Keith Packard's video from 'LinuxConfAu 2018' talking about Virtual Reality and Linux is up

"Passionate argument about something they hate

You don't like VR, we get it. This isn't something you can actually argue about though, you know? You have your opinion, other people have theirs.

Guess what? We're both right, even though I still think you're wrong (and oh so clearly, vice versa). Cool, eh?

When VR comes, I'll be the happiest little 40-something on the planet. You'll continue to ignore it. Win win. It's a bit like running Linux in that regard - when's the year of the Linux desktop? For me, it was every year since 2013.

Regardless of where you stand on the subject though, there's no need to get personal. Calling people sheep, or narrow-minded/short-sighted for not agreeing with your opinion only undermines your own position.

@beniwtv - Edge of Nowhere looks incredible (with or without VR). Would love to see something like come to Linux.

Funny, first you make the suggestion, then you say it's not enough.
Grasping for arguments, are we?

That wasn't me, I didn't suggest anything?

I don't need to do or play more than that to see what is going on. As a gamer for over 20 years and a 3D programmer for more than 10, I know more than enough to recognize this whole thing for what it is:
Lots of hype with not-nothing but fairly little substance behind it.

And that is exactly what I thought too! I didn't get the hype about VR at first - until I had a proper go at it. And I have been a gamer for over 20 years and programmed games too.

It's not perfect yet - I'd still want a few things improved, like wireless by default, better peripheral vision and better screens. From what I saw, that is what the new Vive Pro they just announced is gonna deliver (and while being lighter, too). But my current Vive still is a cool experience - not only confirmed by me, but by people that had a go on it.

@beniwtv - Edge of Nowhere looks incredible (with or without VR). Would love to see something like come to Linux.

Indeed! I hope more developers realize SteamVR works on Linux and enable the VR option in their builds. Or even just enable it - in case of Everspace, developers left it enabled in the Linux build and I was the first to try it and report it work, which also amazed the devs...

There's a small increase in immersion due to the hardware, but due to the player just looking at the field, that is very, very limited.

I don't know why it didn't work for you. But you must have noticed that it's hugely different for many people. In fact I cannot remember a single one, in real life, online or journalist not having experienced a huge increase in immersion. For me personally, it was like having stepped into the monitor after more than three decades of sitting in front of it. That's what VR is all about.


Last edited by Eike on 30 January 2018 at 7:31 am UTC

"Passionate argument about something they hate

You don't like VR, we get it. This isn't something you can actually argue about though, you know? You have your opinion, other people have theirs.

Ahh, the good old "I'm all out of arguments, so let's make all these facts opinions so I don't have to discuss them any more".

The only opinion part about what I'm saying is the part where VR will never be the widespread, replacement-of-current-peripherals thing some make it out to be. That's obviously in the future, and while I base my predictions on logic, I haven't quite reached prophetic levels yet ;)

But all the rest is not opinions, it is facts.

Wireless can be done, but that introduces a need to keep your headset charged. Which introduces the need for a battery of some kind. Which increases the weight. Even if the devices do get lighter as a whole, there are limits to how light they can be, Moore's Law has been disproved years ago. There will always be that.

Games not specifically made for VR, but just supporting it cross-peripherals (VR is not a platform, it is a peripheral) can never be a significant improvement gameplay-wise, yet require effort by the developer to support VR. There will always be games not supporting VR because it wouldn't make sense to support it.

The other way around: Games made specifically for VR could always be made working for monitors as well. There is no movement my head can make that cannot be imitated with mouse & keyboard.

Space: The "full body" VR experiences (which offer significantly more than just sitting with the headset) require a ton of space. Most people simply don't have that space or are not willing to spare the space. For some proper movement that doesn't feel restricted, you'd need at least 2x2 - 3x3 meters. That's the size of a trampoline. Compare it to the space PC & monitor needs.

Price: The better the tech gets, the more expensive the devices will be. They do get cheaper with time, but just as every proper hardware, they will remain on a not-cheap level. And that will always be in addition to the PC/console - which already cost quite some dough as well.

