Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 73

Thread: Gallium3D Direct3D 9 For Wine Revived, Again

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by werfu View Post
    But at the same time, it's hot, it's new, it has the potential to bring a lot more Wine usage and could even live outside if a modular architecture get in place. I'd love to see both the DX9 and the DX10/11 tracker thrive and enable Linux gaming a lot more. Hell, one could even wrap what's left of DirectX and enable near recompiling porting of commercial games. Suddenly all hell'd break loose and the SteamOS could offer 100% of their catalog (yeah I'm dreaming, but why not).
    The problem is that the directx binaries on Windows have become the most wart ridden messes of unexplained undocumented behavior implementing the api intuitively means almost nothing works.

    Microsoft had the habit (and still does) of patching Windows to fix bugs in games. Device vendors do this a lot too, it is why many AAA titles require day-one gpu drivers from AMD / Nvidia.

    Wine is so huge, in part, because it has to find and implement all the bugs in directx beyond just the functionality. And even a dx9 state tracker would have to do the same, because directx isn't an API, it is an implementation - and as a developer, conforming to implementations makes me want to perform ritual sacrifice of goats.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by werfu View Post
    Wine is one hell of an old open source project. It's been around for ages! I remember using it on my 486 with one of the first 2.4 kernel. Wine developers are proud. It took an incredible amount of work to get to 1.0, and while everybody though it was foolish to develop such a layer, they've continued. If I put myself in place of the Wine developers, I can easily understand how I could refuse to add such functionality. It's been developed by someone who's external to the team, replace a complete subset that took a LOT of work to put in place in the first place and opens up a possibility of new bugs. Not only that, but it would only benefit a small fraction of users and would be dedicated to Linux (and FreeBSD when the tracker gets ported). So, yeah, I understand them.

    But at the same time, it's hot, it's new, it has the potential to bring a lot more Wine usage and could even live outside if a modular architecture get in place. I'd love to see both the DX9 and the DX10/11 tracker thrive and enable Linux gaming a lot more. Hell, one could even wrap what's left of DirectX and enable near recompiling porting of commercial games. Suddenly all hell'd break loose and the SteamOS could offer 100% of their catalog (yeah I'm dreaming, but why not).
    Wine developers is amazing, working year after year, i follow wine since 1.1.21 on games and since this times wine had big progress as, DX9c begins works, ATI/AMD support begins show shader model 3 games, sound work for example: virtua tennis 3 and many others, wmv support on ford racing games (without wine tricks): this appear around wine 1.7.3, installation net framework 3.5 and 4 (without wine tricks but requires on complied wine dont install mono for works) and other many changes in various areas

    Resuming thanks for all wine developers and waiting for your future works




  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisXY View Post
    Speaking of radeonsi, does this work on it/will it work?
    No reason I can see that it wouldn't, so long as it's using an up-to-date Mesa stack. As this state tracker looks to be Mesa 10 I would imagine that you would get everything you get from Mesa 10 (including all radeonsi improvements) plus the D3D9 st.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinguinpc View Post
    ...Seriously if you want use wine, NVIDIA with privative drivers is your only option but AMD Opensource driver gains compatibility but performance is low and privative gain performance but loss compatibility but nvidia privative drivers have more performance and compatibility

    Are you trying to make a point, or promote NVIDIA's proprietary driver? I fail to see any reason for the latter in this thread...

    My only problem with fglrx and Wine was Guild Wars 2 and osu!, and both seem to work great for me now. On radeonsi, both games also worked, but were slightly slower. Can't say I care how they perform on NVIDIA since I don't own such hardware (and won't for political reasons). But giving the impression Wine is next to useless on AMD in-comparison to NVIDIA just isn't true.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gusar View Post
    Look who's talking.

    You seem to think maintenance is just adding a few lines of code. You're completely missing the entire end-user support system that you also have to maintain when you distribute software - writing documentation, bug triaging, etc. You're also missing the QA burden - if wine devs incorporate support for the d3d tracker, then they have to test everything with both the tracker and the standard wine stack. Furthermore, when the devs make changes, they have to think how those changes might affect either the standard stack or the tracker and potentially change the tracker-related code, which consumes both time and brain power.

    There's is nothing whatsoever political about either of these, they're all practical, *real* burdens that get imposed on devs when they take a piece of code. So when you say "requires almost no maintainance", you're flat-out wrong. Adding a piece of code might be easy, but that's just one small part of maintenance. You're free to prove otherwise, but that will require more than just making big unverified assumptions and accusing people of lying.
    LOL. Yeah rite... So Wine has to do all these things? Maybe they need to hire more people for their marketing division based on this patch? Maybe they need more salesmen? Gosh, the burden...

    I can't take you seriously. You see, unlike you, i am a pro programmer... And i know lies when i see them...

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zxy_thf View Post
    It's possible that they simply don't want to do QA on this patch.
    You know you need to test games with dx9 tracker once more.
    Anyway I think it's time to branch, as the wine team clearly has to balance different platforms while we - at least me - only want a faster wine under Linux.
    They don't have to. Anyway, it is not like the do stellar QA for the rest of Wine...

