Trying to make a software renderer compete with a dedicated GPU is kind of, uh, an exercise in futility.
--Bob On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Katrina Payne <fullmetalhar...@nimhlabs.com> wrote: > 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 > > _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlcoders
