1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Valve Steam, Source clients heading to Linux

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by brumgrunt, 26 Apr 2012.

  1. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,846
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    You *are* aware I'm writing this from a Linux machine with an Nvidia graphics card, right? The drivers work fine.

    Admittedly, I can't compare performance with Windows - 'cos I don't run Windows. Games seem to work, though, so I'm happy.
     
    azrael- likes this.
  2. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    709
    And hows your motherboard, dedicated (if any) sound card performance? Do you have ALL the features that you get under Windows, or just the bare minimum? And is your computer brand new (under a month old)?

    And on laptops it's uncompilable. If your don't buy a laptop that you checked if it had full Linux support, then you usually have to wait 2-3 years, most likely 3 years before everything works, and performs somewhat as good in Windows.

    In my case, putting Linux on my (at the time) 2 years old laptop, meant:
    -> Mouse cursor was choppy, and impossible to control
    -> Performance was non existence (despite being a Core 2 Duo (last gen))
    -> I could not get Linux to detect my Nvidia Quadro. So I could not use the fancy GPU rendered interface
    -> Laptop fan always spin at high speed, while in Windows is RARELY spinned (only when playing a game)
    -> Laptop battery based from 10hours under WIn7, down to 3hours.
    -> No wireless drivers
    -> No motherboard drivers.. well ok I lie, they were, but I was not convinced they were working
    -> high latency issue
    -> No ability to cut power on devices: reduce USB power, cut power on optical drive, firewire, SD card read nor smart card reader, which you all have under Windows with the motherboard drivers.
    -> And as expected Dell software (Control Panel) was also non existence, and no ability to update the BIOS (you need to be under Windows)
    Similar experience with my desktop (I never tried it with my computer on my signature).

    Yes I saw MANY people with amazing experience under Linux, and mine today (after 4 years), my laptops runs great under Linux as well. I still don't have all the features I had under Windows, nor battery life (6 hours under Linux, ~11 hours under Windows 8), and now everything is smooth.

    Don't get me wrong, I know why Linux is left aside by companies (low market share), and I want Linux to be more popular (competition is good). But saying that JUST because Steam is on Linux, that magically everything will run under Linux the same as under Windows, is wishful thinking.
     
  3. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,846
    Likes Received:
    2,046
    My desktop is about two years old; it's a self-build. They're always self-builds. I get far more features under Linux than under Windows. That's mostly because I - as I mentioned - don't use Windows, so features of my graphics card under Windows is equal to zero.

    Before you say "oh, well of course Linux works on a two-year old system:" I installed Linux on it the day I built it. Everything worked fine - 3D accelerated graphics, sound, all the various features of the motherboard, front-panel audio, USB, yadda-yadda.

    I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say "uncompilable" - the drivers are provided as binary blobs. There's no compiling to do. Download driver, double-click the file, wait for it to install. That's it. Drivers installed.

    I know that's true for laptops as well as desktops, 'cos I also have several laptops - all of which run Linux as well. My current laptop, admittedly, uses on-board Intel Sandy Bridge graphics - but the one before that had an AMD Radeon of some description. Installed the drivers from AMD and away it went - fully accelerated graphics, power management, the works. All worked fine, on a brand-new laptop. Battery life was about eight hours, which is an hour more than the manufacturer claimed it would get. (Again, I don't know how long Windows would have got, 'cos I don't run Windows.)

    Actually, I tell a lie: there is *one* thing on my laptop which doesn't work under Linux. The fingerprint scanner. Apparently the company that makes the scanner is working on a Linux driver, though.
     
  4. RedFlames

    RedFlames ...is not a Belgian football team

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    11,736
    Likes Received:
    1,496
    Linux drivers, for nVidia at least, are nowhere near as bad as they were... as for performance it's hard to judge.

    Plus if/when they port steam/source to linux then maybe the drivers will improve.
     
  5. RedFlames

    RedFlames ...is not a Belgian football team

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    11,736
    Likes Received:
    1,496
    I have both windows [7] and linux [kubuntu quantal] on my pc atm, and had it installed on my old laptop -

    yes i did, and the pc in question was brand shiny new at the time.

    I can't recall the last time i had to *compile* anything on linux... and performance wise it's on a par with windows

    no such problems here... there were basic drivers for my card from the start and it prompted me to install the full linux drivers when everything was done installing.
    No fan problems here as it's all controlled by the bios, not software/drivers.

    I did have wireless problems upgrading a laptop from one version of ubuntu to the newest version, install the driver from the old version and all working again. I've had to do the same on windows too.

    Power saving is admittedly a little spotty under linux, but battery life was longer under linux than windows.

    Dell's software not working? - blame Dell not the linux devs.


    As for steam on linux, imo it'll be the same as steam on mac, some games will be ported, some already have mac/linux ports and some with remain windows only. I'd rather have some games than none.
     
  6. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    709
    *Incompatible. Typo.

    Yup, but when you lose all CPU, northbridge/southbridge and GPU power management, or a combination, it's not funny.

    I never blamed linux dev. Where did I blame them?


    Exactly.
     
  7. AmEv

    AmEv Meow meow. See yall in 2-ish years!

    Joined:
    6 Apr 2011
    Posts:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    43
    Lemme chip this in:

    On completely minimal settings, I'm getting over 4-500FPS in vanilla Minecraft. On a 550Ti.
    Same ain't happening on my XP install.
    With the NVidia drivers installed on both.

    So, there you go.
     
  8. impar

    impar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24 Nov 2006
    Posts:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    41
    Greetings!

     
  9. lp rob1

    lp rob1 New Member

    Joined:
    14 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    1,530
    Likes Received:
    140
  10. GuilleAcoustic

    GuilleAcoustic Ook ? Ook !

    Joined:
    26 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    71
    I'm in !!!!!!
     
  11. Lantizia

    Lantizia New Member

    Joined:
    23 Jul 2012
    Posts:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope Valve don't do what they did with the Mac version and forget all the other great Source games. They got the main ones done like L4D and Portal but forgot the oldies like Half-Life: Source. Additionally I think they made it harder for Source based mods like Portal: Prelude and Black Mesa to be installed.
     
  12. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    The level of ignorance spewing in this topic is unworldly. OpenGL is absolutely more popular than directX, because it is used on EVERY PLATFORM, including windows. It is just as good as DX, but not as platform centric, therefore, harder to use.

    As for Linux having terrible hardware support, I greatly beg to differ. It might not have every little optimization that Windows has, and it might not have the micromanagement and integration of Mac (which results in cleaner code and better performance due to such a restricting set of systems), but it generally operates with most things you throw at it without having to do anything at all. Get a pre-prepared distro like Mint and you generally don't need to do anything, nearly all hardware just works without typing or clicking anything. You waste disk space and lose performance from that tho so I personally stick with Debian and Arch. You can't get this out-of-the-box experience with Windows, not without having to restart at least once anyway.

    Linux currently struggles with video drivers the most, but in terms of functioning GPUs, their feature set and performance is barely behind windows or Mac, and in some situations they're better. AMD, nvidia, and VIA don't have much of a reason to care about Linux graphics support since there aren't enough commercial products that need it. With valve's attention, that might fix this issue. With linuxs new display server, Wayland, performance could improve further.
     
  13. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    709
    The problem with OpenGL is that its a pain in the ass to program. And just until recently, we only have some sort of half ass debugger which only works for AMD graphic cards.

    DirectX is by far significantly better documented, easier to find resources, easier to program, fully debugger with analysis which works on any GPU. Plus each GPU manufacture has a complete GPU analysis to allow you to perform deep optimization:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    Above, screenshots of Nvidia ParallelNsight plug-in for Visual Studio

    And DirectX is just as powerful as OpenGL. But as it is easier to program, and easier to debug, learn, access resources: nicer things can be done, whether its more money/time to invest on visuals, or game play, bug fixing, more profit, or sound.

    The problem with Linux isn't hardware support. That will come in time. Nothing in the OS blocks a features of working.

    The problem with Linux are, in my view:
    -> Too many distro's
    -> Software don't work between distro's easily.
    -> No easy install/uninstall system like in Windows.
    -> Tries to be too much like Windows, but tries to differentiate itself. The UI has no focus. The exception is Ubuntu Unity interface.
    -> Abysmal font rendering and OS fonts. (no effort, plain and simple. I know font rendering is very complicated, but it's being put aside for other stuff, when it's critical for the OS day to day usage)
    -> The developer community is too focus in maintenance the OS, and working on the core and NOT working on the front end (user experience).
    -> Developer community and support community in general, aren't helpful, and don't like lay people (computer illiterates). Even Linux new comers aren't welcome in most communities.
    -> Developer community isn't ready to dumb down the OS, and let go of the Terminal, which is a critical step in opening the OS to lay people. If you think the Start Screen/ Desktop switch is bad, then Linux with its constant need of the terminal is astonishing.
    -> Applications don't follow any standard GUI guidelines
    -> Applications aren't focus for easy usability. Example, look at the option panel. In most Linux program, you are blasted with options, while good, most of them are useless, and simply buries with other more important options. This makes configuration programs difficult. VLC has a good balance approach. You have the standard settings, but you have a button to access advance options, where, now, you are buried in options. So it satisfies both group. Ideally is to not have this advance option section at all, but it is a step in the right direction.

