Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: jens(they could have made Proton completely closed, but decided to go 100% Open Source!).

It's based on wine. So no, they could not have kept it closed. So please don't make an essential requirement look like they did a great thing.

It needs Wine to work, but Proton itself is a separate thing, and Wine is LGPL not GPL, so there's nothing to stop someone from attaching Wine to a closed module. Sooo, yes, they could have kept Proton closed.

Well they do already do that if you think about it. Steam is the module.

Then how am I able to use Proton with Lutris, Heroic, etc? Even if Steam is "the module" in your analogy, Proton is still an independent, completely open-source tool than anyone can use freely without ever touching Steam. And it was Valve's choice that's made it so.

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: mphuZ

Quoting: GuestWell they do already do that if you think about it. Steam is the module.

You've turned everything around. Steam is a store. Proton is a separate module.

I think you missed my point entirely, which was that if Valve were such open source champions they've have an open source client.

A) There is a slight difference between restructuring and open-sourcing an already existing code base, and developing something as open source from the ground up.

B) What purpose (other than ideology) would an open source Steam client serve at this point in time? You'd still be shackled by it as a form of DRM, if that's what you're alluding to. And nobody said Valve are the "open source champions" - they're just a business that saw a great chance and took advantage of it, and in the process of taking advantage of it have managed to show more respect towards both their customers and the open source community at large than any other tech company of the same caliber, ever.

While GOG, on the other hand, are a company that even when given the opportunity to "steal" a piece of their competitor's efforts and convert it into their own success* without so much as lifting a finger, they refuse to do it and instead fool around with porn games "adult novels" as their preferred way of expanding their business. I mean, come on, this is fast becoming too ridiculous to even comment on.

(*Because if GOG ever utilized Proton in their own Linux client and marketed themselves as champions of "DRM-free" in every aspect of the gaming stack, now THAT would be a case for an "open source champion" in the making.)

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: GuestValve gets too much credit in my opinion, and have basically bought goodwill by contributing to open source projects for the explicit purpose of having people reliant on their proprietary client. Microsoft also contribute to open source projects, yet hardly anyone (who isn't paid to do so) praises them in such a fashion.

Good grief, Mirv. You seem to be suggesting that Microsoft should get more goodwill for open sourcing stuff than Valve. Which is either delusional, trolling, or you're just really young and just don't remember what Microsoft is.

Because while they're both big corporate entities which only do stuff to further their own gain, Microsoft could open source another 10 thousand tools and still be as untrustworthy then as they were 20 years ago when they were funding SCO to blackmail entire industries with patent trolling. And just one example of how utterly shitty Microsoft are from top to bottom.

Valve get a lot of praise incidentally, sure, but their motivations aren't, unlike Microsoft, directly opposed to Linux as a viable desktop.

Another case of someone completely missing the point of what I wrote, and in this case, trying to put words into my mouth (or into my text area, as it were).

Well shit, I'm done. Can't contribute to a discussion without that happening. Too many people are far too eager to go nuts at me instead I guess. I mean, how dare I have what's viewed as an opposing opinion (whether it even is or not).

It seems as if every time I see you taking part in any discussion, it goes like this: you express your opinion -> people express their own opinions about your opinion -> you declare you're done and you're never going to participate again in such debates -> you participate in the next such debate.

Why all this animosity? Nobody called you out, and certainly not scaine. Can't you just reply to his opinion without making it seem like it's personal?

EDIT: Just wanted to add, in case it wasn't already obvious, that I too don't think there's anything wrong with mirv's opinions or his way of expressing them, in fact I agree with him more often than not. That's why I'm baffled to see this nice thread devolve into a kind-of-personal clash for seemingly no reason at all.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: The Ubuntu GuyCuriosity… From the time I was a young child, I just had to know how things worked. I would take my toys apart to figure out how they worked before ever playing with them. [...] It was simply amazing to have access to the source code, seeing how it worked, and I quickly immersed myself into open source software as a means to quench my thirst for how software worked.

[...]

...And I ask, is it really a problem? Snap is completely open, anyone can see what’s being executed on your system. The internals of the store that handles metadata just isn’t interesting.

For a guy that grew up taking his toys apart and getting awed by having access to source code, this second statement comes off as more than a bit hypocritical. But then again, as @AgainstAllLogic says, most of the replies read more like a carefully constructed PR stint rather than his own opinions, so I'm more inclined to feel sympathy for the poor sod having been reduced to a corporate mouthpiece, rather than anger at him.

Quoting: scaineWeird that Canonical gets hate for that

Quoting: scaineBut when was the last time you heard anyone griping about it though? But people still, FUCKING STILL (sorry) talk about Mir

Canonical gets hate for Snaps because this is one of the few Linux techs that is not made and can't be used (as is) for the benefit of the whole community, but is rather a very heavy-handed attempt at making Canonical into a FOSS overlord.

