Quoting: Grazen

Quoting: KohlyKohl

Quoting: omer666Well, maybe they realised AMD's hardware was competitive again, and they need to better their software to stay on top. In any case, I'm still waiting for Nvidia's promises to materialise, but that's very good news at last.

From what I've seen, AMD is still a bit behind NVidia in terms of hardware. NVidia is also way ahead in software so I don't think they are that worried.

This is so true. I aspire to one day moving to AMD but I'm not going to do it strictly because they offer "open source" drivers... frankly that's the least valuable item on my list of wants (considering that I'm using proprietary software in Steam and the games themselves!). AMD needs to catch up on the hardware front, particularly on RT and supersampling technologies like DLSS (which apparently will never work via proton, but alas). The AMD drivers also generally lag behind the Nvidia proprietary drivers in my experience. I'm hoping that the 7000 series cards solve the hardware issues when i'm looking to upgrade from my 2000 series Nvidia cards.

For me, while I much prefer opensource drivers, using AMD has many benefits over nVidia on Linux, other than the libre argument: Proper early-KMS and no DKMS, proper module signing (secureboot/lockdown), less flickering, better integration with the rest of the ecosystem (wayland/vulkan filters/...) and: No explicit driver installation!

Having drivers in-kernel is simply a quality-of-life improvement. But then, for me, RT and DLSS isn't a priority at all, and otherwise the AMD drivers just work so much better for me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestWhat exactly are you trying to prove with all that? because all I see is a kid just wanting to prove some one wrong on the internet again. See this is the reason I don't post here much, there is always some self proclaimed Linux GURU wanting to prove you wrong. It's petty.
I know all about coding, how operating systems work, and how API's communicate, you don't need to prove any thing to me. Don't just assume other people don't know any thing.
Technically, you're (almost) right, congratulations to you. But you missed one stupidly obvious and huge point, the OP's original question.
"Could anyone give me a one-sentence summary on the difference between emulators and translation layers?"
He wanted a short summary of the difference between them. Not a lecture of the in's and out's of how API's work.
So in a short summary, I am still right, because while WINE is an API (like you say), it still just [/i]acts as a translator/interpretor between Windows and Linux API's.
I could have always just said "kernel>api>wine api>api>kernel", but that's not what he asked for is it?

I'm honestly sorry, if the post came off like an attack. I didn't want to "prove you wrong".

I actually wrote

As pointed out earlier, this is actually not really correct or perhaps confusing ...

. Note the "perhaps confusing". I fully acknowledge how you took up the -- rather difficult -- task to answer in one sentence, however I think this can't be really answered with one sentence, and that such an attempt is bound to fail by being wrong/confusing by omission (except if you craft a *really* long sentence).

I believe that you know all about OS, and I didn't want to disprove that, nor prove anything. Some things simply need a more-than-one-sentence reply.

What you wrote

Think of WINE as an interpreter for spoken languages. WINE translates the language between Windows and Linux, while an emulator attempts an exact recreation of hardware with software.

is something that will be interpreted correctly by any person with prior knowledge (you, me, ...). But I think that most other people will remember mostly just the "emulator attempts to recreate hardware in software". Which, if interpreted naively, is wrong. Again, I know what you mean, you do know what you mean -- but that's not the point.

Emulators can, indeed, also recreate software within software, or not recreate hardware in software, but still emulate. And I really like the definition given earlier, not by me, to say "an emulator actively interprets" while wine is "only passively consulted".

However, this distinction uses vocabulary only understandable properly by people like... well, you, me, and a few others. That's why I, and the previous poster, expanded on this. Not to prove you wrong (I agree, I could have worded this better, I'm sorry!), but to clear up any misconceptions that people will *inevitably* have (I bet some will misunderstand me as well).

In order to make sure people *really get things*, it's often useful to have multiple, different, people giving descriptions, as they all look at it from their viewpoint. It's more than one sentences, yes, but I think its worthwhile. And those who really only will read one sentence, they don't care anyway :-)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

[quote=Guest]

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: PinguinoA one-sentence summary would be quite hard

Challenge accepted.

Quoting: PinguinoCould anyone give me a one-sentence summary on the difference between emulators and translation layers?

Think of WINE as an interpreter for spoken languages. WINE translates the language between Windows and Linux, while an emulator attempts an exact recreation of hardware with software.

As pointed out earlier, this is actually not really correct or perhaps confusing -- the language on (most) Linux systems is x86, as is on (most) Windows. But, while the language is the same, Windows and Linux have different "higher level concepts", and Wine can sort of work as a dictionary for looking up the Windows "meaning". But the analogy falls apart rather fast.

The point is: An operating system doesn't execute a program, really, it just nudges the CPU to do the actual execution. The OS is just there for outsourcing some tasks that otherwise every program would need to do (much simplified). Programs ask the OS to do these tasks for them, however the interface b/w OS <-> program differs from Windows to Linux.

So, while most parts (in theory) of a Windows and a Linux binary are pretty much the same, they differ when it comes to asking the OS to do tasks like "render picture on screen". In that case, the program can then consult Wine and Wine tells Linux what to do.