    Basically, on the last few points mentioned above, what Linux really needs, I believe, is a UI team, which focuses on new, original interface, which take into account today's technologies (large, high resolution displays, for example). Microsoft does it with the ribbon bar, Aero Snap, and other UI features, and now Metro/Zune look. MacOS has it's own layout. For Linux.. well... let me say that Gnome and KDE, the major xWindows, tries to be Windows 95, but not exactly to avoid potential lawsuit from Microsoft, and ads useless features like over the top animated window going "Me too, I can do like Vista! No wait, look how over the top it is, even when you drag a window it does wacky animation... ooooouuuuuuuu, be impressed! be impressed! oh god please be impressed! I am begging you!". This team, can focus on settings guidelines to the OS user interface and developer on how to layout things for developers. This will also make software have a consistent layuot. The problem with this, mean that xWindows system will be gone. You'll have only 1x GUI, as else, other software interface won't work (as it would be using the API code for this new GUI design, and not another, unless implemented as well), and/or it will make programs look out of place in the other xWindows environment. Like if you take a MacOS application, and put it as is into Windows, without a single layout change. Meaning it will be missing it's menu bar, for starters.

    They are more issues, but the above, is in my view, the big culprit.

    Oh and the above stuff on the UI can't be done by a distro, as again, programs won't fit in. So I know what I am saying means this massive restructure and redirection of Linux. But I think, if they want Linux to compete against Windows, seriously, that is what they need to do.
     
    Last edited: 30 Sep 2012
  14. AmEv

    AmEv Meow meow. See yall in 2-ish years!

    Joined:
    6 Apr 2011
    Posts:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    43
    I use KDE personally, and I have turned off a LOT of the eyecandy. Even linux-fan me says that's taking things a bit far. I find that KDE is a simple interface, but powerful enough to set it to how you like it.
     
  15. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    I've never coded in either OpenGL or directX but I have heard DX was easier. Easier isn't always better though. What you're doing is like comparing java to C++. One is a bit easier than the other, they both perform very comparably, they can both overall accomplish the same things, but one allows more microoptimizations than the other. OpenGL is so widely used because its relatively easy to make it work on any platform you need and remove features you don't care about, and then make it perform great on crappy hardware. that's why console games can work on hardware that was considered mediocre even when they were new.

    Ill do this one by one as you did:
    - I agree, there are way too many distros. however, you can easily ignore most of them as they either serve a specific purpose (such as servers, recovery live CDs, uncommon platform, etc) or are blatantly half-assed. In my book there's maybe only 5 distros worth a bother for desktop and server users.
    - Most software does work fine between distros. If you have a Debian based distro, the majority of modern packages will work. If you intend to use older programs, centos is probably the better bet. But, lets say you use something like Arch. You can still install dpkg for the small amount of programs that aren't available, and you can install alien to convert the remainder packages to work with dpkg.
    - Linux is extremely easy with install/uninstall. Everything is pretty much in 1 place. Everything updates together, there's no stupid waste of time setup wizard, and you can skip the entire step of google searching something and either do a package search or install it directly in a command line. it might not be the prettiest way to get something but it sure is a hell of a lot faster and CONSISTENT.
    - Absolutey false. This is the exact stereotype that Linux wants to avoid. It never was and never has attempted to be like windows. While I agree some desktop environments are a little inconsistent and share features of windows, you can't expect to get into the OS and treat it like windows. If you do, you get confused and frustrated. Forget everything you know about windows and it gets easier.
    - What problems do you get with font rendering? it's fine for me
    - You do realize Linux is a community project, right? If someone is developing the kernel, they're not obligated to drop what they're doing to fix a GUI they might not even use. That would be like telling a game developer at Microsoft to work on Internet explorer.
    - The friendliness of the community depends on your question and what distro you use. If you ask a question like "Where is synaptic package manager?" when you're running Gentoo, you're going to get impatient community members. If you ask "why can't I play <insert windows game>" without specifying anything you tried, then on any forum you'll get impatient members. While there aren't many up to date useful guides on where to begin with Linux, some people ask questions that are just simply ignorant.
    - Linux doesn't rely on the terminal anymore, assuming you don't screw up something. Do you know why people give you apt-get commands and the like? it's because it's more informative to answer your question, it's a LOT faster than clicking your way through, and unlike the windows CLI, the Linux CLI is actually practical. I use the terminal nearly every day by choice. I don't need to, I want to.
    - If you install a KDE program on a GTK based environment, then yea, you're going to get that problem. Desktop environments tend to revolve around a toolkit, so if you get a program that uses a different toolkit, you'll need to install 50+MB worth of packages and it won't visually fit. However, windows gets this same problem. The only difference is Windows corrects the graphics between every toolkit to match your current theme, so you don't notice it so easily.
    - This problem depends on your distro, I know openSUSE has this problem. I have a Linux setup that doesn't even have a control panel. I customized it so I have a folder with maybe 5 preference changers. I can customize my system just as much as the windows control panel (which btw has the problem you're complaining about) but all the things I need to customize I can do by keyboard shortcuts that I created, or pop up when I need them to.

