Gaming and Linux graphics talks at FOSDEM 2019

Virgil GPU sounds like very good news if you find yourself wanting to game on a non-x86 host. That one is going in my notes, for sure.

Quotea free event focused on free open-source software, and a place where free-software developers can meet, share idea and collaborate

And most importantly – drink Belgian beer together. ;-)

As for 0 A.D. – there was also another talk about graphics problems the game was facing – the 0 A.D: Graphics – Graphics problems and opportunities of open-source game talk. But I haven’t seen it yet, so cannot comment how worth watching it is (tbh, I haven’t been to any gaming-related talks in person, but am catching up thanks to the recordings; there are too many things happening at the same time to see all those you’d like to…).

Quoting: silmethAnd most importantly – drink Belgian beer together. ;-)

That might have happened as well. :)

Quoting: silmethAs for 0 A.D. – there was also another talk about graphics problems the game was facing – the 0 A.D: Graphics – Graphics problems and opportunities of open-source game talk.

Good catch. Yes, I think it is worth watching. He talks about legacy OpenGL support and why they cannot just drop it because of macOS. I really don't get why people spend so much energy supporting a platform that is so anti-gaming like macOS.

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: LinasI really don't get why people spend so much energy supporting a platform that is so anti-gaming like macOS.

Many Windows users are probably thinking the same thing about Linux.

Oh yes. I hang around some hardware focused forums where you see a lot of average gamer types and Windows users, and I see this a lot.

There are people that are completely ignorant and have no idea what FOSS is. They think Linux is something that doesn't work and react with sentences like "there is no free meal" because ofc. they think of FOSS as something that is "free as in beer" or it's the same as Freeware/Shareware. These people will generally bully you if you reveal yourself as a GNU/Linux user and they think game developers are wasting their time bringing games to GNU/Linux in the few cases where said people are even aware of devs doing so. They will also happily give up their privacy and personal integrity to big corporations like M$.

Then there are also people who genuinely express interest in switching but in the end they don't because they're stuck in old habits, or they think the game portfolio is too small, or their favourite game isn't available, or they want the latest "AAA" on release day or they are afraid they will have to input a bunch of mystical commands in a terminal. These people are generally sane but perhaps a bit uneducated on the subject.

Let's just say there are a lot of misconceptions and predjudice out there, but there are also some truths.


Last edited by Brisse on 12 February 2019 at 8:36 pm UTC

There was a really nice talk at DevConf.cz about direct hardware acceleration in virtio as well, though in that case focused more on the hardware developers themselves directly implementing virtualization support into their devices.

I've been hoping that the virgil project will grab onto Vulkan and all the extra features from there though, with DXVK and all it should be possible to even run it as a Windows driver and just convert all Direct3D stuff into Vulkan calls to the Linux host.

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: LinasI really don't get why people spend so much energy supporting a platform that is so anti-gaming like macOS.

Many Windows users are probably thinking the same thing about Linux.

Although the reason for that might be pure ignorance and/or arrogance. If you just mention Linux some "gamers" just turn away.

Quoting: GuestUnfortunately, it was even the case when MAC hardware made them good gaming platforms. Apple was never interested. Also, back in the day compilers for beginners were simply not easy to get by so you did not learn to program on a mac. I never did on mine, i did a few thing on a DOS dinosaur because the resource was available there.

Another problem is devs complain of the huge support burden from MAC users. You sometimes hear the same remarks about Linux gamers but on a more nuanced tone.

I get the impression that in the Linux case, although on one hand there might be support headaches, on the other Linux gamers have a strong contingent willing and able to get their hands dirty pinpointing and working around bugs (a contingent I don't belong to but for which I am thankful). In the Mac case, this is just a wild guess but I'm thinking there are far fewer such, so no silver lining.

The idea of Virgil 3D GPU seems kind of neat in that it looks like it's attempting to provide a QEMU-level API + drivers for allowing the guest VM to directly interface with the host GPU.

While I've used VGA passthrough in the past to run games inside a Windows VM, the requirement of having two GPUs, one of which is always unusable on the host OS under normal booting circumstances, could be a bit steep or at the least a bit annoying. Considering that I was never really using the GPU on the host OS for anything more than rendering the desktop, I could see this sort of resource sharing as being viable at least. Once/if Windows guest support gets added, I'd be really interested to see some metrics on the current overhead of running through a virtual GPU.