No multi-tasking. When I play a game, I like to have something else running on my other monitor. Maybe a guide, maybe something entirely different. I can always have both in my view at the same time. And I can interact without problems with the world around me, too. Like looking at someone when talking to them. Or grabbing a drink. Good luck with any of that while you have the VR headset on...

I'll stop here, but there's more. And all of that combined should already make it clear to any neutral observer that, no, VR will most likely not be the widespread current-tech-replacement some make it out to be. It is simply not practical enough. It will remain something for people with the space and money to make use of it.

And no, I don't hate VR. That's something you came up with to not having to bother disproving any of my points. I'm neutral about VR. I might even buy a device, would like to try it out once Star Citizen comes out. Or rather, IF it does...

What I do hate is human stupidity and mostly baseless hype.

Regardless of where you stand on the subject though, there's no need to get personal. Calling people sheep, or narrow-minded/short-sighted for not agreeing with your opinion only undermines your own position.

Wrong. Calling people for what they are behaving like is simply the truth and I will continue to do so.
If you think me short-sighted, call me out on it, I'll gladly disprove that.
Let's not get to the kindergarden level of "let's all say nice things only", please. That doesn't lead anywhere useful.
I rather have people speak their mind than trying to be nice for the mere sake of being nice.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 30 January 2018 at 7:37 am UTC

Wrong. Calling people for what they are behaving like is simply the truth and I will continue to do so.

You can expect everybody here to be a human. So calling somebody a sheep is not the truth.

Let's not get to the kindergarden level of "let's all say nice things only", please. That doesn't lead anywhere useful.

Insulting people is the opposite of kindergarten? Well then...

There's a small increase in immersion due to the hardware, but due to the player just looking at the field, that is very, very limited.

I don't know why it didn't work for you. But you must have noticed that it's hugely different for many people. In fact I cannot remember a single one, in real life, online or journalist not having experienced a huge increase in immersion. For me personally, it was like having stepped into the monitor after more than three decades of sitting in front of it. That's what VR is all about.

That point was made for non-FP games.
For first person games, I agree with you, it does increase the immersion.
Personally, it is not an immersion that I really need - for me that comes from gameplay mechanics, storytelling, etc. I guess this might be simpler for other people?
How I look at the world - that is just a window. If I move the mouse or hold that controller toward an item - it is just an input command. And the mouse is way more reliable - just looking at some Twitch streamers trying to grab stuff with the Vive controller. Seems to be a challenge on its own - though I would expect improvements with tech advancements here.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 30 January 2018 at 7:48 am UTC

That point was made for non-FP games.
For first person games, I agree with you.

Ah, ok. I agree that VR doesn't make a huge difference for say Europa Universalis. I would stay with the monitor for this. While I can imagine VR may replace monitors fully some day (did you read Ready Player One?), it shouldn't be the next years.

Personally, it is not an immersion that I really need - for me that comes from gameplay mechanics, storytelling, etc. I guess this might be simpler for other people?

How about having both, a good game and unprecedented immersion?

How I look at the world - that is just a window. If I move the mouse or hold that controller toward an item - it is just an input command.

You are thinking way to technical about it. My first VR experience, and I'm using this word not as the usual buzzword meaning, but in it's real meaning, was a rollercoaster ride. I got sick! Just how I get on a real rollercoaster! That's not about the input (it didn't have any) or the graphics (minecrafty)! Of course, this wasn't anything to entertain you for a long time, but it showed a physical immersion you cannot have in front of a monitor! You need to add good games to this immersion, but come on, we're just at the beginning. People are starting to learn how you can make a good game in VR.


Last edited by Eike on 30 January 2018 at 8:04 am UTC

I have a drone, would love to tie the controller into VR with the HMD and fly one.

I don't know much about drones, but I know the competitive folks use some sort of HMD when racing. They are just little things like sunglasses, but they are quite skilled at flying them. I imagine it's not much of a stretch to put 360 cams on bigger drones and get a full view thru something like the Vive.