Also, Pulseaudio may be off the hook nowadays (it helps that it's actually gotten great over the years) but let's not forget WHOSE fault it was that it got its bad reputation in the first place (hint: it wasn't Red Hat). As for systemd? It still regularly gets all the hate it can take from anti-systemd zealots. It may have been dimmed/obscured somewhat due to the Linux community having been flooded lately by new users who only care and talk about the Steam Deck etc and don't give a rat's ass about systemd and FOSS issues/politics in general, but I assure you the hate is still there in huge amounts (just take a stroll at e.g. Phoronix :P).

Quoting: F.Ultrathe Knights of NIH

That's absolutely great, I'm stealing it :)

Quoting: fenglengshunMy problem with Ubuntu overall is that I don't feel like I get a lot of benefits from using it? Like, if I want stability, then there are better options. If I want fast updates, there are better options. Ease of use? Same.

IMHO the real advantage of Ubuntu is that it's stable enough, gets fast enough updates, and is easy enough to use, *all at the same time*. And it's also pretty and refined to look at, has great support from app vendors (who still mostly consider it as "the" Linux OS) and is easy to find assistance for any issues you have with it. Sure, there are distros that do one or more of these things better, but all of them? And out of the box? Nope. Personally, I still use Ubuntu as my go-to distro for new users - or I would if it wasn't for this whole Snaps getting shoved down my throat business.

That's why Canonical (not Ubuntu) is so "hated": because it once was the FOSS community's hope for the open Desktop, but in the end all it's proved to be is a crude Apple wannabe trying to create its own version of a walled garden. And in the process they've kind of destroyed (or they're about to do so) one of the best distros there ever was.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ridgeLooking forward to this! Already 100%'ed the game (I couldn't help it) but I'm still excited to check out the quality of the Linux port.

If you've played the first Psychonauts, how is this story- and jazziness-wise compared to that unique gem of a game? Is it worth being called "Psychonauts"? I mean, seeing as you've 100%'ed it and are still excited about it speaks volumes, but I guess I'd still like a straight answer :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: NociferHey, what do you mean "imagine that"? Outside of Steam (which manages its prefixes automatically) I still use a single, manually configured prefix for all my games! Granted, nowadays I hardly do any post-setup because between Wine, Proton and Proton-GE most everything is already integrated by default (I just add a drive letter for quick access to the Games partition and install PhysX for compatibility with some older games) but still, "one prefix to play them all" is my mantra :D

I only use one prefix as well, unless there is some sort of weird requirement for a program to use. Most things I have thrown at wine lately doesn't take much more than 'wine $program.exe'.

Yeah, it's incredible how nowadays I only get surprised and/or annoyed on the rare occasion that something doesn't work with a simple 'wine $program.exe'. Gaming on Linux has come a long way indeed!

Quoting: slaapliedjeThough now that GCA5 (GURPS Character Assistant) it once again does not work under wine... shame, as they finally got GCA4 working right!

WTF? I'm a GURPS die-hard (though admittedly I don't play all that much nowadays, nor do I lurk in the forums) and that's the first time I've heard about SJG updating GCA to a new version! Finally! Kthxbye, I'm off to try and make it work in Wine :P

EDIT: Got some errors at first but all it needed was .NET 4.6 or later (I installed the latest 4.8) to run without a hitch, at least for starting up, loading a couple of data sets and creating a character. It also runs better/faster than GCA4 and doesn't require any weird dll overrides for ancient libraries, so it's looking good in my book :)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CFWhitman

Quoting: Purple Library GuyIMO, the first one is really very good, although it should be noted that the plot is very much Lord of the Rings reheated.

I can't agree with this. They are both high fantasy. There are parallels with some of the creatures (though other books just use the same creatures that LotR does, since they are basically unaltered from European mythology). As far as the plot goes, the hero of each comes into danger from dark forces and has to leave home to fulfill a quest, and that's pretty much where the similarity ends. That's quite generic as far as high fantasy goes. Don't get me wrong. It's definitely the same type of book as LotR, but it does not have the same plot in any but a very, very general way.

I guess it's a matter of perspective, or maybe attention to detail (though you seem to be a very detail-oriented person yourself), but as I also said in my previous comment, WoT #1 in my eyes is plot point to plot point a case of almost-plagiarism when compared to LoTR.

