is automagically beautyfull
and the name is a perfect fit.

but the controller, looks like some one just glued togheter 2 pieces to pretend they were just one...
hopefully i'm right and you can change the base depending on your hands size...

View this comment - View article - View full comments