>muh Linux gaming
Freecucks will defend this.
>Freetards actually believe they turn into scientists by running some neckbeard hobbyist OS
Performance on Linux isn't as good as windows for a lot of games. Other games see an increase. What matters is that you can actually play those games now instead of having to use Windows at all. Even in this article you can see ultra settings 60 fps 1080p is possible on this game - that's nothing to sneeze at. Many still game with much worse systems.
I have a 970 and use Debian. Come at me bro
Kill yourself, plebeian. Less gamers means less demand on the welfare system, and thus lower taxes for those who actually work for a living and have to occasionally buy ultralight outdoors gear.
Perhaps when all the ports are shitty, you have to start looking at the platform that they're being ported to, anon.
>F-f-fuck you!!! Games are d-d-dumb!!!
The superior intellect of the Lincuck triumphs once again.
Are you happy that linux is not for gaming?
I am what is the deal with retards jizzing over this detail. I am not unemployed and actually use what linux is good for.
>Mass network monitoring
>Deep packet inspecting
>Programming (C development)
>Intel pention 997, 8Gb ram, win 7 64 bit + lubuntu 14.04 64
>2 Sec to
What the fuck am I gaining from this. Windows is better?
Application (Software) is loaded faster?
Linux/windows is better for this and that?
You simply have generated a retarded post.
I do not like windows using personal choice as a reason.
The Microsoft direction was different pre windows 10.
I have already found working and alternatives to all my required windows software.
to be fair, games run better on windows simply because large companies have poured all their resources into optimizing their games for this OS and its graphics libraries.
says nothing about the OS itself; imho linux is much more sane in its design (hell, anything that isn't windows is)
>to be fair, games run better on windows simply because large companies have poured all their resources into optimizing their games for this OS and its graphics libraries.
Or maybe because Windows has a much saner infrastructure to built on
>says nothing about the OS itself; imho linux is much more sane in its design (hell, anything that isn't windows is)
This, I really don't understand why people shill for MS like this.
There is 0 reason not to want linux gaming to take off.
It'd mean more cross platform play, and if you don't care about that, you aren't affected.
It also weakens MS monopoly, so they have less power to dick around their consumers like they love to do.
So tell me, why did you feel the need to go out of your way to post this?
Why did you feel the need to go out of your way to bash something that has at worst, no affect on you?
Unix is present.
Linux is ran where costs justify the means. The feature of linux is the ability to run until the hardware dies. Unix is used in areas where a service MUST be on until time dies.
The linux segment would be redhat or centOS.
windows handles scrollbars in the kernel
IN THE FUCKING KERNEL
please don't try to convince me that windows' OS design is sane, because it is absolutely anything but. windows is hack over hack for backwards compatibility, and you end up with a huge monolithic shitty OS that has the backing of companies big enough that they can just keep piling on shitty patch after shitty patch
Windows Servers are not used as gateways and internal controllers.
When I say internet, I mean the Internet is a bunch of connection networking devices which acts as gateways to other networks.
In other words, linux or unix is at the heart of what connects us together.
The port is a big key word here.
From windows to linux as well.
Same thing that happens with consoles all the time, dominant console always runs the games a bit better.
Valve is pretty good at making good ports, l4d ran faster for them.
TLDR; I can hand pick games too.
>windows handles scrollbars in the kernel
This is incredible. It's truly amazing that Windows works AT ALL given how universally awful the architecture is.
And I thought Linux was too monolithic.
Oh, and font rendering too!!
Also, programming tools on windows run like shit.
Of course, this is a probably the same situation in reverse, linux getting far more optimizing man power. But stuff like case insensitive file system doesn't help.
>still thinking windows is in any way "sane"
It works without crashing *most of the time* and that's about all you can say about it. I honestly have no idea how it's held on to its market share for this long but I have to give M$ credit for pulling it off.
windows de sux!
X server with fvwm
Wincuck: lel why would you have virtual desktops?
Wincuck: ehrmagehrd win 10 is so cutting edge, they have virtusl dedktops,
what the actual föck
Not really, more like
A) Google wanted control, and to be able to slowly close the android ecosystem once it took off, which they have steadily been doing.