Quoting: CookiedemkpThe idea of Virgil 3D GPU seems kind of neat in that it looks like it's attempting to provide a QEMU-level API + drivers for allowing the guest VM to directly interface with the host GPU.

[…] Once/if Windows guest support gets added, I'd be really interested to see some metrics on the current overhead of running through a virtual GPU.

I think it will be more usable for Windows users wanting to try out Linux on a VM before installing it to a hd, with all 3D decorations working and games running, even if with crappy performance because of the virtual GPU indirection. Especially when Vulkan gets supported by Virgil.

I wouldn’t count on Windows guest support though, as that would require porting the mesa driver to Windows. And even then mesa only implements OpenGL and possibly Vulkan, so D3D would still need to be provided by something like wined3d or DXVK compiled for Windows.

If mesa for Windows ever happens (and I don’t think it will in the foreseeable future), that might allow you to play, in a VM, some Windows games which don’t work in wine because of some DRM, but it still wouldn’t help with with Direct3D graphics problems.

Quoting: silmeth

Quoting: CookiedemkpThe idea of Virgil 3D GPU seems kind of neat in that it looks like it's attempting to provide a QEMU-level API + drivers for allowing the guest VM to directly interface with the host GPU.

[…] Once/if Windows guest support gets added, I'd be really interested to see some metrics on the current overhead of running through a virtual GPU.

I think it will be more usable for Windows users wanting to try out Linux on a VM before installing it to a hd, with all 3D decorations working and games running, even if with crappy performance because of the virtual GPU indirection. Especially when Vulkan gets supported by Virgil.

...

Well said. I agree Windows as the host OS will most likely be the majority use case for this, but I'm wondering if we might see it in some sort of CI stack where Linux hosts are building an application on several different Linux guests where testing might include some GPU perfomance tests. Either way, interesting things going on in the Mesa-related world.

Quoting: LinasI really don't get why people spend so much energy supporting a platform that is so anti-gaming like macOS.

tl;dr: economic reasons.

I'd say the obvious answer is, they sell more copies on macOS than on Linux. It's still worth porting to macOS and get a positive outcome from an economic perspective. That's still not the case for Linux, or at least not in general. That's why you see lots of game devs dropping Linux support, or rather creating a macOS version than a Linux version. An example is Frostpunk, which will come to macOS, but 11bit studios said they won't support Linux anymore. They tried in the past, as many devs tried... but then they realized it wasn't worth it. Only those devs who saw that porting to Linux was worth it, will continue the Linux support with future titles. And those are getting less and less. At least that's my impression.

So, even with a rather small percentage with ~4% of the gaming market share (according to the steam hardware survey) it's mostly profitable to port to macOS. But mostly not with less than 1% on Linux. That's why people still spend so much energy on supporting macOS as a gaming platform. Also it's probably easier to support an OS that's controlled by one company, so there are only little differences between the hard- and software configurations. Unlike Linux, where you have as many hardware configurations as with Windows, but with Windows you have more or less only one software configuration. On Linux there are many different kernels, library versions, etc. Though the steam runtime is helping here, it's still an issue. That's where all the support requests are coming from, which will cost the dev money.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like this situation either. And there are some devs who'd rather drop macOS support than Linux support. But the numbers still just show, we don't buy enough games on Linux so the smaller devs can make a living out of it. Sure, there are exceptions, where the Linux percentage is exceptionally high, but in general it'll come close to what the steam hardware survey shows. Especially for big titles, where many gamers are buying it.

I bet big companies and publishers could just cross finance Linux support and really help getting rid of any obligations towards windows. They probably make enough money so it would carry no weight. But they just don't want. They rather keep that money. Which is sad, but also up to them.

I do my best to show devs respect and thank them for creating native Linux versions. Or, if their game works with proton, I let them know I'm playing it on Linux. So they see, there are Linux gamers who value their work. It's difficult to measure it, but I'm sure we help spreading the word about their games, when we play them on Linux. And that's an important thing, though it will not show up in numbers regarding Linux sales. I just wish that companies would see this too and thus support Linux.

Sorry for this wall of text...