Wireless can be done, but that introduces a need to keep your headset charged. Which introduces the need for a battery of some kind. Which increases the weight. Even if the devices do get lighter as a whole, there are limits to how light they can be, Moore's Law has been disproved years ago. There will always be that.

That's not a fact. Did you try the new wireless Vive Pro yet to know how heavy it really is? What about all these new battery technologies that make them very light that are being developed as we speak? What about other future developments? Remember - computers used to be the size of a house!

Games not specifically made for VR, but just supporting it cross-peripherals (VR is not a platform, it is a peripheral) can never be a significant improvement gameplay-wise, yet require effort by the developer to support VR.

Again, that is not a fact - but your opinion. Plenty of people that played VR vs non-VR disagree with you here, and find the experience way better, including gameplay-wise. There's some cool things you can to with the VR controllers - specially the Occulus Rift ones - that aren't possible (or more cumbersome) with your keyboard and mouse. Like moving fingers, picking things up, moving / rotating them around, etc...

Space: The "full body" VR experiences (which offer significantly more than just sitting with the headset) require a ton of space. Most people simply don't have that space or are not willing to spare the space. For some proper movement that doesn't feel restricted, you'd need at least 2x2 - 3x3 meters. That's the size of a trampoline. Compare it to the space PC & monitor needs.

Yes, you need a bit of space to take full advantage of VR, which is a fact well pointed out. I barely have space, but I'll make sure to have space when moving into a new house. But here you're assuming again that people don't have space and don't want to make space, which honestly, again is your opinion.

Price: The better the tech gets, the more expensive the devices will be. They do get cheaper with time, but just as every proper hardware, they will remain on a not-cheap level. And that will always be in addition to the PC/console - which already cost quite some dough as well.

Let's not forget that proper gaming peripherals have never been cheap, I spent $150 alone on my keyboard. When VR headsets are produced in even more numbers, price shouldn't be that of an issue. But this is a valid point.

No multi-tasking. When I play a game, I like to have something else running on my other monitor. Maybe a guide, maybe something entirely different. I can always have both in my view at the same time. And I can interact without problems with the world around me, too. Like looking at someone when talking to them. Or grabbing a drink. Good luck with any of that while you have the VR headset on...

Again, your opinion. You assume everyone wants to have other things running while playing VR, or hates not being able to interact with the world around them while playing. And honestly, grabbing a drink you can still do when taking a break while playing...

What I do hate is human stupidity and mostly baseless hype.

If people like it, what problem is there that they hype it? If people like something, shouldn't they be excited and spread the word?

Wrong. Calling people for what they are behaving like is simply the truth and I will continue to do so. If you think me short-sighted, call me out on it, I'll gladly disprove that.
Let's not get to the kindergarden level of "let's all say nice things only", please. That doesn't lead anywhere useful. I rather have people speak their mind than trying to be nice for the mere sake of being nice.

Whoa! If you don't want to have a civilized discussion, but instead insult people, then let's just stop right here. Because THAT really doesn't lead to anything useful.

"Passionate argument about something they hate

You don't like VR, we get it. This isn't something you can actually argue about though, you know? You have your opinion, other people have theirs.

Ahh, the good old "I'm all out of arguments, so let's make all these facts opinions so I don't have to discuss them any more".

Weird - you still think this is an argument. Like you're "right" and we're all "wrong". If I don't like olives, do you really think you can argue my position on them? That you can argue their case and I'll be like "Woah, you're right! I need to eat more of these delicious olives! I've been wasting my life not eating them!".

Move on. I'm excited by the notion that I can play VR on Linux. Really excited, because I've tried it on Windows and it was (for me) an incredible, game-changing (literally) experience. You're not. That's all there is to it. Your "facts" don't matter to me, clearly, since I've tried it and still love it, right? (Sorry - didn't read any of the rest of your post/facts, since... well, why bother?)

That's not a fact. Did you try the new wireless Vive Pro yet to know how heavy it really is? What about all these new battery technologies that make them very light that are being developed as we speak? What about other future developments? Remember - computers used to be the size of a house!

