Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 271

Thread: Direct3D 10/11 Is Now Natively Implemented On Linux!

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Also, the fact that D3D isn't open is only important to "Freeness" lunatics. I couldn't care less.
    Freeness lunatics? Im very very happy for you, your fingers.dll license has not yet expired and the producer still supports your brain.com with patches, although its gonna be outdated soon.

    And how about your heart.exe monthly $1,000,000,000 renewal fee? Sadly only this model is compatible to the rest of yours. In fact it is the only available model because it is a non-replaceable proprietary world standart.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    (a) You didn't answer my question. Name a single AAA OpenGL game please.
    Let's see...

    Quake III:Arena
    Doom III
    Quake IV
    World of Warcraft (We tested it at AMD when I was doing work for them...as an OpenGL sustaining engineer...)

    Oh, you meant recent stuff...hm...

    Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay (Yes...)
    Portal (MacOS version...)
    Doom4 (Claimed...)

    Heh...name one...just go looking around- there's quite a bit.


    (b) Obviously, considering that Direct3D is the better programming API. Long Peaks might have changed that, but Khronos backed off before it was complete.
    Nope. It wasn't a "better" one. It just exposed "nifty" stuff that might have "simplified" some of the graphics effects programming.

    (c) MS taking de facto ownership of 3D wouldn't be such a bad thing, considering how awful the 3d stacks on Linux/BSD/Mac/Unix are.
    They're not awful- they're poorly implemented in the case of some aspects thereof (differing ones for NVidia and AMD...)- and this isn't the fault of the API and more a fault of the vendors not putting quite enough manpower against the issue in question. And, more to the point, this doesn't fix that issue- a D3D state tracker won't magically make it "better", full on drivers with it might, but then they'd also make the 3D stack situation with OpenGL better as well.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    The Alps
    Posts
    42

    Default

    It sounds a bit scary: D3D games will run on Linux, but D3D will become a platform for linux game developers too (which means: M$ will condition part of the linux environment developing) or even worse: no more native games on linux (why bother doing a linux version if the windoze one runs so fine on top of wine?).

    But this might turn out to be the beginning of a sane competition: to do what you can to improve the (far more free) OGL stack and raise it to a level higher than D3D!

    Why not?

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    I can't comprehend how many people here WISH that Microsoft takes complete control over Linux 3d graphics.

    Holy shit.

    And then we wonder when so many people wish that the Free drivers die, so WINE would work better....

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
    I can't comprehend how many people here WISH that Microsoft takes complete control over Linux 3d graphics.

    Holy shit.

    And then we wonder when so many people wish that the Free drivers die, so WINE would work better....
    Most of them think it's a way to get games easier. In truth, for most cases, the D3D part's a) not insurmountable, b) NOT the bulk of the effort porting a game over, and c) NOT the reason you don't have games on Linux in the first place.

    It's not going to magically make WINE do better- they need to make a .so that allows it to use that D3D state tracker.

    It's not going to magically make game porting easier unless someone implements D3D's API layer (which is the piece that talks to the state tracker...) on Linux.

    It's not going to magically get more games ON Linux- the studios have to see a need for making them available (Having WINE makes this a problem, mind...).



    They see what they think is the quick and easy path. They've not watched the whole story pan out over decades of time. I have. I was where they were at one point in time- but then I saw that what I had wanted and they now want is actually counter productive.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Games should be developed with whatever the one doing the development feels like using. And if the choice is D3D, then this tracker is useful and needed.
    In other words, games should be developed for Windows (since Direct3d is a part of Windows), and it's the responsibility of Linux to make sure it is completely compatible.

    Same argument can be made regarding using other Windows technologies, such as MFC, and that WINE should be able to run that.

    Terrible, terrible idea.

    No, people should develop portable software, using portable solutions. It's not up to Linux to run unportable, monopolistic and poorly designed software which was explicitly created with the goal of NOT running on Linux.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    160

    Default

    So implement Open GL 3x/4x cleanly on Gallium3d. Either way, the more API's available to choose from, the more use cases Gallium3D suits. The more used Gallium3D is, the more the various layers and hardware support are polished and bugs removed. I'm less concerned about the API as having a polished driver...

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig73 View Post
    So implement Open GL 3x/4x cleanly on Gallium3d. Either way, the more API's available to choose from, the more use cases Gallium3D suits. The more used Gallium3D is, the more the various layers and hardware support are polished and bugs removed. I'm less concerned about the API as having a polished driver...
    (and FWIW, Gallium3D being used in virtual machines, or on ReactOS (a Free windows implementation), etc., might all be valid use cases for open implementations of MS technologies... )

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    912

    Default

    Oh great, this hyped up story just hit slashdot.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    Uh, it has less to do with "Freeness" and more to do with the fact that D3D isn't available on:

    PS3
    Wii
    MacOS
    Linux

    You either have OpenGL or OpenGL ES as a target for those systems. As for Linux, this includes:

    X86
    X86-64
    ARM (Heh... Let's see... WebOS, MeeGo, Angstrom (Pandora), Android,...)

    In the end, you need to target BOTH API's because your game will sit on everything if you want it to at that point. Why limit yourself to just Microsoft based systems when you're going to leave at least 20-30% of the total market on the floor if you do?
    Because D3D is easier to use than OpenGL?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •