What's the output from something like cat /proc/cpuinfo |egrep "processor|physical id|core id" | sed 's/^processor/\nprocessor/g' on a Ryzen or FX? Just curios how they tell the system which cores that share the same CCX, which is important to know if you want to optimize your code for architectures such as this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Mountain ManThere's a SteamOS 2.0? When did that happen?

November 2015 so quite some time ago ;)

That was 2.0?

Yet, 2.0 was when they changed their base from Debian 7 to Debian 8. If I'm not mistaken it was the version they released back when the Steam Machines where to be released.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain ManThere's a SteamOS 2.0? When did that happen?

November 2015 so quite some time ago ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Beamboom

Quoting: F.UltraLooks like most negative reviews comes from fiddly controls. Hopefully that is something that they can and/or will improve.

Fiddly controls, camera issues, bad interface, unpolished, multiple bugs... To quote Destructoid:
"I can't remember the last time I had to go to a game's forum to get a bug resolved just so I could advance. It's a lesson in wonderful concept and poor execution."

https://www.destructoid.com/review-diluvion-422788.phtml

I ignored the comments about bugs due to the "to get a bug resolved", too me that sounds like the devs are active and are fixing the bugs as soon as they are found.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BeamboomAnother quite mediocre release with bland reviews getting a Linux port to squeeze out those last dineros out of the project. That's how I see it, unfortunately. :/

http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/194343-diluvion/articles.html

It looks pretty cool, though. I'll give it that.

Looks like most negative reviews comes from fiddly controls. Hopefully that is something that they can and/or will improve.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: khalismurWe are happy because Arch is awesome. Nobody compared Arch to Debian or said Debian is not good. If it is also solvable with one command, Debian users should be happy too.
You don't understand that one is happy with their Linux distro??

Because the solution was due to Linux and not due to some specific distro is what badber was referring to.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: WendigoI personally don't think it should be the duty of the end customer to ensure payment of the porting companies.
A Linux port of their games gives the original developers a wider customer base and thus a bigger income.
If the developers don't do the ports themselves the porter should be paid per order by the original developer. "Port our game X to platform Y and we pay you X€ for this job."
There should be a one time payment for the porting (+ a software support contract for eliminating bugs after the port).

Basically like it is handled with books.
Translators are usually only paid once by the original author / publishing company and not for every sold book in the additional language.

This has nothing to do with "duty". How many articles do we need from developers that their efforts to port their games to Linux was not worth it before you guys realise that we represent such a tiny fraction of the gaming market?

If i.e Feral would have to wait for publishing houses to pay them for converting games then we would never have gotten any of the games that they have ported so far. Now I don't know exactly how Feral operates but a qualified guess is that they take a financial risk in the hope that game X will sell enough on Linux to be worth the work and then they approach i.e Square Enix and buys the rights for the Linux and Mac versions, where the cost for this rights can be either a one time fee, a percentage of sales or a combination.

Some one have to pay for all of this somehow or the work will not be done, if the Linux gaming market would be huge enough then the publishers would pay for this and none of this discussion that we have would happen but we are not there (yet) so the publishers won't pay. And the porting companies cannot carry the payment since this is their income so all that is left is us the customers. There is no way around this as the situation is right now regardless of what might be "right".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Leopard

Quoting: bubexelYour ideas are just a problem to people to give a try linux. I think companies should pay a fixed price to porting companies and not make them gain cash for the sales.

Then that is porting companies problems.They must do better contracts,why punishing users because of that?

I don't want to say this but these companies are not so Linux dedicated,which is why you stop worshipping them.

Let's take a look at the Aspyr.Look at their direction.They just tied up with some little studios and started promoting Windows and XboxOne versions of this games first.If others get a chance like this,they will storm away from Linux at a glance.The reason of they're porting games to Linux,there is not so much competition here.

They're all doing it for money and they can live on with current payments.

If you are looking for a real hero;take a look for Loki.

Even Valve is not doing that for favor of Linux;they simply scared from MS Store and most possible place was Linux.

If MS says that 'we're closing MS Store' Valve will also stop SteamOS development.

The porting companies have to survive somehow, they are not charities! They cannot get better contracts because the Linux gaming market simply isn't that big so it does not matter one bit how things should be in a perfect world because we are not in that perfect world (at least not yet).

The simple truth is that if we want to have games ported then we must give the porting companies some incentive to do so or they are forced to search for other markets (like OSX) or simply close shop. There simply is no way around this at the moment.

That said I'm personally not troubled by this since I have never bought any games on or for Windows ever.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain Man"...we don't expect the porting process to be too painful."

My prediction: They're going to find the porting process painful. If they want it to be painless then they have to develop explicitly for cross platform. By focusing on Windows-only, they're going to discover all sorts of "gotchas" when they attempt to port to Linux. I wish more developers understood this.

Haven't you got the memo? Linux is Windows but free (the only real difference is that it still uses the GUI from Win95).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: jf33

Quoting: F.UltraAlso when looking there I found that they have had a file inside Mesa for quite some time (seams to be from 2012) to set application specific details already: https://github.com/imirkin/mesa/tree/master/src/mesa/drivers/dri/common , so this patch set was not the one that broke the "no application specific settings inside mesa" rule.

Which file exactly are you talking about? Also, keep in mind, that this is a private branch of Ilia Mirkin. The official source code is hosted at https://cgit.freedesktop.org/.

Sorry about that, the file from the official source code is this one: https://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/tree/src/mesa/drivers/dri/common/drirc

View this comment - View article - View full comments