Well, considering how crazy this idea is... that is likely all I would be having with it...
Regardless of whether or not it works. This is like Joker from Batman type crazy here... So, yeah, I will X3 The issue is I have too much other crap on my plate right now--however, I am certain there are other crazy people on this mailing list who have the time for this suggestion. On Tuesday, June 15, 2010 12:14:42 am Bob Somers wrote: > Uh, have fun with that. > > --Bob > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Katrina Payne > <fullmetalhar...@nimhlabs.com> wrote: > > This also adds a rather odd burden here, that allows Linux to get a better > > standing for gaming. > > > > It is not that unknown that without mixing, Linux generally does not require > > anywhere near as much over head to run as windows. > > > > The minimum requirements to run a GUI on Linux is about 256MiB of RAM. This > > even includes GUIs like KDE and Gnome. Though XFCE and LXCE would be better if > > you really did only have 256MiB of RAM (well if you were using a DE... and not > > a slimmed down WM with only a few programs loaded into it) > > > > You can do just fine win 1GiB of RAM. > > > > Linux also, as an OS can run on some old Intel boards--that running an OS on > > would other wise be insane today. a Pentium 1 can still get (some) use with > > Linux. > > > > Not enough to really be noteworthy as a desktop PC... but, this is a lot less > > than the least you will get Windows 7 onto. > > > > So we have a nice toss up here: > > > > 1: Linux requires Software Rendering in place. IE: how rendering was done, > > before we got silly things like TNT and Voodoo on the market. > > > > 2: Linux requires significantly less overhead to run, as far as OS goes. > > > > If we can get it so that we can show Steam running on Linux, using mostly > > Software Rendering, and getting it to run as fast as the same game on Windows, > > on comparable hardware... > > > > This will definitely sell Linux as an OS... > > > > Which in turn will get various Graphics Card makers on board to add their > > support. > > > > You know--I kind of want to see somebody work on that goal then. I am almost > > ready to dig up some old books that go over the theory of 3d programming, just > > to pull make a software rendering engine for this idea. > > > > On Monday, June 14, 2010 07:59:45 pm Darren VanBuren wrote: > >> Yes, 3D drivers are definitely quite lacking on the GNU/Linux front, > >> but if Valve shows support for the development of these drivers, this > >> may prompt certain GPU manufacturers to step up their GNU/Linux driver > >> development. > >> > >> Darren L. VanBuren > >> ===================== > >> http://theoks.net/ > >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 18:35, Bob Somers <magicbob...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Something to consider, though, is that the 3D driver support is years > >> > behind from *ahem* a particular GPU manufacturer. I won't embarrass > >> > them by saying their name, so I'll just say their initials: ATI. > >> > > >> > Their driver support for Linux is, frankly, pathetic at best. The > >> > Fedora team is trying to solve this with their new free drivers in > >> > Fedora 13 (which, I'll admit, are quite good), but it's still not up > >> > to par with what you need to run a game. For example, the new free > >> > drivers have very little (read: practically none) support for basic > >> > vertex and fragment shaders. It will be at least another year before > >> > the free drivers are up to what ATI's crappy proprietary drivers are > >> > now. Even worse, right now you can get the proprietary drivers running > >> > on Fedora 11 alright, sort-of on Fedora 12 with some ugly hackery, and > >> > not at all on Fedora 13. Literally, ATI's Linux drivers are at least > >> > 12 months behind, and the free ones are 12 months behind that. > >> > > >> > Unless somebody gives ATI a swift kick in the nuts the situation does > >> > not look good. > >> > > >> > --Bob > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Darren VanBuren <onekop...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> >> Spoiler Alert. It's like the ratman drawing that says "She's watching > >> >> you." Canonical is she in that case. > >> >> > >> >> I'm personally a fan of Fedora, but if Steam on GNU/Linux is > >> >> distributed as a tarball, that'd be best in the interests of Valve. > >> >> Even if some people (mainly Ubuntu users) would be a bit stuck on the > >> >> concept of a tarball, it'd be minimal work for Valve, and maximum > >> >> cross-distribution compatibility. > >> >> > >> >> Darren L. VanBuren > >> >> ===================== > >> >> http://theoks.net/ > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 16:49, Harry Jeffery > >> >> <harry101jeff...