Again, Moore's Law. It has been disproved. There is a natural limit to how small things can be.
But it doesn't matter, my main point is, it will always weigh more than nothing and will always require you to put something on top of your head. Which will always be more than putting nothing on your head.
Big breakthroughs and replacements of current tech are only established if something is LESS cumbersome, not more cumbersome. See cars, smartphones, etc.
Getting into VR will always be more cumbersome than just looking at a screen.

Again, that is not a fact - but your opinion. Plenty of people that played VR vs non-VR disagree with you here, and find the experience way better, including gameplay-wise. There's some cool things you can to with the VR controllers - specially the Occulus Rift ones - that aren't possible (or more cumbersome) with your keyboard and mouse. Like moving fingers, picking things up, moving / rotating them around, etc...

There seems to be a confusion here about what gameplay is. I might have misused the term, or you did, or it is just one of those terms that are too broad.
What I meant was NOT controls (which is what you describe), but game mechanics. AI, player motivation, short/mid/long-term goals, basic game mechanics, various calculations, etc. All of these need to work regardless of how the player views or controls it all.
Again, look at games like EUIV, StarCraft, Sonic, etc. Being in VR changes nothing about how those games work, therefore it cannot improve them on that level. That is not an opinion.
Neither is it an opinion that extra effort is required by developers of those games for very little gain.

Yes, you need a bit of space to take full advantage of VR, which is a fact well pointed out. I barely have space, but I'll make sure to have space when moving into a new house. But here you're assuming again that people don't have space and don't want to make space, which honestly, again is your opinion.

An own house?
How nice for you. Too bad the majority of people live in (rather small) flats in cities...

And how many people exactly do you think are willing to make the space for VR? Except for gamers/enthusiasts?
Again, remember this is supposedly the "future way people will view/experience things", replacing normal screens and monitors. Nobody has given any point as to why the average person should care. And the average person is very much required for anything to be "the future".

Again, your opinion. You assume everyone wants to have other things running while playing VR, or hates not being able to interact with the world around them while playing. And honestly, grabbing a drink you can still do when taking a break while playing...

It is simply a fact of life for the majority of people that you cannot really be in your own sphere for large amounts of time. People have families, jobs, responsibilities. Most people I know are happy if they can find one day on the weekend they can spend with their hobby. The rest of the time, they can maybe spend time with their hobby while also having to be somewhat involved in other things.
Only few can afford that VR kind of isolation often. And for something that can only be done rarely, why would you spend the cash?
Anything that wants to be a truly big deal (see above) just cannot be that situational. This is not an opinion.

Wrong. Calling people for what they are behaving like is simply the truth and I will continue to do so. If you think me short-sighted, call me out on it, I'll gladly disprove that.
Let's not get to the kindergarden level of "let's all say nice things only", please. That doesn't lead anywhere useful. I rather have people speak their mind than trying to be nice for the mere sake of being nice.

Whoa! If you don't want to have a civilized discussion, but instead insult people, then let's just stop right here. Because THAT really doesn't lead to anything useful.

If you think that civilized means holding back because someone's feelings could get hurt and nicety for the sake of nicety, then I can only fully disagree.
For me, that sounds like kindergarden, not a discussion among adults. Sometimes, steam must be vented, and I am rather a willing target of that than to try and force others to hold back what they truly think. Nor will I let others hold me back, it's not like I frothingly throw tantrums around ;)
If we all did your form of civilized, we would live in a society of mutes, because everything that could be said, could hurt someone. Better to let things out and allow people to grow in the face of adversity.

I was always more of a Klingon, really. What can I say? Deal with it.
Or ignore me. I do not care too much, either way.

But it doesn't matter, my main point is, it will always weigh more than nothing and will always require you to put something on top of your head. Which will always be more than putting nothing on your head.
Big breakthroughs and replacements of current tech are only established if something is LESS cumbersome, not more cumbersome. See cars, smartphones, etc.

Yeah, that's why people replaced their little Nokias with big Smartphones. Oh, wait...

I hear you say "But these do way more!"
Yes, just like VR devices.
It doesn't matter how much it weighs if it's worth the weight.