Last edited by Corben on 12 February 2019 at 8:06 am UTC

Quoting: CorbenI do my best to show devs respect and thank them for creating native Linux versions. Or, if their game works with proton, I let them know I'm playing it on Linux. So they see, there are Linux gamers who value their work. It's difficult to measure it, but I'm sure we help spreading the word about their games, when we play them on Linux. And that's an important thing, though it will not show up in numbers regarding Linux sales.

I'm happy to be able to tell you, yes it will. Buy something and play it on Proton and it shows as a Linux sale. Valve has been quite explicit about this.


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 12 February 2019 at 11:30 am UTC

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI'm happy to be able to tell you, yes it will. Buy something and play it on Proton and it shows as a Linux sale. Valve has been quite explicit about this.

Yep, I know it will show up as a Linux sale, when I buy it on Linux and play it with proton ;)
I was referring to the sales that are made, because I as a Linux gamer have bought and played a title and told other people about it because I like that game and thus they buy it, but they buy it on different platforms. This is hardly measurable, but kinda is caused because I had the possibility to play it on Linux. Maybe my wording wasn't clear enough to reflect what I meant, sorry about that.

Quoting: Corben

Quoting: LinasI really don't get why people spend so much energy supporting a platform that is so anti-gaming like macOS.

tl;dr: economic reasons.

Yeah, I do realize that money is the answer. Yet somehow macOS has this aura (for the lack of a better word) surrounding it, making it appear somehow superior in the eyes of developers and mere mortals alike. Even in areas where it is clearly not the case.

I commented particularly on 0 A.D., which is open source. So they don't earn anything from supporting macOS as far as I know. And yet, people will go great lengths to make their software work on macOS, even when it's holding other platforms back.

Similarly at work nobody bats an eye when people want a Mac, yet I get weird looks when I mention Linux. Even when our servers are Linux, it somehow baffles people to think that you can also develop said software on a Linux desktop.

I guess the point is that just being better is not enough. We also need to win their hearts. Somehow.

Quoting: CorbenSorry for this wall of text...

Right back at you. :)

Quoting: LinasI guess the point is that just being better is not enough. We also need to win their hearts. Somehow.

There is one thing that Apple has plenty of and Linux barely has any of, and that is marketing and advertising. Apple has somehow managed to create a cult that will follow Apple through ice and fire while also for some reason defending Apple's anti-consumer behaviour. To people in this cult, it doesn't matter if Apple puts out shitty products for insane prices and provide terrible support. The cult followers will still keep buying Apple.

GNU/Linux isn't big in the consumer space because it has no marketing or advertising. Those who use it are usually IT professionals, tech enthusiast or similar that seek it out on their own terms. Average Jane and John Doe usually doesn't do that. In a way it can be a blessing for us since it creates this sense of a tight community, but on the other hand we have this issue with being too small of a market-share for commercial software to care about us. :|

Quoting: Corben

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI'm happy to be able to tell you, yes it will. Buy something and play it on Proton and it shows as a Linux sale. Valve has been quite explicit about this.

Yep, I know it will show up as a Linux sale, when I buy it on Linux and play it with proton ;)
I was referring to the sales that are made, because I as a Linux gamer have bought and played a title and told other people about it because I like that game and thus they buy it, but they buy it on different platforms. This is hardly measurable, but kinda is caused because I had the possibility to play it on Linux. Maybe my wording wasn't clear enough to reflect what I meant, sorry about that.

Ahhh, I get what you were saying now. Sorry, totally got past me the first time.

Quoting: Brisse

Quoting: LinasI guess the point is that just being better is not enough. We also need to win their hearts. Somehow.

There is one thing that Apple has plenty of and Linux barely has any of, and that is marketing and advertising. Apple has somehow managed to create a cult that will follow Apple through ice and fire while also for some reason defending Apple's anti-consumer behaviour. To people in this cult, it doesn't matter if Apple puts out shitty products for insane prices and provide terrible support. The cult followers will still keep buying Apple.

