The amazingly useful SC Controller [GitHub] project, a third-party open source driver and user interface for the Steam Controller has a new release out. Sadly, the last for a while.
Here's what's new in 0.4.5:
- On-screen keyboard can be now used with DS4 gamepad
- Improved editing profile using controller
- Allowed SVG custom menu icons
- Allowed displaying multiple OSD messages, with different font size and display time
- Bug fixes
In the release notes, the developer Kozec said this:
This is last SC-Controller release for a while. With all that mess happening around Linux this week, I've decided to move away as far as possible. I plan to finish all "enhancements" eventually, just not right now.
They went into further detail in a Patreon post, here's the gist of it:
As you probably already heard, earlier this week, Linux became part of political movement. It's movement that I strongly disagree with and wish to not be associated with in any way. Because of that, I don't feel welcomed in Linux community anymore.
Or, to write it like human being, with all this mess, coding is not fun at all.
So I'm throwing hands up and walking through the middle.
For those who don't really understand, it's likely as a result of the new Code of Conduct for the Linux Kernel. Something that has become a hot sticky mess in the wider community. Regardless of my own feelings about the CoC, I just hope people can find a way to get along and treat everyone with respect, regardless of who they are and where they come from.
I'm pretty sad about this, I use SC Controller practically every day for taming the Steam Controller outside of Steam and for those Steam games that don't detect it normally.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: tuubiAd hominem is ad hominem,
That we agree on
Quoting: tuubibut I have better things to do than congratulate random internet strangers for the shape of the turd they deign to drop on a conversation.How about you start practicing now ...
Last edited by TheSyldat on 29 September 2018 at 4:05 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: TheSyldatSure. Let's do it together. You repeat to yourself: "There are good people who deserve my respect outside my bubble" and I'll meditate on the virtue of patience.Quoting: tuubiAd hominem is ad hominem,
That we agree on
Quoting: tuubibut I have better things to do than congratulate random internet strangers for the shape of the turd they deign to drop on a conversation.How about you start practicing now ...
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: TheSyldatEither you get it or you need to watch red state or have somebody doing some piece of art that will make you understand what that sentence ACTUALLY means.
No, I don't get it. I've tried. Your tone make it hard, but I'll continue to try.
All I can do at this point is continue to be civil and supportive. No idea what "red state" is, but I'll maybe look that up. I'm not sure what you meant by having somebody do a piece of art.
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: scaineI'm not sure what you meant by having somebody do a piece of art.By that I meant that if Red State still doesn't make you understand what I truly means then maybe another film with a similar situation at the end.
Or another game , or another book or another painting.
Sometimes art allows you to tilt your head in a certain way and you start understanding somehting differently and some words take a whole new meaning.
Well here that's the same until you either have been in my situation (or similar) or a piece of art made you realize what it's like you won't understand what I mean by "only an abuser or a silent accomplice gets mad at being called one"
Last edited by TheSyldat on 29 September 2018 at 4:18 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: tuubiThen start meditating now ...Quoting: TheSyldatSure. Let's do it together. You repeat to yourself: "There are good people who deserve my respect outside my bubble" and I'll meditate on the virtue of patience.Quoting: tuubiAd hominem is ad hominem,
That we agree on
Quoting: tuubibut I have better things to do than congratulate random internet strangers for the shape of the turd they deign to drop on a conversation.How about you start practicing now ...
0 Likes
I get the feeling that a big part of what TheSyldat wants to express are actually feelings, not arguments. This would explain several things, including the piece of art needed or being on TheSyldat's(*) side of the fence. Proper arguments can be understood on any side of a fence, feelings sometimes way less so.
(*) I'm always working around the pronoun here. TheSyldat, is there any of your choice?
Last edited by Eike on 29 September 2018 at 4:23 pm UTC
(*) I'm always working around the pronoun here. TheSyldat, is there any of your choice?
Last edited by Eike on 29 September 2018 at 4:23 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: EikeI get the feeling that a big part of what TheSyldat wants to express are actually feelings, not arguments. This would explain several things, including the piece of art needed or being on TheSyldat's(*) side of the fence. Proper arguments can be understood on any side of a fence, feelings sometimes way less so.Not exactly feelings more like "in order for you to truly get what kind of psychological harm does society's gearing generates , you need to be in my boots otherwise you're only "fathoming it" but it's just that "fathoming" it's not understanding."
(*) I'm always working around the pronoun here. TheSyldat, is there any of your choice?
Like I said He/Him for me please.
Last edited by TheSyldat on 29 September 2018 at 4:29 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: TheSyldatNot exactly feelings more like "in order for you to truly get what kind of psychological harm does society's gearing generates , you need to be in my boots otherwise you're only "fathoming it" but it's just that "fathoming" it's not understanding."
Now that's something I can totally (not sure about the English term) sign. The older I get the more I feel there's thing you won't even remotely fathom/feel until you've actually walked in their boots. (Which sometimes is impossible or unwanted, obviously.)