Last edited by Eike on 30 January 2018 at 2:18 pm UTC

Weird - you still think this is an argument. Like you're "right" and we're all "wrong". If I don't like olives, do you really think you can argue my position on them? That you can argue their case and I'll be like "Woah, you're right! I need to eat more of these delicious olives! I've been wasting my life not eating them!".

I like olives.
Other than that, the "metaphor"/example didn't really work.

Move on. I'm excited by the notion that I can play VR on Linux. Really excited, because I've tried it on Windows and it was (for me) an incredible, game-changing (literally) experience. You're not. That's all there is to it. Your "facts" don't matter to me, clearly, since I've tried it and still love it, right? (Sorry - didn't read any of the rest of your post/facts, since... well, why bother?)

I couldn't care less if you love it or not.
If you still think that this is what I'm arguing, you have fully failed to get what I'm saying.

What I care about is the claim that this tech with limited use-cases is THE FUTURE. The thing that will finally replace those monitors, mice, ...
Because that is just incredibly unlikely, for all of the reasons I wrote above. And probably more.

If you think that civilized means holding back because someone's feelings could get hurt and nicety for the sake of nicety, then I can only fully disagree.

"it is you being the sheep" is not a feeling.

What I care about is the claim that this tech with limited use-cases is THE FUTURE.

Who said that, apart from yourself?

There weren't many postings before you writing about THE FUTURE, and none of them claimed anything like this.


Last edited by Eike on 30 January 2018 at 2:19 pm UTC

Yeah, that's why people replaced their little Nokias with big Smartphones. Oh, wait...

I hear you say "But these do way more!"
Yes, just like VR devices.

Not a valid comparison.
Smartphones are carried around just like old Nokias. They are bigger, but still fit in pockets, jackets, etc.
I had/have both, there really isn't much of a difference.

And those that really are too big simply don't sell much - or are tablets, which is a completely different thing altogether.

But here, we are talking about something that supposedly replaces monitors at some future point in time.
Which, again - for all the reasons I wrote above and more - is just very unlikely.

Have this situation, outside of gaming:
A team of marine biologists are on the ocean, letting their mini-robot into the depths to do some research.
The drone is piloted by one of them - via VR (a good use case, I'd say).
The others are not sitting by idly. They are analyzing the data that is gathered live by the drone and also watch the live images (cause it's interesting!).
How will they do all of that at once? All sitting in their chairs, having VR-headsets on, using their VR-Excels and VR-Browsers? :lol:
Probably not. They will be in front of their own monitors, analyzing, while also looking at the big one that displays what the pilot is seeing (and possibly more).

What I care about is the claim that this tech with limited use-cases is THE FUTURE.

Who said that, apart from yourself?

Not too many here, actually.
I just made that point as it comes up time and time again in too hype-y articles, discussions, etc.

Some of the people here just saw their big hobby attacked by me calling it a gimmick and jumped in its defense, going all "you're just a negative nancy, mememe" on me for daring to have some points (none of which have ever been disproved, btw) that do not exactly speak in favor of VR ever becoming a really big thing.

I don't actually care too much about VR, funny enough.
Calling people out on their BS is a hobby of mine, though, if you were about to ask about why I'm still doing this.
I'm actually having a good time.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 30 January 2018 at 2:30 pm UTC

Yeah, that's why people replaced their little Nokias with big Smartphones. Oh, wait...

I hear you say "But these do way more!"
Yes, just like VR devices.

Not a valid comparison.

Then why did you bring it up?

(BTW, smartphones did get larger the last years. iPhone (1): 3,5″, iPhone 8(+): 4,7″/5.5", iPhone X: 5.8".)

It's bit shame that video shows some cool stuff in it, but discussion deteriorated quite quickly to situation where people argue if apples are better than oranges. Even Linux game market is big enough to have games for VR early adopters and people who couldn't care less about VR. It doesn't matter if VR will eventually replace displays or not.

But even now, there's some cool stuff coming out because people are working to get VR working properly on Linux. Basically that was something that simplifies sharing displays on multi-seat setup much easier.