GNU/Linux isn't big in the consumer space because it has no marketing or advertising. Those who use it are usually IT professionals, tech enthusiast or similar that seek it out on their own terms. Average Jane and John Doe usually doesn't do that. In a way it can be a blessing for us since it creates this sense of a tight community, but on the other hand we have this issue with being too small of a market-share for commercial software to care about us. :|

This is the main reason I follow ChromeOS with some interest. I'm not really a Google enthusiast, but it's the only desktop Linux being marketed.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Brisse

Quoting: LinasI guess the point is that just being better is not enough. We also need to win their hearts. Somehow.

There is one thing that Apple has plenty of and Linux barely has any of, and that is marketing and advertising. Apple has somehow managed to create a cult that will follow Apple through ice and fire while also for some reason defending Apple's anti-consumer behaviour. To people in this cult, it doesn't matter if Apple puts out shitty products for insane prices and provide terrible support. The cult followers will still keep buying Apple.

GNU/Linux isn't big in the consumer space because it has no marketing or advertising. Those who use it are usually IT professionals, tech enthusiast or similar that seek it out on their own terms. Average Jane and John Doe usually doesn't do that. In a way it can be a blessing for us since it creates this sense of a tight community, but on the other hand we have this issue with being too small of a market-share for commercial software to care about us. :|

This is the main reason I follow ChromeOS with some interest. I'm not really a Google enthusiast, but it's the only desktop Linux being marketed.

I don't know much about ChromeOS, but isn't it more like Android than a traditional GNU/Linux distribution? Android runs on Linux and it's the number one most widespread OS in the universe. That didn't seem to help the GNU/Linux desktop much except unintentionally closing Ubuntu bug #1.


Last edited by Brisse on 12 February 2019 at 8:38 pm UTC

Quoting: Brisse

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Brisse

Quoting: LinasI guess the point is that just being better is not enough. We also need to win their hearts. Somehow.

There is one thing that Apple has plenty of and Linux barely has any of, and that is marketing and advertising. Apple has somehow managed to create a cult that will follow Apple through ice and fire while also for some reason defending Apple's anti-consumer behaviour. To people in this cult, it doesn't matter if Apple puts out shitty products for insane prices and provide terrible support. The cult followers will still keep buying Apple.

GNU/Linux isn't big in the consumer space because it has no marketing or advertising. Those who use it are usually IT professionals, tech enthusiast or similar that seek it out on their own terms. Average Jane and John Doe usually doesn't do that. In a way it can be a blessing for us since it creates this sense of a tight community, but on the other hand we have this issue with being too small of a market-share for commercial software to care about us. :|

This is the main reason I follow ChromeOS with some interest. I'm not really a Google enthusiast, but it's the only desktop Linux being marketed.

I don't know much about ChromeOS, but isn't it more like Android than a traditional GNU/Linux distribution?

Not as far as I can tell. I mean, Android genuinely isn't Gnu/Linux in the literal sense that it doesn't use GNU. ChromeOS is more like a Linux distribution with a weird, deliberately limited Desktop Environment. It's not that hard to get it to run normal Linux software, and lately I seem to recall Google making it officially possible (not, like, easy or obvious, but possible) and starting to move away from the whole "browser is everything" schtick, at the same time as they are coming out with less-wimpy Chromebooks. I get the impression they are starting to quietly try to move ChromeOS up the price tiers from their little niche in "disposable laptops", which would mean they'd need to be a bit more general purpose.
I wouldn't be surprised at some point to see beefy Chromebooks set up so you could play games on them, presumably involving Steam and some behind the scenes compatibility with the Steam runtime, although they might instead start by putting their game streaming service on 'em. Whatever the case, as far as I can tell yeah, unlike Android, ChromeOS is pretty much genuine Linux and it's a space worth watching as Google slowly tries to grow Chromebooks past their modestly successful little niche.

Quoting: BrisseI don't know much about ChromeOS, but isn't it more like Android than a traditional GNU/Linux distribution?

Sort of. It is a minimal Linux system that boots directly into a modified Chrome browser. It is more like a desktop Linux than Android internally, but Google has intentionally locked everything down so that you cannot install anything not signed by Google.

There is also Crostini project from Google that sort of allows running desktop Linux applications on Chrome OS. I say sort of because it runs a full blown virtual machine on top of Chrome OS, including own Linux kernel and everything. This means that the integration is not seamless. For example there are problems with keyboard layouts, and you get no graphics acceleration, among others.

Google could easily allow installing stuff directly on Chrome OS, but they don't want to.