0 Likes
Quoting: EikeNow that's something I can totally (not sure about the English term) sign. The older I get the more I feel there's thing you won't even remotely fathom/feel until you've actually walked in their boots. (Which sometimes is impossible or unwanted, obviously.)That's why I'm so thankfully for Kevin Smith's Red State because quite a lot of the people that are cis gendered and straight who "finally get it" that I know and I'm surrounded by have seen the movie and at the end it clicked in their brain they finally understood. And guees what no more fights with those people why because they're more than just fathoming it , they understand it.
They are still straight , they are still cis they won't change that anytime soon but they get it now.
They truly get what it's like to be in my boots.
Last edited by TheSyldat on 29 September 2018 at 4:43 pm UTC
0 Likes
The last few pages of back-and-forth started looking really boring to me, didn't seem like they were getting anywhere much, so I feel like saying it: All these identity issues, whether of gender, race, or whatever, would be, while still to some extent there, much more muted if we fundamentally changed society in a way that greatly increased equality generally.
Right now what we've got is a situation where there are huge differences in wealth and power. Most of it belongs to white males--although as Scott Adams once put it, those are other white males, not anyone you or I ever talk to. But going below the top people in control, there is a whole pyramid of difference from bottom to top, and who goes in what bit is systematically influenced by all the prejudice factors. The economic system divides us up into (mostly) white haves and black (mostly) have-nots, male have-mores and female have-lesses, and so on. Not that there aren't any poor white people--there's plenty spots at the bottom to go around--but there's still a serious pattern. And it leaves those higher up deathly afraid of other groups taking their spots, because a hierarchy pyramid is a zero-sum game. There have to be a bunch of people at the bottom, so if anyone moves up, someone previously secure is gonna have to move down. This incidentally is true even if it's a genuine meritocracy (which it clearly isn't)--if every member of some disadvantaged group suddenly acquired awesome qualificatons by the wave of a wand, and jumped up into the excellent good-paying jobs those qualifications deserved by some act of a deity, someone would still have to clean the floors and pick the fruit and serve the coffee. Maybe someone who wasn't doing that before.
Further, our political economy is deathly afraid of people combining into groups; those at the top gain from people being at each other's throats by category. It's no accident that certain very rich people don't just finance economically right wing, free market groups (which is what you'd obviously expect), they finance socially right wing, racist, anti-LGBTQ-et-al, antifeminist type groups as well. It is useful for the dominance of capital if people who don't have any are at each other's throats instead of looking up at the people with the money and power.
So the politics of identity (alone) is forced to be rather extreme as long as it can't address the problems of inequality, social atomization, and systematic insecurity which fuel the problems of prejudice. You have to treat symptoms a lot harder when you can't touch the cause or don't even know what it is. Not that treating symptoms is useless, but if someone is really serious about trans or racial or gay or women's issues, they should also back some variant of socialism (real socialism, as in workers owning the means of production, not whatever Bernie Sanders means when he says it), because people can't all be equal until people are all equal, and people can't truly come together until they are no longer being systematically divided.
There. Now everyone on all sides can be mad at me! ;)
Right now what we've got is a situation where there are huge differences in wealth and power. Most of it belongs to white males--although as Scott Adams once put it, those are other white males, not anyone you or I ever talk to. But going below the top people in control, there is a whole pyramid of difference from bottom to top, and who goes in what bit is systematically influenced by all the prejudice factors. The economic system divides us up into (mostly) white haves and black (mostly) have-nots, male have-mores and female have-lesses, and so on. Not that there aren't any poor white people--there's plenty spots at the bottom to go around--but there's still a serious pattern. And it leaves those higher up deathly afraid of other groups taking their spots, because a hierarchy pyramid is a zero-sum game. There have to be a bunch of people at the bottom, so if anyone moves up, someone previously secure is gonna have to move down. This incidentally is true even if it's a genuine meritocracy (which it clearly isn't)--if every member of some disadvantaged group suddenly acquired awesome qualificatons by the wave of a wand, and jumped up into the excellent good-paying jobs those qualifications deserved by some act of a deity, someone would still have to clean the floors and pick the fruit and serve the coffee. Maybe someone who wasn't doing that before.
Further, our political economy is deathly afraid of people combining into groups; those at the top gain from people being at each other's throats by category. It's no accident that certain very rich people don't just finance economically right wing, free market groups (which is what you'd obviously expect), they finance socially right wing, racist, anti-LGBTQ-et-al, antifeminist type groups as well. It is useful for the dominance of capital if people who don't have any are at each other's throats instead of looking up at the people with the money and power.
So the politics of identity (alone) is forced to be rather extreme as long as it can't address the problems of inequality, social atomization, and systematic insecurity which fuel the problems of prejudice. You have to treat symptoms a lot harder when you can't touch the cause or don't even know what it is. Not that treating symptoms is useless, but if someone is really serious about trans or racial or gay or women's issues, they should also back some variant of socialism (real socialism, as in workers owning the means of production, not whatever Bernie Sanders means when he says it), because people can't all be equal until people are all equal, and people can't truly come together until they are no longer being systematically divided.
There. Now everyone on all sides can be mad at me! ;)
2 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me