If I'm able to explain it correctly, it's way to lease the display to a program that wants exclusive (but still revocable) access for a display, while making sure that client doesn't have access to the clients running on the real X server. X server or kernel can revoke the access at any time and control comes back to the X server without any disastrous issues.

And no, there was no discussion about forking Xorg or Linux kernel, I think most of the changes are already upstream. Last thing that glues everything together was still worked on, so maybe not that yet.

Yeah, that's why people replaced their little Nokias with big Smartphones. Oh, wait...

I hear you say "But these do way more!"
Yes, just like VR devices.

Not a valid comparison.

Then why did you bring it up?

As an example of a technology that spread widely because they made people's lives easier and are less cumbersome than what came before.
Of course an average smartphone is bigger than an old Nokia. But it does not only replace that Nokia, it also replaces (at least partly) having to carry a laptop around. Or accessing your emails at home, doing onlinebanking, etc.
Do I really need to tell you that or are you just desperately trying to prove me wrong in something?

I don't see where a VR device offers that much more functionality than a monitor + controller/mouse. For gaming, or generally anything where being "inside the first person" has an advantage, sure. But that's just a small fraction of things that classical monitors cover.

Again, Moore's Law. It has been disproved. There is a natural limit to how small things can be. But it doesn't matter, my main point is, it will always weigh more than nothing and will always require you to put something on top of your head. Which will always be more than putting nothing on your head.

In that sense I understand now. Yep, it will be more cumbersome than just looking at a screen, and of course more heavy than putting nothing on. If we could just walk into a Holodeck like in Star Trek, that would be awesome, but technology isn't there yet.

Many view VR in this regard like kind of a stepping stone in that direction - and it's what we can do right now with technology. It IS more cumbersome, but honestly - not very much. It takes about 2-3 seconds to put the headset on / take it off, and it becomes second nature very quick. Much like using a joystick for the first time when you've been using a mouse for decades.

There seems to be a confusion here about what gameplay is. I might have misused the term, or you did, or it is just one of those terms that are too broad.
What I meant was NOT controls (which is what you describe), but game mechanics.

Understood, but do game *mechanics* need to change for VR to be useful? If so, why? And more importantly, what mechanics would you love to see changed and how? You already get more immersion, and better controls, while still having the same game mechanics (albeit controlled differently).

And some of the VR controls are very much game mechanic related, or change them - like peeking around a corner with your whole body just enough to see, instead of pressing the "v" key and having not much control over the procedure.

An own house?
How nice for you. Too bad the majority of people live in (rather small) flats in cities...

And how many people exactly do you think are willing to make the space for VR? Except for gamers/enthusiasts?
Again, remember this is supposedly the "future way people will view/experience things", replacing normal screens and monitors. Nobody has given any point as to why the average person should care. And the average person is very much required for anything to be "the future".

I don't think anyone ever said VR is going to replace screens and mice, or be the big hit for the average non-gamer/enthusiast person. The average people these days doesn't care about computers, let alone computer screens. I can't see a scenario that requires my spreadsheets or code to be flying around me in virtual space, but I am happy to be proven wrong one day. Heck, not even in Star Trek that was done.

But for gamers/enthusiasts, it's a very different story - and that is what people are hyped about. That it works on Linux is even more incredible, thanks to all the people hyped about it.

It is simply a fact of life for the majority of people that you cannot really be in your own sphere for large amounts of time. People have families, jobs, responsibilities. Most people I know are happy if they can find one day on the weekend they can spend with their hobby. The rest of the time, they can maybe spend time with their hobby while also having to be somewhat involved in other things.
Only few can afford that VR kind of isolation often. And for something that can only be done rarely, why would you spend the cash?
Anything that wants to be a truly big deal (see above) just cannot be that situational. This is not an opinion.

And here's the thing. People spend much money on hobbies they may not get often to doing.

If we all did your form of civilized, we would live in a society of mutes, because everything that could be said, could hurt someone. Better to let things out and allow people to grow in the face of adversity.

Speaking your mind isn't the same as insulting people. The first is OK, the later isn't.