    Regarding the paragraph you mentioned after, as I've said before, Linux is a community and it isn't supposed to be treated as a monolithic interface, so if that's what you expect then you won't be happy. As for stuff like compiz, only the Linux noobs use that to impress people. I rely on built in kernel abilities to show off my Linux setup, such as direct access to symlinks, creating RAM drives, pausing and killing processes, multiple workspaces, and multiple users on 1 computer.
     
    Last edited: 30 Sep 2012
  16. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    709
    For the font rendering issue, is that the font is hard to read. Changing the font to something more readable, or "thin" makes things worse. Every version of Windows, Microsoft improves, either or both it's main font, or its front rendering engine, and you can see this. Small steps, as it's its not easy stuff, especially if you want an optimize solution. Firefox took a lot of time to get its font rendering good since they integrated hardware accelerated engine system, and that's just a web browser... the underlining of the font rendering system is already done. So I don't expect, by tomorrow, to have Linux font easy to read and clean looking like in Windows 7, but its been how many years since someone touched this under Linux?

    Anyway,

    I program in OpenGL (GLSL shading language) at my work. They are several reason for this, but it was mainly due that we had clients on both, Linux and Windows. Now, we focus more on Windows environment as we have no longer any clients in Linux. If we ever decides to scrap what we have, and start from scratch, we will be using DirectX. I have only touched a bit DirectX, and I can tell you. DirectX is a peace of cake in comparison to OpenGL.

    Your comparison between C++ and Java is.. not great... But I read between the lines, and know what you are trying to say. So it's all good. The reason why OpenGL is popular is because of console gaming. DirectX is exclusive for Windows. And even if Microsoft opens DirectX up to other platforms, you won't have Visual Studio, which is a key part of debugging DirectX. The XBox supports DirectX, as this was the ultimate allure for getting developers, make games for it. BTW, fun fact, Nintendo strength is it's easy to program, and has the best developer tools. Nintendo has always been master at that. This is of course, comparing to the other consoles, not PC.
     
  17. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag New Member

    Joined:
    30 Jul 2010
    Posts:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    10
    Have a screenshot? I just can't think of a place where fonts are hard to read, or even visually ugly (like no AA). You can download the MS fonts, the free open source ones might have render issues I'm not sure. IIRC, there are certain desktop environments and GPU settings that can impact fonts specifically. I think kwin has this feature somewhere.

    I figured someone would have commented on my java vs C comparison and I know myself it isn't perfect, but you got the gist of my point and that's what's important. Anyways, I wouldn't say visual studio is a necessity for DX, just as you don't require to use the barebone libraries of OpenGL when there are several engines or shortcut libraries to ease the pain of using it. you mentioned yourself that Nintendo makes development easy, and games look relatively nice in wii and GameCube considering how abysmal the hardware is. That being said, if you used such a library for the software you develop, you'd probably lose the same amount of performance as DX and your job would be a lot easier.

    While I know my last post was lengthy, you might get something useful out of it if you intend to seriously go after Linux again. I've used it for about 5 years now and didn't have anyone to help me. Learning it surprisingly gave me a lot of respect for macs.
     
  18. AmEv

    AmEv Meow meow. See yall in 2-ish years!

    Joined:
    6 Apr 2011
    Posts:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    43
    I'd like to add something quickly: I have QuickScan on my Kubuntu install, a GTK app.