B) Desktop != mobile, gnu libc was too much for a phone.
X is the worst of it, but it's useful, it's a hell of a lot easier for me to dossh -XCY myschool -l username
to run the big proprietary evil programs that I can't afford than it is to do whatever the hell you do for the windows machines.
>It works without crashing *most of the time* and that's about all you can say about it.
Which is pretty impressive, honestly. Given how utterly crazy the architecture is at every level, it's amazing that it works at all. I have no idea how they have managed to apply hack after hack for thirty years and still have a system that is usable.
Parts of it are, anyway. Sound and graphics, which kinda blows.
Maybe not as bad, but X11 is a huge mess of its own. It's nearly got as many hacks and totally obsolete backwards compatibility workarounds as Windows itself.
>Really? Find me anything about it's that's half as bad as handling scrollbars in the kernel.
Linux is a broken mess.
Using Linux it's death by a thousand cuts.
Why do you think that Lunduke guy does its talk every year?
I am using Linux exclusively for almost a year.
Never had a crash or loss of data.
Never had any problems with games( Dota2,LoL,World of Warcraft and many other singleplayer games from PlayOnLinux).
Using 5 yr old laptop with nvidia optimus on Xubuntu.
>Freecucks will defend this
Only if the engine is under a free license, this example uses a proprietary engine and proprietary graphics drivers, and hence of little relevance. It also does so on a platform whose demographic is developers, hobbyists and those interested in running servers; not primarily gamers, and more importantly not enough of the market share of gamers to warrant a high quality engine port and gaming oriented graphics drivers.
Install debian on your phone then!
I don't think you need root even!
(Although you should have root on any device you own available.)
Sound isn't really any worse than windows, it's just hidden.
If you said that 5 years ago, sure, but I haven't had sound issues on ubuntu for a very long time, and I use some complicated setups, switching between full 5.1 surround, usb dac, etc.
It's just worked fine for me.
X is a mess, true, but it is useful.
Also, it's on its way out, but yes, that is the worst part of desktop linux.
No it's not.
Linux sound has just worked on the beginner distros, which is the only thing you should compare to windows, for pretty much half a decade.
Just because you can see the architecture if you want, doesn't mean it's any less complex than windows.
X isn't great, but it's no where near horribly broken.
>Why do you think that Lunduke guy does its talk every year?
Because he's joking. He uses Linux himself and makes frequent contributions. He points out the flaws in a lighthearted manner because it gets a wider audience and is more entertaining than publishing a boring article.
He doesn't actually think Linux sucks. From his website:
>spoiler: it doesn’t actually suck
Android ditched everything above the kernel because it's not needed for a mobile OS and would only slow it down while adding functionality useless to anyone but devs and power users.
>Android ditched everything above the kernel because it's not needed for a mobile OS and would only slow it down while adding functionality useless to anyone but devs and power users.
B-But Linux runs everywhere
Seriously, do you
A) Not use linux, and just parrot the linux audio is bad
B) Use arch, fedora, or some bleeding edge distro?
I haven't had a single issue with linux audio, on my ubuntu stable machine, and ubuntu laptop, and ubuntu htpc, in 5 years.
The laptop uses the integrated sound, switching between headphones and speakers, with independent volume levels, just works.
HTPC uses a receiver, 5.1 surround.
Desktop uses usb dac.
It's been 4 years since I switched to linux and I still dread opening GIMP even though the painful loading times are gone.
They both work, and they work great. But if you look under the hood you'll wish you hasn't. At least with windows we can't see under the hood, but the smoke that leaks out from under it sometimes is enough to make anyone curious about just how messed up it is in there.
>Nah. It works for most people. The architecture is sub-optimal, but the Windows architecture is probably even more broken. You just can't see the flaws on Windows.
So this is your logic:
-it works for most people on Linux -> Linux is good
-you can't see the flaw on windows (i.e. it works) -> Windows is bad
>What matters is that you can actually play those games now instead of having to use Windows at all.
This is what really matters
The ports that we're getting now can be pretty crappy sometimes but the big deal here is we're seeing more and more Linux support by the day, which is great for absolutely everyone.
If you play proprietary video games on GNU/Linux you are a cuck
This. Yes, it "works" on windows, but whenever you even try to touch anything developer-related it just becomes a huge clusterfuck. this is indicative of a broken foundation.
>see any type of development on windows that isn't wrapped up in a pretty IDE
>It's not exactly elegant, but it works. It is not broken.
You could say the same thing for scrollbars in the kernel
>And Windows is 10 times as inelegant.
I don't know, to be honest. But it has worked flawlessy for me. Still prefer W7 though.
Not him, but no, it's more both work, both are fine solutions when set up probably by your distro,
just that you can see how complex it is with linux, because it's a black box, so people parrot linux audio bad.
Both are perfectly fine.
- It works for "everyone", can see complexity
- It works for "everyone", can't see complexity
* Ok, on linux, you might have issues with some sound cards, but those are obsolete anyway, usb dacs are a much better solution.
** If configured by distro, arch users excluded.
One game out of thousands. I could care less, loonix, wangblows, cars, trucks....but you took a single example of something to compare to thousands of others. Its like you don't know what statistics are
Windows was usable on the desktop before Linux was. Linux didn't even exist until after MS was already far in the lead. By the time Linux was a real competition, Windows was thoroughly entrenched.
But now Linux is superior and it is rapidly gaining market share.
How many examples do you have in this thread?
You can't just say you have thousands.
Of course linux is going to do worse, as it has more shitty ports.
Same thing for any non dominant platform, like consoles get every generation.
Windows has the same issue with programming tools, like git.
>They both work, and they work great.
They don't work great. They are fairly reliable, but they create serious security risks.
But Linux is still far more secure than Windows, so it's not a disadvantage.
Not really a good comparison.
Firefox had a lot less obstacles to overcome, and IE was really shitty.
And firefox was very easy to install, and didn't require vender support, it just had to follow web standards.
Sure, there were some proprietary web standards that fucked with it, but nothing like switching OSes.
Installing an OS is not a task most people think they can do, no matter how much one tries to convince them.
Yes, my mistake.
Was going to use windows is a black box, but then flipped midway.
But when it's in wangblow's favor then it's totally okay, like how OP did it?
Are you retarded?
You can't compare a browser to a whole OS. Installing another OS requires a heck of a lot more commitment to re-learning how to use your computer. Pretty much every web browser on the planet works more or less the same way from an end-user perspective.
>You could say the same thing for scrollbars in the kernel
No. Having that sort of thing in the kernel is a security risk. The article was literally about how the scrollbars DO NOT work since they are a huge vulnerability.
>Linux didn't even exist until after MS was already far in the lead.
Internet Explorer was usable before Firefox ever existed
>By the time Linux was a real competition, Windows was thoroughly entrenched.
By the time Firefox was a real competition Internet explorer was thoroughly entrenched.
>But now Linux is superior and it is rapidly gaining market share.
>Not really a good comparison.
>Firefox had a lot less obstacles to overcome, and IE was really shitty.
So is windows according to many on this board
>And firefox was very easy to install, and didn't require vender support,
>Installing an OS is not a task most people think they can do, no matter how much one tries to convince them.
Remember that a lot of people have installed Linux on their machine, just to delete it afterwards because it was a PITA. This excuse is old.
>Internet Explorer was usable before Firefox ever existed
Nah. IE was NEVER good. It was NEVER better than the competition.
Windows was never unusable garbage like IE was.
>By the time Firefox was a real competition Internet explorer was thoroughly entrenched.
Nah. A web browser can't get entrenched. Switching browsers is easy. Switching OSes is hard.
I know you got this from PCGW you faggot. Funny how you ommited this
No shit, ports will always suffer from poor performance, there's also the matter of the amount of work put into the drivers.
You'd see the same thing if you took a game developed exclusively for Linux and ported it sloppily to Windows too.