Side note: Actually the complete Windows OS API is already such a translation layer. Because the "actual" OS (the Kernel) when using Windows doesn't "speak Windows" (win32) but NT. So while on Windows asking to render a picture looks like:

program -> Win32 API -> NT API

on Linux it looks like:

program -> Wine -> Linux API

So, basically, Wine is a Win32 API implementation (and program loader) for the Linux kernel instead of the NT kernel one.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ZlopezI'm using the flatpaked Steam and they have problem running the Steam Linux Container Runtime at all (running flatpak inside flatpak is not possible yet). But they provide community build of the new Proton and it works without issue.

Yes this is due to the design of Flatpak which actually already is a container. So they work on being able to spawn containers from within the Flatpak in order to properly do this. But meanwhile, the community build works fine as well, as it effectively everything runs in a container already.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlToo much talk about DX12. They said nothing about Vulkan so far...

While this is bothering me as well, they usually talk about DX "feature levels", because "DX 12 Ultimate" goes off better than "Vulkan 1.2.34103 release 3".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: beko

Quoting: scaineI was a bit gutted that the 0.2 version of Cadmus seems to break entirely on Mint, so while I wait for the developer to look into that (quite a few folk have reported it), I might give this one a try! I say might, because while I like the look of NoiseTorch and appreciate that it actually has a GUI (Cadmus is just an indicator-applet), Cadmus is a deb/flatpack install, but NoiseTorch is a script, which looks a bit messier. And I'm pretty lazy, so there's that... :smile:

Don't think that compares.

Cadmus uses the existing noise suppressor (werman/noise-suppression-for-voice) for pulse and "just" adds a nice UI option (as said indicator-applet) to it to load the sink. Last time I checked the script itself was ~100 lines shy.

NoiseTorch is a whole application that _also_ uses the existing noise suppressor (werman/noise-suppression-for-voice). Check the vendor folder what this all drags in.

In both cases ada goes to the pulse plugin https://github.com/werman/noise-suppression-for-voice [External Link] which in return is based on Xiph's RNNoise suppression library ( https://github.com/xiph/rnnoise [External Link] ) and basically all you'd need to do is add 4 lines to your pulse/default.pa to setup and configure the denoised sink.

The only reason why your mileage may vary with NoiseTorch (also in quality!) is that it pinned a specific version of werman/noise-suppression-for-voice that is probably different to the one shipped with the Cadmus appimage/deb or is/was already installed on your system.

So in my personal opinion NoiseTorch _is_ that hammer but you may decide that for yourself, of course :)

Thanks, I was wondering what the difference was as both cite the same sources.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: LeonardKOpenFirmware was the Firmware that was used on Sun SPARC stations as their alternative to IBM BIOS. IIRC Apple used it as well on their PPC macs, other PPC systems sometimes used it as well.

OpenFirmware is controlled using a command prompt that also can be accessed remotely via serial, which makes it really nice to administrate. It's also usually more consistent and featureful than BIOS. Furthermore it was combined with a nice system where you didn't need to download/install drivers from some external media but the driver was shipped using FORTH code on the device.

Anyhow, rather old technology from the 90s that's still superior to anything we have in the PC world right now unfortunately.

I bought a Powerbook G4 to put MorphOS on it and I agree, Open Firmware is fantastic. Damn shame it never kept going on other devices.

Yep, definitely a shame, I still have access to some Sun SPARC machines used for some server stuff at university and it's such great technology!

We have ZFS, Solaris ldoms, OpenFirmware, Boot Environments, etc., ...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

OpenFirmware was the Firmware that was used on Sun SPARC stations as their alternative to IBM BIOS. IIRC Apple used it as well on their PPC macs, other PPC systems sometimes used it as well.

OpenFirmware is controlled using a command prompt that also can be accessed remotely via serial, which makes it really nice to administrate. It's also usually more consistent and featureful than BIOS. Furthermore it was combined with a nice system where you didn't need to download/install drivers from some external media but the driver was shipped using FORTH code on the device.

Anyhow, rather old technology from the 90s that's still superior to anything we have in the PC world right now unfortunately.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I was a bit more excited than I should be until I understood that "Open Firmware" doesn't mean https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Firmware [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: HoriIn my eyes, we're all under the same roof. It's acceptance and fairness that we need to "fight" for, not our individual problems/groups. Because, in my opinion, the source of the problem is the same in all this cases - people don't respect diversity, and people split themselves into different groups way too much.

Diversity is the greatest aspect of the human race. That's what we should be proud of, that's what we should fight for.

I agree with your goal wholeheartedly! However, if you want to "fight for general acceptance" you soon reach a point where it's not clear what needs to change, not clear where things are still amiss. The only thing that's obvious is that we aren't diverse and accepting yet.

But those people who are directly affected will know what's amiss, and such events are their turn to voice this, s.t. others, who are not affected, can join them and we can work together to fix things. Many white queer people demonstrated, peacefully, together with PoC for #BLM and PoC in their turn, joined the CSD. All have a common goal and support each other!

However, all those groups are discriminated differently against. Obviously, laws forbidding gay marriage are something that affects other people than racist police forces. As such, most non-queer people aren't even *aware* of these issues, just like most white people aren't aware how racist police treatment often is. Or, most socially non-awkward people don't know how much insecure people *suffer*. Or how transgender people are discriminated against, what their needs are: Most people don't even know how to "deal" with them, how to properly show respect even if they want to. And insecurity furthers fear which furthers hatred in turn.

Such events thus serve the idea of exchanging experiences and understanding each others problems, rather than working for only one group. And the positive effect can be seen in those countries that actually have such events. It works!

View this comment - View article - View full comments