    When I first got it, it didn't look quite right. Clearly a GTK app.

    After a few updates, I could barely tell that it was GTK at all, the integration was near perfect.

    So, yes, while it may have been true a few years ago, it isn't true anymore.
     
  19. lp rob1

    lp rob1 New Member

    Joined:
    14 Jun 2010
    Posts:
    1,530
    Likes Received:
    140
    Wow, it seems I missed quite a significant flame war. Seeing as it is my favourite topic, here is my view:

    GoodBytes is perfectly right in saying that DX has better documentation and tools than OpenGL. Documentation is always a tricky thing to cover completely, and with a massive specification like OpenGL it takes time, and sometimes even money to make proper documentation. As DX is backed with billions, if not trillions of dollars, documentation gets its own team, while with GL it is left as an afterthought to the whole 'make it faster, add more features' objective.
    As for the tools - there are more DX tools simply because it is used in more products than GL. Many companies who would pay nice royalties to use debugging tools create quite a demand for effective tools. Again, see above for why OpenGL lacks sometimes.

    Now to the whole Linux vs Windows thing:

    • Too many? For a beginner, yes, but this is what Canonical are trying to do by promoting Ubuntu as a beginner-friendly Linux distro. Too many is also subjective to the individual.
    • Wherever you heard that software between distros hits incompatibilities - it was either written in 1998 or was an outright lie. You install the libraries (often done automatically), you build or install a binary file - it will work. Again, Canonical are making this whole process easy so that 'normal' people do not need to build their applications from source.
    • Wow. I did not think that someone as smart as you would say something like this. Actually use Synaptic Package Manager, or even the Ubuntu Software Centre if you are so inclined, and say that again. Compare that to having to download everything manually, then install each package one by one.
    • 'Tries to be too much like Windows'. When a design works well, it is going to be used in many places. The GUI layout of bars at the top and/or at the bottom, with applications showing up as individual boxes and background processes showing a basic interface in a secluded area of the screen (aka the tray) - this is an example of a good GUI layout that many people find effective and is actually quite efficient, therefore many platforms use it. Linux isn't trying to be like Windows - it is just that both Windows and Linux share the same philosophy of presenting a GUI that appeals to its users, and is efficient. This is why Unity got such an uproar when it was included by default into Ubuntu - most of the Ubuntu users are used to the classic menu bars style, and Unity simply isn't efficient for production use. There are people that I know that like Unity and use it on a daily basis, but these are people that use their computer mainly for gaming and basic work, not heavy computer based work (like programming).
    • I have heard you bring this one up many times, but personally I have found no problems what so ever with the fonts on Ubuntu or other Linux distros. It may just be that it only occurs in certain distros that you work with, and not the ones that I work with. Or it may be subjective as before.


    Now take a breather before going on to the next section.


    • For the Linux and application developers - yes, core program stability is the number one priority. This is why we have projects such as GTK+ and Qt, that attempt to provide a standardised graphical interface and ABI, thus taking that load off the application developer, at the same time as standardising the look of the user's desktop.
    • Perhaps on mailing lists, and technological forums, yes this is true. But there are also plenty of forums dedicated to 'newbies'. If someone came on this forum and asked for help on how to get their web browser out of 'big window' mode (fullscreen), we would all laugh quietly to ourselves and move on to a different topic, wouldn't we?
    • Developers do not want to dumb down the OS because they use it, and they require access to advanced tools. It is organisations such as Canonical that take the advanced versions of applications and package it into a 'dumbed down' OS for 'normal' people to use. The inverse is true for Windows - there are many things that I can do on Linux with ease which I cannot do in Windows, like open a Terminal/CMD at a folder, or save a screenshot without needing to open something to paste it into. Yes, there are probably applications to do it for me, but this is basic enough to be part of the core functionality.
    • See above for the GTK+ and Qt talk. It is up to the developer to decide on which library they want to use, and each library presents a different UI. Although, as AmEv said, it is still possible to get them to merge together seamlessly. The reason this doesn't happen on Windows is that developers are basically locked into using Win32 - with Linux this isn't the case.
    • There are plenty of applications for Windows that do not focus on useability. There are also plenty of applications for Linux that do focus on useability. Ubuntu happens to package these 'usable' applications by default. Sometimes I replace them with other things because they do not give me enough freedom to do what I want. No easy way to do that with Windows though... (for core programs)

    I hope that wasn't too much of a block of text, but I really do hate it when people spout out of date idioms to the internet, and sit high up on their Righteous Seat while doing it.
     