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> >>> It's all down to personal opinion, as long as it does what you need > >> >>> quickly and effectively then it's fine. I've yet to see the dark side > >> >>> in cannonical so I honestly can't say much about their ethics. > >> >>> > >> >>> Either way, I <3 Linux and so should Valve. > >> >>> > >> >>> On 15 June 2010 00:19, Katrina Payne <fullmetalhar...@nimhlabs.com> > > wrote: > >> >>>> Well a few points: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The commands in the Linux Commandline... and well those on any UNIX or > > UNIX > >> >>>> Workalike have not really changed since the 1970s. You could pick up a > > book on > >> >>>> BASH or TCSH from the 1970s, and still have most of what you should do. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> This kind of has allowed for tools to be put around these base > > functions, such > >> >>>> as autocomplete, history and well--quite a few other really handy > > tools, to be > >> >>>> added into the Linux CLI, to make its functionality go above and beyond > >> >>>> anything cmd.exe is capable of. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I still have yet to look into Microsoft's PowerShell though. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> This is why most Linux users use the CLI. It has developed into an > > experience > >> >>>> that is completely unlike the root canal that is cmd.exe. You can > > actually go > >> >>>> in, and get some functionality from it. A lot of functionality too. It > > also > >> >>>> gives the feeling that the user has more direct control--without that > > Pesky > >> >>>> GUI in the way (though, technically, this just has a bunch of other > > items > >> >>>> typically in the way, such as init.d, bash, various bash extensions-- > > maybe > >> >>>> screen... you are just trading one thing in the way, that is, a GUI, > > for > >> >>>> another thing, that is a CLI). > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Now, that said--there are plenty of Desktop Environments ('DE') that > > Linux can > >> >>>> make use of, that pretty much make requirement of CLI use unnecessary. > > That > >> >>>> is, between KDE4, LXDE, XFCE, E17 and GNOME2/GTK, the average Linux > > user > >> >>>> nearly never has to do anything on the CLI. Unless something has gone > > horribly > >> >>>> wrong. In which case, he should be able to get the local Linux Admin to > > fix it. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> As that technically is what he'd do if something went horribly wrong on > >> >>>> Windows. He'd get his local Windows Expert to fix it. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> The "required" use of the CLI rather than GUI to properly use Linux, is > > much > >> >>>> like how using Vi is "required" rather than EMACS for the proper use of > > Linux. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Also, I use Fedora, and typically find it a LOT easier to work with than > >> >>>> Ubuntu. This maybe, because Fedora tries not to be a bunch of asshats > > to the > >> >>>> people upstream. The same cannot be said about Canonical, the owners of > >> >>>> Ubuntu. Where, from what I have seen on their policies by past > > actions... > >> >>>> their MAIN desire is to be asshats to the upstream. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I have a long winded rant on why I do not like Ubuntu... I mostly just > > state > >> >>>> that nobody uses Ubuntu Linux. Typically most people go over to another > > Linux > >> >>>> Distro afterwards, generally agreeing that no matter what Linux Distro > > they go > >> >>>> to, be it Fedora, Puppy (well, prior to being based on Ubuntu), Arch, > > Slack, > >> >>>> Gentoo, Knoppix, CentOS, LFS, etc., is better than Ubuntu... either > > that, or > >> >>>> they return to Windows--only using Ubuntu as a rescue disk setup. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Right, now then. Back to your regular discussion > >> >>>> > >> >>>> ~Katrina > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On Sunday, June 13, 2010 07:20:08 am Harry Jeffery wrote: > >> >>>>> People like the command line because it's very fast to do what you > >> >>>>> want if you know what you are doing. So far ubuntu seems to be the > >> >>>>> most user friendly linux distro and what a majority of linux gamers > >> >>>>> might use. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Personally I'd just use arch-linux and optimize my system...a lot. As > >> >>>>> long as nVidia release decent linux drivers it's all good. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On 13 June 2010 14:01, Adam Buckland <adamjbuckl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>>>> > A couple of things: > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > Elan Ruskin gave a good talk on porting to consoles at GDC08. The > >> >>>>> > slides are on Valve's website. There's something in there that may > >> >>>>> > help you here: > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > #ifdef __GNUC__ > >> >>>>> > #define MAXSI_THREADED_VARIABLE __thread > >> >>>>> > #else > >> >>>>> > #define MAXSI_THREADED_VARIABLE __declspec( thread ) > >> >>>>> > #endif > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > You may wish to use another define for windows rather than an else > >> >>>>> > statement in case you wish to port it somewhere else in the future. > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > Also I agree, the Mac and Linux ports are incredibly similar. In > > fact, > >> >>>>> > on the Mac port a shell script is executed first to determine whether > >> >>>>> > it's running on OS X or Linux. > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > Finally Linux could be a great consumer platform. Before it can > > become > >> >>>>> > this, it needs to learn that not everyone is a power user, and make > >> >>>>> > things simple. Learn from the Mac app bundles, and remove reliance > > on > >> >>>>> > the command line (for example the output is shown on the update > >> >>>>> > software). It scares normal users. That, and a lot of power users > >> >>>>> > (like myself), don't want to have to rely on the command line for > >> >>>>> > everything. > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> > On 13 June 2010 13:28, Jonas 'Sortie' Termansen <hlcod...@maxsi.dk> > > wrote: > >> >>>>> >> I'd like to share a few experiences about porting code and writing > >> >>>>> >> portable code. Scroll down, if you just want my thoughts on how > > portable > >> >>>>> >> the Source Engine is. > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> Recently I've been porting my in-development digital distribution > >> >>>>> >> platform to GNU/Linux for the fun of it. Naturally, most of my code > >> >>>>> >> didn't work right out of the box. But it is worth that several > >> >>>>> >> subsystems actually worked at the first attempt, or with an edit or > > two. > >> >>>>> >> For instance, my string system and parser classes/functions > > compiled > >> >>>>> >> right away. > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> However, stuff like accessing the filesystem, multithreading, user > >> >>>>> >> interfaces, networking, and so on didn't work because it relied on > > the > >> >>>>> >> Windows API. The interesting part here is that POSIX does things > >> >>>>> >> differently; but almost in the same manner as Windows. That means > > for > >> >>>>> >> each Windows API call you use, there is often one or more POSIX > > calls > >> >>>>> >> that does the same thing (if you add a little abstraction, that > > is). > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> Now, some of you heavily suggested the use of #ifdefs all around > > the > >> >>>>> >> code. You should not use #ifdefs each time you rely on platform > > specific > >> >>>>> >> behavior, but only in shared function calls or in headers. For > > instance, > >> >>>>> >> if you have to open a file. On Windows you can call the CreateFile > >> >>>>> >> function, while POSIX supports the open function. That means for > > each > >> >>>>> >> file opening, you need to write something like. > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> #ifdef linux > >> >>>>> >> int FileHandle = open(Path, Flags); > >> >>>>> >> #elif defined(WIN32) > >> >>>>> >> HANDLE FileName = CreateFile(...) > >> >>>>> >> #endif > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> Naturally, this isn't very pretty. And if this was used all over > > the > >> >>>>> >> Source Engine you would spend a lot of time writing #ifdefs and > > checking > >> >>>>> >> platform specific documentation. However, I am not saying #ifdefs > > are a > >> >>>>> >> bad idea. But instead of using them all over your code, you should > > move > >> >>>>> >> them to a shared class or function that simply implements all this > > once. > >> >>>>> >> In my code, I declared an abstract baseclass called MaxsiFileSystem > > that > >> >>>>> >> implements all the common functions to access the local filesystem. > > So > >> >>>>> >> now when I wish to open a file for reading, I would call: > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> MaxsiHandle FileHandle = FileSystem()->OpenFile(Path, > > MAXSI_FILE_READ | > >> >>>>> >> MAXSI_FILE_SEQUENTIAL); > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> This additional layer of abstraction makes it very easy to add > > support > >> >>>>> >> for new platforms as you just have to