Everything from how the kid gets recruited/involved in the story, to how the supporting good guys are the equivalent of Gandalf and Aragorn, to how the group has to pass through the Moria-equivalent where now only shadows dwell, to how they're being hunted by the equivalent of the Nazgul, to how the kid gets separated from the good guys and then goes through his own adventures with his friends, to how his friends achieve some kind of secondary recognition of their own, to how the good guys live in an equivalent of a Gondor which oversees an ancient fence around the equivalent of a Mordor, to how that fence is about to fail because the Gondor lookalikes have grown too negligent and/or weak to fulfill their duty, to a multitude of other, both major and minor plot details and devices, character arcs and development, world details and history, or what have you - all these are in one way or another picked up directly from LoTR.

The most significant plot differences I can think of off the top of my head is that Gandalf is a chick and there's also a second chick as a romance option for Frod-- err, sorry, for what's-his-name, you know, the kid who isn't Frodo.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: NociferOh please, you don't need to patronize me; I know full well the difference between the two. I was mostly using the word "hate" for emphasis (you know how the internet can be about these things) but still, I wouldn't describe GOG's behavior as merely "not supporting". Enough has already been said about it and the article is kind of old, so I'll not elaborate further, but I'll just add that in my eyes (and I'm a developer by profession, so I have at least a modicum of the required knowledge to have an opinion on this) developing Wine wrappers and providing patches to make Windows-only games run on Linux, as well as providing the after sales support that comes with that, is MUCH less economically viable than simply developing your utility library to be OS agnostic so it can run on Linux.

So in fewer words, GOG's stance on supporting Linux is almost actively hostile (that's probably a better word than 'hate' because it's also commonly used in business-speak) and I fully expect that unless something big happens (e.g. change of leadership) this will only become worse, if only as a byproduct of their competitive strategy against Valve and Steam (which also includes the new partnership with Windows-centric Epic).

Well, I'm a developer by profession who has also been in various discussions about supported platforms. I know the development side, and I know the accounting side to a degree. I also know the support side and how much extra effort is required when first trying to determine the customer's setup (GNU/Linux users who know their way around the system very well are by and large very helpful and can reduce support effort - but those who aren't can make up the difference and then some).

Anyway, I know it's old topic raising its head, but GOG galaxy is different to what GOG do to have old games running. Most of their (original) business needed to supply wrapper libraries to have old games running on modern Windows. There's a mac version of galaxy, so no doubt it's fairly well OS agnostic. No doubt they had plans for a GNU/Linux release too, and yes I think they should have done that just because it's the platform I use - but to go ahead with it now makes no sense. Too much else already takes care of it in my view.

I think we'll disagree - I don't see them as actively hostile, just not interested instead.

Well, it seems that apart from the hostility thing we mostly agree on the important stuff, so I think I can live with that :)

Though I also disagree with the "now it doesn't make sense" part - why do you think that it doesn't make sense? I think it would be good from a PR perspective ("we're DRM-free and we support the prime DRM-free OS because we're THAT cool a company"), it would be good from a marketing perspective (through the Steam Deck, which is all the rage these days, GOG could be exposed to many people, especially of the younger generation, who may not know or care much about it) and it would be good from a technical perspective (it would remove the need for custom Linux/Wine wrappers, because it would take advantage of Proton in the case of a Linux GOG Galaxy client, or Lutris etc in the case of a galaxy.so library meant to be used independently - in the latter case they could even look into making a deal with a third-party UI tool like Lutris to provide official endorsement and maybe support).

I mean, they would stand to gain in more than a few ways and with minimum effort and financial investment (because most of the required work has already been done by others for them), which in my eyes sounds more than good. All it would take is a bit of re-organizing their company around this kind of Linux support, and of course having the will to do it.

I could understand that now it maybe isn't possible for e.g. financial reasons, but not make sense? I just don't see it, especially with Linux popularity being on the rise.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BlackBloodRumDo you remember when the public used to think we were geeks/nerds? Or that GNU/Linux is obscure and difficult? Or that it can't play games? it's just for servers? These are things people used to say, but they simply don't anymore.

Well, most people I know/interact with still think the exact same way about Linux, i.e. repulsion by its highly esoteric nature mixed with a feeling of awe for those that know how to actually use the damn thing. What *has* changed is that there's more people out there who know what the heck "a Linux" is and who are curious about it. When the subject arises in a conversation and I mention I use Linux, I now get far more replies of the "oh, so you're one of them, cooool *excited panting*" variety than the "oh dear, so you're one of them huh, *rolls eyes*" variety.

Quoting: BlackBloodRumWe had to manually choose our overrides and setup our prefixes manually (some people didn't even use separate prefixes back then, imagine that)

Hey, what do you mean "imagine that"? Outside of Steam (which manages its prefixes automatically) I still use a single, manually configured prefix for all my games! Granted, nowadays I hardly do any post-setup because between Wine, Proton and Proton-GE most everything is already integrated by default (I just add a drive letter for quick access to the Games partition and install PhysX for compatibility with some older games) but still, "one prefix to play them all" is my mantra :D

Quoting: jo3fisOn a side note I do think this would have been a good opportunity for GOG to do some sort of client or plugin for the deck. Does anyone know if they're doing that? Seems like a big missed opportunity for them.