  20. GoodBytes

    GoodBytes How many wifi's does it have?

    Joined:
    20 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    12,300
    Likes Received:
    709
    Just to be clear, I was expressing my opinion, not facts. It's all subjective.

    Excluding the "special destro". Even if you have 2 distro.. it's 1 too much.
    Already most consumer can't even tell if they have XP, or Windows 7, let alone get confused with Office. It's a mess for the consumer, and a headache to all. Imagine you buy an HP computer, with Linux, and people go "Oh Linux sucks it's choppy, and not responsive". Then you go 'Nooooooo!! It's not Linux, it's the studio xWindows made by HP, it's made with people that don't have a clue on optimization due to their lack of any proper education, etc..."
    Basically, exactly like what Android is. I can't even count the number of conversation of Android users complaining about how Android sucks, despite their super fancy speed phone, and you have other Android going "You need to root it, and get this and do that... the default distro sucks" What a headache to all. I don't even have a cellphone, and I am annoyed by all this.

    got you.

    Ok here is the big problem with Linux. Any open source or free project for Windows, you ALWAYS have binary, ready to be used. In Linux, the main author doesn't provide, many times, binaries. They are like: here is the source code, compile it yourself because I am too lazy. I hate this, I don't go: "Yea get Visual Studio Express, here it my source code, compiling it, and leave me alone". No! You just don't do that. And the main problem with this, is that you ALWAYS, missing something to make it work:
    -> Designed for an older compiler, and code or configuration or makefile needs to be updated to make it work
    -> Missing libraries.

    That's what I like about Windows.. you see a software, you want it, you hit download, run the setup, enjoy!

    Under Linux, in order to get something as easy to install, you need to use some package manager, hope the software is inside, and install it form there. If you are going to do this system, at least have it regulated, like iOS or Windows 8 Store.

    It has nothing to do with smartness. I know I CAN do all of this. It's easy for me, but is it convenient? Not so much. The worst part is that you have NOTHING blocking someone with enough time on his hand to do a setup manager like in Windows. All you need, is to have an executable that contains a the program in some fashion compressed, and easy to decompress. And simply have, in the OS, a panel where you see a lit of installed via that method, programs. It's nothing more than an entry in a database, which has the name of the program, and the path to the executable of the uninstaller.


    That is not what I am saying. I know that. Its xWindows environment that simply copies Windows prototype or official feature.
    Simple example, which everyone that touch Linux at some time in their life knows. Windows 98 has the the silly IE icon on the corner of each window. Immediately after KDE has the same thing. Longhorn is shown with the file property on the left side... KDE copies that. Search bar on all folder windows.. it's being copied. Gadgets.. Widgets (well to be fair it's from MacOS), live preview, copied. Of course I am pointing the most KDE, because they are the most guilty of this. Gnome in the other hand is actually taking its own approach, design, and vision, lately. So big tip of the hat to them.


    Ok let's have a look.
    I took this screenshot: http://www.gnome.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/files-recent.png, and cropped it. This is a PNG file, which is Gnome 3 (latest version), so we know there is no jpeg compression, or an old version, and it's directly from Gnome official website: http://www.gnome.org/gnome-3/

    Let's have it a look (I cropped it, and kept everything in super high quality, and still in PNG):
    Original:
    [​IMG]

    Now, I have a quick work, but here it how it look, if Gnome 3 used Windows 7 font engine:
    [​IMG]

    Go download both, and compare by switching between the 2. Notice how Windows 7 font engine, is able to display its font crisp and sharp, making it easier to read, while under Linux its a blurry, and more difficult to read in consequence.
    The most obvious one, is "Timetable.pdf". Look at the Linux one, notice how the T and e is blurry.

    You can see how Linux looks so much attractive with a better font rendering engine, and actual font.

    Nope. I would explain, and point to Windows OS document, which is filled with diagram, and easy to understand terminology, where each sentences has been thoroughly thought out to be 100% clear.

    You can do all that in Windows.
    Legacy Windows: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/320148
    Windows 8:
    [​IMG]

    As for screen shot:
    - Win+Print Screen (Windows 8) (saves screen shot as PNG in Picture folder)
    - Snipping Tool for Vista and 7

    Exactly, like on MacOS and Windows, it should be locked. Beside you are not really locked. How many programs in Widows decides to use it's own thing, let alone GTK+ and QT. It's not a hard lock in Windows.
     
    Last edited: 1 Oct 2012
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page