    But, they don't have to enable it by default. They can just accept it, provide a compile time option, and let the community maintain it. But of course, that can't happen on an "open source" project, right?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by justmy2cents View Post
    i'm a developer my self and i know i would do the same as wine developers. usually so called maintainers disappear and whole maintaining falls on developers who were never interested in that
    they get exceeding bug noise, since common user won't know whom to contact to report it.

    it is open source. if you don't like something you can
    - stop using it
    - search alternative
    - fork, patch and maintain that codebase. if you're right ppl will pick it up. just look at MATE. when ppl 1st heard that one single guy will fork gnome 2... everybody laughed. now look at it. don't be a whining ass, have the balls to do it or shut up and crawl into your hole

    how much did you pay wine developers so far to feel so entitled that developers must work extra work for you?
    So let me get this straight: If i have not given money to the developers, i am not allowed to review their product and criticize their decisions? Especially an "opensource" product? SERIOUSLY? I don't know if you are a developer, but you don't seem too bright to me...

    I never said i don't like Wine in general. I don't like the attitude of Crossover employees... That is my right, and i can express it since we are not in N. Korea...

    Their decision is purely based on the fact that most of their money come from Mac users. I am willing to bet Linux users don't usually pay for Crossover... That is the reason they don't want Linux specific enhancements. There is no technical reason, this patch is so simple. If it was complicated, i might have accepted their argument. But is is so simple...

    PS: They won't get that much "bug noise" from supporting the d3d9 state tracker. They don't have to enable it in Crossover. They can let it as an unsupported Linux compile time feature...

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TemplarGR View Post
    So let me get this straight: If i have not given money to the developers, i am not allowed to review their product and criticize their decisions? Especially an "opensource" product? SERIOUSLY? I don't know if you are a developer, but you don't seem too bright to me...

    I never said i don't like Wine in general. I don't like the attitude of Crossover employees... That is my right, and i can express it since we are not in N. Korea...

    Their decision is purely based on the fact that most of their money come from Mac users. I am willing to bet Linux users don't usually pay for Crossover... That is the reason they don't want Linux specific enhancements. There is no technical reason, this patch is so simple. If it was complicated, i might have accepted their argument. But is is so simple...

    PS: They won't get that much "bug noise" from supporting the d3d9 state tracker. They don't have to enable it in Crossover. They can let it as an unsupported Linux compile time feature...
    criticize? yea, you can. that is your basic right. same as developers have the right of choice... or don't they? you damn sure fight for your rights, but deny basic right to others. right of choice is most basic part of OSS. but, what you're doing is not criticizing. example, "wine developers LIED...", i mean how can you lie that you don't like something and don't plan on supporting it? it was a CHOICE, not a CLAIM and AFAIK choice cannot be lie. same for your comment, is not criticism, it is a claim

    oss project rejecting inclusion? never happens... or does it? look at kernel. they will flat out reject inclusion if it doesn't fit in their plan or structure, their agreed writing style...

    in OSS both developer and user are right. but
    - developer has the right to decide on not accepting some solution into their project or take another direction
    - user has the right to say screw them, fork and prove them wrong

    not much noise? let's see http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManage...tion&iId=13667
    right now it is pretty decent and clean how versions work. imagine all this duplicated since it might run for someone with tracker and not for someone without. why would they need to go trough that if they don't want it? and this never happens, i guess http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTMyNDU

    even if you leave it outside.of crossover people usually simply write "wine appname" in google. now, go figure what articles one will saw. some random templargr bragging it works x fps. imagine the surprise when he installs it just to realize it doesn't work. what will they do the 1st thing... flood the wine support

    keeping side project outside wine, where you simply take each tarball and release with patches would be painless, not require any work (your words, not mine). that's how distros do binary blobs for example

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TemplarGR View Post
    i am not allowed to review their product and criticize their decisions?
    You're not "criticizing their decisions". You're making demands, you're throwing out accusations, hefty ones at that (they're "lying", seriously?), you're claiming they have an agenda, you're also throwing out insults and cheap shots at other forum participants, and you're doing it all with a really stinky attitude. All the while proclaiming how trivial supporting the tracker would be.

    You're a "pro programmer", *show* me how trivial it would be! Why do you refuse? With one supposedly easy gesture you could shoot down my arguments completely. Why do you not take that chance? Well, the answer is obvious.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by werfu View Post
    Not only that, but it would only benefit a small fraction of users and would be dedicated to Linux (and FreeBSD when the tracker gets ported). So, yeah, I understand them.
    Lol, you do realise the main users of Wine are Linux users, right?

    And if adding something that "only the minority of Linux users will be able to use" is bad, then why did the Wine devs add that OSX specific X11 replacement some time ago?

    Face it, it's all ego issue. Someone developed something such that the whole DX-GL translation layer can now be obsoleted, but the old Wine devs, who think more about their legacy than the actual benefit of users, want to keep this layer and reject any alternatives, even if they are clearly superior.

Posting Permissions

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