As linux gets more support, this gap will close, and eventually we'll see performance parity and possibly even improvements.
>So is windows according to many on this board
No that bad.
No where near that bad.
>Excuse is old
A lot of people installed firefox and then went back because it didn't support some activeX thing.
A tiny, tiny portion of people are willing to try their own OS.
Pretty much everyone can get a web browser, even if accidentally half the time.
here's another argument for you:
supporting an OS is different from supporting a browser, in a very fundamental way.
Websites didn't have to be recoded to work with Firefox. They just did, because of how the web works (textual document exchange format, etc.)
It is a much greater effort (although of course a worthy cause) for a developer to support a totally different operating system when they've already made a program for Windows.
Thus the dynamic is different. That is why Firefox could gain marketshare so rapidly while Linux did not/has not. Does not mean linux is worse, just means linux needs support from consumer-software developers (which it currently, although is improving, doesn't have very much)
>So is windows according to many on this board
Windows is inferior to the competition, but IE was absolute GARBAGE.
Switching from Windows to Linux is like walking out of a hot kitchen into an air-conditioned room
Switching from old IE to Firefox was like running out of a burning building.
>It is a much greater effort (although of course a worthy cause) for a developer to support a totally different operating system when they've already made a program for Windows.
That's because they failed to write the program portably, which is easy to do if you use the portable standards, eg POSIX, OpenGL, SDL, OpenAL.
They probably installed arch or gentoo because some memester told them to.
People who install their own OS are an absolutely tiny minority. Windows maintains its dominance through its monopolistic actions in the consumer hardware business not through technical superiority or through offering a better user experience.
This is in fact why use of desktop PCs is declining as use of non-traditional devices increases. Its also why Valve is clearly aiming at creating dedicated gaming devices using standard PC hardware so they can create a market as desktops start to go away.
if only it was easy to make programs for windows with said standards
the reality is that windows came first, and people (through no fault of their own) used windows-specific APIs to develop their programs (WinForms, whatever). Obviously the ideal is to use portable standards, but it's usually much more difficult to do, so companies chose the dominant platform: Windows.
Don't misread my position: Windows is an absolute mess. I'm just trying to explain to these morons why Linux failed to get the same traction Firefox did on its release
>In the Vista days a lot of people installed Linux on their machines.
"A lot" is like 3%.
And Vista came out in 2006. Linux has gotten FAR better since them. I would say it reached a level of quality where it is usable for most people only within the last five or so years.
But people were using portable standards up until Microsoft said windows vista would not have OpenGL support. And so the developers all got nervous and begin developing windows only programs.
Nearly no AAA game uses native OpenGL, almost all those ports are done via a DX to OpenGL emulation layer, which just sucks. Native windows games also benefit from some per game driver optimizations and fast paths. First Vulkan games will be better for comparison. There is/was no doubt that Windows is the better platform for gaming for now, but considering there was few AAA game for Linux 4 years ago it is good milage.
>Using portable standards before vista
No, not really.
Also, you can still do opengl on windows just fine.
And again, you're ignoring the main issue.
Those windows only programs won't work on linux.
Those sites designed for IE generally ran in FF.
If you had to pick, IE, or FF dev, FF never would have taken off.
Guys, you are deluded.
Of those people who tried Linux a lot returned to Windows. This is not a conspiracy.
You may think they are dumb, whatever.
But the fact remain.
Linux desktop is simply not ready for primetime.
If you are a techical user, sure.
But don't tell me Linux is "better" than Windows for the average user, please.
Actually a lot of websites years ago were very IE specific using code that really wouldn't work well on any other browser. Web developers didn't like this as coding to the least standard browser first created a number of headaches and started looking for a better way. They started using Firefox as the primary development browser at a time when it was a tiny minority of users because it was easier to code against a standards compliant browser and then add any non-standard code for IE.
If software and game developers started similarly coding to standards instead of relying on proprietary single platform solutions from the start they would find that it isn't hard, and that it greatly simplifies their porting if they use SDL from the start instead of DirectX.
Have you even been reading the past posts?
The same hml doc works in FF/IE.
One binary (with one or two exceptions) doesn't work across windows/linux.
I'll say that Linux is ready for primetime, and better for the average user, because it is.
Especially for people only using their computer for the web browser.
Switched my dad over for years until his work went to a windows only proprietary solution. to remote in.
Suddenly, went from 0 technical issues, to him constantly fucking it up again, and getting malware.
Also, see chromebooks.
There were issues, but not binary incomparability level.
>Of those people who tried Linux a lot returned to Windows.
Yes. I was one of them. Linux was legitimately inferior for most people around 2006. The hardware support was questionable, there was little software, and it was hard to use.
Things have changed dramatically in the last ten years. Linux is now simply superior. The only problem it has now is its lack of market share.
>Things have changed dramatically in the last ten years. Linux is now simply superior. The only problem it has now is its lack of market share.
I wouldn't bet on it.
I have heard this argument *at least* since 2003
Without using a write once run anywhere solution you're always going to have binary incompatibilities but you can greatly decrease your workload when porting by not using single-platform libraries and coding to the most standard platform first instead of the most used platform.
Linux -> Windows ports happen far more quickly because nearly everything is already there.
Yeah, that's why web apps have taken off in recent years as the ubiquity of the browser as a platform has made it possible to deploy things to every platform.
If we see WebVulkan replace WebGL we might even see games go that way.
You completely missed the point where he said it didn't require vendor support. Firefox can be installed on a computer and you can be relatively certain it'll all work. With an OS you need hardware vendor support, you can't just install Linux and be relatively certain it'll work (At least that was the case for quite some time).
If Linux had the support Windows did, where you install it and you've got all your drivers and programs, it would catch on much, much quicker.
It's not hard, it's just not popular. If Linux had the dominant market share Windows did, you bet your ass we'd see a mirror image with Windows having shit support and Linux having plenty.
I can do Valley too if you guys want, but I doubt anyone here cares about a low tier GPU.
>I wouldn't bet on it.
I would. The system is ready for primetime as it is now. The only two advantages Windows has are hardware support and software, neither of which is an overwhelming advantage these days and both of which are entirely the result of its market share.
Its actually impressive how well my card does with Mesa compared to that.
I've heard that there's been a lot of compatibility issues with Windows 10 now, especially with WiFi drivers. I can't say I've really experienced that myself, though. My PC Just Werx with W10 and every distro I've tried so far.
Yeah I'm not too worried about not having max tessllation, even with the official drivers it kills performance and Mesa right now still sees even more significant slow downs because of immaturity and not using all of the compute units it could.
The GPU driver situation (specifically opengl) in linux is currently abysmal, everyone knows this. Nvidia's proprietary driver is currently the best it's still not great. AMD is ditching the current proprietary and current open driver to make one open driver that will hopefully be solid once vulkan games are out. It's still missing a lot of features and currently only supports GCN 1.2 cards but they've stated they intend to make everything run it. opengl performance is probably just going to stop being cared about and brute-forced from now on assuming devs stop actively using it.
Nobody is talking about programming tools. Thousands of games are better run on windows.
Most coding (which is what 5% of /g/ users actually do) is much better on linux
It doesn't matter the case, 99.9% of games run better on windows
steam getting a linux release, Gog.com following along and more and more games getting ported to linux are the major steps that have already been taken.
So, with more people slowly going to linux and enjoying gaming, driver support will be better.
>Android is Linux, guise!
Seriously, not this again.
What relevance does a fucking kernel have, you fucking retards? If Microsoft replaced NT with Linux on Windows 10, keeping everything else the same (closed source, forced updates, privacy settings, little customizability and so on), would you be happy with Windows then because of the kernel it's using? Would you ditch Ubuntu/Mint/Debian/Arch/Gentoo or whatever distro you use and move to Windows because "Windows is Linux now"?
It's not about the kernel, you retards. When people say they want Linux to be popular, they mean the principles of FOSS and user control that come with Linux distros, not the literal kernel itself. The kernel is completely irrelevant to users.