Judging by their past history and also their recent deal with Epic, I'd not bet on it if I were you ;) But to be objective, I do hope I'm proven succinctly wrong by GOG and forced to eat my hat. It's just that I've almost run out of hope at this point.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyIMO, the first one is really very good, although it should be noted that the plot is very much Lord of the Rings reheated.

As a person who has tried many times to point out to other people the simple fact that WoT #1 is good because it's essentially a very, very obvious "re-imagining" of LOTR (in my eyes it's almost a case of plagiarism), and who has invariably received responses of the "what are you on about, that's bollocks, WoT #1 is one of the greatest fantasy novels ever written" type, I'm writing to inform you that you've just become one of my most favoritest persons in the world :P

I also agree with most of the rest of your criticism about the later entries, and I can only say that this is exactly what happens when you run out of giants' shoulders to stand on and you suddenly need to start relying on your own original ideas <<

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestI think you're confusing a few things. I mentioned old games for a reason - games unlikely to require 3rd part components.

Touché, I completely failed to realize you were only talking about old games.

You also seem to equate not supporting GNU/Linux with hating GNU/Linux, and I'm not sure how to put it if you can't understand the difference. It's not economically viable for them to invest in. Simple as that.

Oh please, you don't need to patronize me; I know full well the difference between the two. I was mostly using the word "hate" for emphasis (you know how the internet can be about these things) but still, I wouldn't describe GOG's behavior as merely "not supporting". Enough has already been said about it and the article is kind of old, so I'll not elaborate further, but I'll just add that in my eyes (and I'm a developer by profession, so I have at least a modicum of the required knowledge to have an opinion on this) developing Wine wrappers and providing patches to make Windows-only games run on Linux, as well as providing the after sales support that comes with that, is MUCH less economically viable than simply developing your utility library to be OS agnostic so it can run on Linux.

So in fewer words, GOG's stance on supporting Linux is almost actively hostile (that's probably a better word than 'hate' because it's also commonly used in business-speak) and I fully expect that unless something big happens (e.g. change of leadership) this will only become worse, if only as a byproduct of their competitive strategy against Valve and Steam (which also includes the new partnership with Windows-centric Epic).

While I'm not suggesting you actually are, your words do give off an impression of entitlement - and why would any company want to do unprofitable business with that kind of interaction? Again, I'm not suggesting at all that you are - but I am using your words as an example of public impression that GOG might have to deal with, and any negativity associated with even the slightest perceived failing, so there's really nothing in it for GOG.
Obviously though, for some 300 games, GOG have provided you with an acceptable service. That's why you paid money for them, and for the games you have for free....well you can't really complain about that.

It's not about entitlement; I paid for these games fully conscious of the fact that they don't officially work on Linux, so I don't have any reason to complain about GOG not providing me with something they promised for. And I'm also comfortable enough with Linux to be able to play all of them without a hitch, so I don't even have a reason to complain as an attempt to get them to help me out for free (which would also be a kind of indirect entitlement).

This is about me criticizing them about their stance on Linux support and, as I've said in an older thread, condemning them for pretending to be the champions of 'DRM-free' gaming while actively refusing to support the champion of 'DRM-free' *everything*. Even if they had to spend some extra bucks to support Linux, they should have done so just for the sake of being honest. Not "economically viable" in this case means "I'm full of s**t", nothing more, nothing less.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: damarrinIf they wanted to stay relevant with the Linux crowd. Which they don't.

Focusing on old games, as the name "good old games" suggests, you're absolutely correct. There's really no point: relatively few of those older games having native versions, with wine or dosbox taking care of the bulk of the titles. With software such as Lutris, there's really no reason for GOG to actually bother with GNU/Linux: the market share is too small, and everything needed for GNU/Linux users is basically already taken care of. For older games, of course (and I daresay for most newer titles too).
Ironically, I suspect it's easier to get the older games running on GNU/Linux thanks to wine and dosbox, than it is to provide interface libraries and have the games run on Windows.

That's not true, Galaxy is still needed for online functionality even if the games otherwise install and run fine on Linux. For example Gwent, their online card game, is absolutely playable on Linux; except it needs Galaxy running in the background which is a pain in the a$$.

If they really were the nice, pro DRM-free guys they're purporting to be (as opposed to the Linux-hating Windows shills they actually are; their new deal with Epic just about proves it in my eyes) they would at least have released a galaxy.so library for Linux users to use as they see fit. But nope. So **** them. And I say that as the owner of some 300 GoG games.

View this comment - View article - View full comments