I think for the same price you can get higher specs from MSI with better build quality.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedjeI bet you if there could be alt stores to snap, no one would hate it as much as they do.

Well that is the situation today but people still hate it as much as they do. Now there AFAIK does not yet exist such a store, but there _could_ do since everything needed to build it is available, it's just that no one have bothered and that is hardly Canonical:s fault.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but I'm pretty sure their backend is tied very much into their client.

The URL to the store is most likely hardcoded in the source code of snapd, but the code is open so it can be forked and so far we don't know how Canonical would treat a patch that changes that to a config value under say /etc/snap.d/.

Right, but who would want to bother when you can just use flatpak? :)

Of course, but then perhaps also at the same time stop the hate for snap? I mean that was the context, not that you had to use it ;)

My actual problem with snap is how difficult it is to remove it from an Ubuntu system... well less about how difficult it is, but it's annoying that it breaks the Ubuntu Software Center when you do. If you want to just use flatpak / debs, you're basically going to be using gnome-software (if you want gui).

I think with time it'll become harder and harder to remove snap from Ubuntu because it looks like Canonical's plans are to move in the direction of Ubuntu Core where system services are installed as snaps. This obviously will make Ubuntu more solid since there is less chance for packages to step on each other, but will pretty much force every Ubuntu user to use snaps.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Is this a Clevo laptop as well?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SchattenspiegelSo, there is a working .deb of Steam provided by Valve and then Canonical decides, nah, that is working to well on our distribution, let's introduce additional points of failure by wrapping it into lot's of additional bubble wrap with our personal logo this totally open and free packaging standard that everyone could use if they went a little bit out of their way and accepted a few performance and efficiency regressions - on it an then ask the community - assuming said community can fit the 'improved' product's more ...chunky... dimensions into their existing gaming spaces and time schedules - to QA it because otherwise to big a task?

At first glance one might be tempted to ask: Why?
But then I remembered something that is easily forgotten these days: this is Linux! So if someone is doing to do some crazy and unnecessary Stuff - just because!- , you take a casual, fascinated glance at this marvel, offer a barely audible, but heartfelt 'Neat!' as commentary, and move on with your life.

Well, we don't actually have a .deb package. The .deb package is just the Steam installer, not Steam itself. When you run that .deb package you actually run the Steam installer which then installs/updates Steam for you and runs it. If the Snap package saves that step and makes the Steam installs and updates happen through Snap itself then that's a welcome move as that'll mean reducing the package formats on Ubuntu from three (deb, snap, and steam proprietary package) to two (deb, snap).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LinasI don't have anything against snaps as such, but the way Canonical are pushing them onto users feels disrespectful. Like if you apt install firefox, it will pull in snapd, and install the snap package of Firefox. Not quite what I expected the system to do.

I personally like Snaps, but what you mention is definitely wrong behaviour. If you don't want to maintain the deb package then just remove it from the repo and let people know that they need to install it from snap or just install it on their own from somewhere else.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Very impressive. Although the end result didn't seem much different to my eye from this video, it's still great to see ray tracing work in the first place. Seeing it working and still hitting over 30fps is even greater. The next step is to make Portal RTX work, and with Portal the visual difference is huge and is totally worth it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: sarmad

Quoting: GuestIndie devs: port their games to every platform possible, flawless native linux ports.
AAA studios with billions of dollards profit: wE cAn't aFfOrD LiNUx sUpPoRt uwu :cry::cry::cry:

just admit that game industry is full of incompetent useless people managed by greedy billioners. even though you buy all games, you don't support developers. you support upper management's annual paychecks so they buy another yacht size of aircraft carrier

The issue is real and has nothing to do with greed or incompetency. Indie titles are far less likely to be targetted by cheaters than the big titles, so indie devs don't need to spend much time, if at all, fighting cheaters; for them it's usually just a matter of flipping on the switch in the engine. Big titles on the other hand are usually targetted by a lot of cheaters, and by more sophisticated cheaters and it takes a lot of efforts to fight those on different platforms.

CSGO: native linux port
Dota 2: native linux port
Both games are big and targeted by cheaters. but somehow Valve did it, and Gaben didn't go broke. It's possible after all, ey? Not that complicated.

Stop defending greedy publishers and incompetent devs, you don't make any sense.

You are comparing a corporate with another corporate. That's different from the original comment which was comparing indies with big titles indicating that indies can do the job that big corporations are failing to do. I'm not defending big corps, I'm just stating the fact that indies aren't doing the same job as big corporations because they are not faced by the same problem in the first place.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestIndie devs: port their games to every platform possible, flawless native linux ports.
AAA studios with billions of dollards profit: wE cAn't aFfOrD LiNUx sUpPoRt uwu :cry::cry::cry:

just admit that game industry is full of incompetent useless people managed by greedy billioners. even though you buy all games, you don't support developers. you support upper management's annual paychecks so they buy another yacht size of aircraft carrier

The issue is real and has nothing to do with greed or incompetency. Indie titles are far less likely to be targetted by cheaters than the big titles, so indie devs don't need to spend much time, if at all, fighting cheaters; for them it's usually just a matter of flipping on the switch in the engine. Big titles on the other hand are usually targetted by a lot of cheaters, and by more sophisticated cheaters and it takes a lot of efforts to fight those on different platforms.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: sarmadThis is not necessarily true. Snaps are independent from Ubuntu. If you go to the snap store you'll see no Ubuntu branding there. Canonical is marketing snap as a Linux store, not as an Ubuntu store, much like Steam is a Linux gaming store regardless of which distro you're using. So, if people have no problem installing Steam, which is proprietary and tightly controlled by Valve, why would they have problem installing snap, which at least has an open source client?

Because there's no real alternative to Steam, but there is for Snap. And if you want to know what's wrong with Snap from the view of all other distributions, just ask Ubuntu:

Canonical does have total and complete control over the Ubuntu archive that apt uses. And Canonical has total and complete control over the Snap repository. If something goes wrong and Canonical must step it, they can.

For a lot of apps there is no alternative to snap store either, since a lot of third party providers only publish their apps in snap store. Most people don't put too much emphasis on the what-if like you do, they just think the store is available now and it serves their purpose so they use it, if something goes wrong with Canonical they'll look for an alternative. Canonical owns the store, but not the apps. If something goes wrong with the store, the publishers will publish their apps somewhere else.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BlackBloodRumOooh.. so that's why I'm banned now. It's a bit unfair in my opinion, but okay :tongue:

Totally unfair that people like you are allowed to use the internet.

View this comment - View article - View full comments