define a new child of the > > abstract > >> >>>>> >> baseclass. I have also added such a layer for my Window System. > > This > >> >>>>> >> means I call my own APIs in my actual code, and then it redirects > > it to > >> >>>>> >> the Windows API or GTK+ depending on your platform. > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> You might also have noticed I implemented a FileSystem() function, > > in > >> >>>>> >> the same manner I have implemented a WindowSystem() function that > >> >>>>> >> returns the window system in use by the current function/class. > > This > >> >>>>> >> makes it easy to simply swap the window system on the fly. For > > instance, > >> >>>>> >> my source mod links against my distribution platform (LGPL) and my > > mod > >> >>>>> >> then implements some of these interfaces. It could implement the > >> >>>>> >> MaxsiWindowSystem class using VGUI and then my programs could be > >> >>>>> >> natively drawn ingame with mininal work. > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> Other porting issues includes how the VS compiler breaks a lot of > > the > >> >>>>> >> C99 standard. To counter this, I have simply declared a lot of > > macros in > >> >>>>> >> my header files that replaces platform specific behavior. > >> >>>>> >> #defines are > >> >>>>> >> very powerful for this. For example, to declare a thread-specific > >> >>>>> >> variable, I would use this header define: > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> #ifdef __GNUC__ > >> >>>>> >> #define MAXSI_THREADED_VARIABLE __thread > >> >>>>> >> #else > >> >>>>> >> #define MAXSI_THREADED_VARIABLE __declspec( thread ) > >> >>>>> >> #endif > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> And then use the MAXSI_THREADED_VARIABLE macro to declare each > > threaded > >> >>>>> >> variable. My experience is also that the GNU Compilers throw much > > more > >> >>>>> >> errors and warnings than the Visual Studio compiler - and it is > > often > >> >>>>> >> right to do so. Visual Studio teaches you to write bad > >> >>>>> >> standards-breaking code, even if you just compile using MinGW you > > will > >> >>>>> >> get to fix a lot of issues that makes your code rather non- portable. > >> >>>>> >> (Like avoiding Microsoft-specific extensions to the C Library, in > > some > >> >>>>> >> cases.) But Microsoft did break the standard enough that you might > > need > >> >>>>> >> to use some of the above methods for porting, just to get your code > >> >>>>> >> compiling using MinGW. > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> Now to return to the Source Engine. In my experience a lot of stuff > > in > >> >>>>> >> the SDK code is already defined using interfaces, classes, and such. > >> >>>>> >> That means the actual porting issues have been outsourced to the > > Engine. > >> >>>>> >> This, in turn, means that the SDK code will be rather easy to port > >> >>>>> >> compared to the Engine. Fortunately, as the Source Engine already > > is > >> >>>>> >> highly modular using interfaces, it is easy to just swap a DX > > renderer > >> >>>>> >> with OpenGL. As such, they already have the framework to make their > > code > >> >>>>> >> work on new platforms - all they have to do is implement their > >> >>>>> >> interfaces using the local system calls. If you start to do this on > > the > >> >>>>> >> low-level interfaces and move upward, then soon your program starts > >> >>>>> >> working in all its glory. > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> As for a Steam Client for GNU/Linux. It exists. I lost the link, > > but it > >> >>>>> >> seems that Valve uploads nightly builds of their Steam Client, and > > each > >> >>>>> >> day it works just a bit better. Last I heard, the Steam Client > > actually > >> >>>>> >> logged on and the actual UI was partially drawn. I am not sure why > > Valve > >> >>>>> >> is so silent about this - perhaps it's just experimental, or they > > they > >> >>>>> >> to make a big deal about it, like they did with the Mac. Seriously, > > when > >> >>>>> >> are they gonna shut up about it? Last I saw was that they made a > > funny > >> >>>>> >> TF2 comic about it. > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> >> Porting programs to Linux hasn't been very hard for me, though it > > is a > >> >>>>> >> lot of work, if you want to do it properly. It seems that the > > Source > >> >>>>> >> Engine is already highly portable and GNU/Linux build doesn't seem > > too > >> >>>>> >> difficult, as it seems from the nightly builds. There is no doubt > > about > >> >>>>> >> whether we need a client for GNU/Linux, it is just a matter of time > >> >>>>> >> before they announce and release it. > >> >>>> > >> >>>>> > Bucky _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
