Support us on Patreon
PayPalWant to get the Wii U emulator Cemu working on Linux? It's now a little easier, as they've providing an AppImage with the latest release.
Version Cemu 2.0-14 (Experimental) just went up and this is the first to offer the AppImage, which should work across various Linux distributions and perhaps make it easier on Steam Deck as well. Nice to see they keep improving it little by little, as they slowly move towards the full 2.0 release that's open source.
They're not yet providing a full changelog between the small releases of the 2.0 release, with these still being listed as the main changes since the last major release:
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
- Cemu is now open-source!
- Preliminary Linux builds are available on github, but be warned that they are still very rough around the edges
- Going forward, we simplified the versioning a bit by using shorter version numbers for stable releases (2.1, 2.2, 2.3..). This version (2.0) is an exception in the sense that it follows the pattern of a stable release but is very much experimental.
- Updated all dependencies. Most notably SDL (input & motion) and wxWidgets (UI)
- Fixed a crash in the H264 video decoder. Resolves crash on Smash title screen
- Made nsysnet a little less crash prone. Fixes crash in Call of Duty: Black Ops II
- Fixed a logging related crash that could occur under very specific circumstances. Seen in Wind Waker if letting the game idle on the title screen for 2 minutes
- Fixed a crash that could happen when the path to Cemu.exe contained unicode characters
- Fixed a crash that could happen when loading .elf homebrew
- The account list in the title manager save exporter is no longer empty
- Latency for wiimotes should be a bit better now
- Added symbol/function list to debugger + other small debugger/assembler improvements
- Implemented API: coreinit.FSOpenFileExAsync (used by some homebrew)
- Many more under-the-hood changes and fixes
- Some more work towards a Stop&Restart emulation feature. Not ready yet but we are getting there
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
I wish Appimage became more widespread. So many projects have a Linux port but don't provide a convenient way to use the thing. Meanwhile those same projects don't have a problem providing a Windows executable.
That just contribute to the bad look Linux have among Windows users "I don't use Linux because I don't want to compile a program to use it".
That just contribute to the bad look Linux have among Windows users "I don't use Linux because I don't want to compile a program to use it".
4 Likes, Who?
gradyvuckovic Nov 7, 2022
Between Snap, Flatpak and AppImage, I'll admit I think AppImage is my fav. Just because I love the simplicity of it.
"Here's an app, it's in a file, double click it to run it."
Beautiful simplicity. What I'd like to see is more distros improving their support for the format. Stuff like if you try to double click an AppImage file and it doesn't have executable permission, just asking the user, 'Do you want to give this AppImage file executable permission?' and stuff like a place to drag and drop AppImage files to add them to the application list.
"Here's an app, it's in a file, double click it to run it."
Beautiful simplicity. What I'd like to see is more distros improving their support for the format. Stuff like if you try to double click an AppImage file and it doesn't have executable permission, just asking the user, 'Do you want to give this AppImage file executable permission?' and stuff like a place to drag and drop AppImage files to add them to the application list.
5 Likes, Who?
Quoting: gradyvuckovicBetween Snap, Flatpak and AppImage, I'll admit I think AppImage is my fav. Just because I love the simplicity of it.I'm ok with the dev to decide between Flatpak and AppImage. Distros may also still decide to provide their own package, but I'm a big fan of flatpak and AppImage for any self-contained application running on top of my DE. SteamDeck only made it more necessary to have these.
"Here's an app, it's in a file, double click it to run it."
Beautiful simplicity. What I'd like to see is more distros improving their support for the format. Stuff like if you try to double click an AppImage file and it doesn't have executable permission, just asking the user, 'Do you want to give this AppImage file executable permission?' and stuff like a place to drag and drop AppImage files to add them to the application list.
Regarding integration with AppImage: For some reason, it works beautiful with my Arch-KDE System. I just double click the appimage and a GUI pops up, asking if I only want to run it once or have it integrated. This is how it should be.
Last edited by const on 7 November 2022 at 11:57 am UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: M@GOidI wish Appimage became more widespread. So many projects have a Linux port but don't provide a convenient way to use the thing. Meanwhile those same projects don't have a problem providing a Windows executable.
That just contribute to the bad look Linux have among Windows users "I don't use Linux because I don't want to compile a program to use it".
its not the developers fault if we dont have an standard on linux like windows have with .exe, we are just now making those techs that work across distros and even with then some distros chose to not support all of then or offer a crap support so we still have to solve "political problems" before we can solve "techinical" ones, not to mention is a bit hard to make those packages last time i checked.
but hey, if you think otherwise you can always package yourself once they relase the source code...
Last edited by elmapul on 7 November 2022 at 11:58 am UTC
0 Likes
CyborgZeta Nov 7, 2022
I'm not a fan of AppImage, personally. They're arguably more portable than Flatpak, but they lack Flatpak's sandboxing. The only AppImage I use is for Balena Etcher, because there's not Flatpak available.
0 Likes
Quoting: elmapulQuoting: M@GOidI wish Appimage became more widespread. So many projects have a Linux port but don't provide a convenient way to use the thing. Meanwhile those same projects don't have a problem providing a Windows executable.
That just contribute to the bad look Linux have among Windows users "I don't use Linux because I don't want to compile a program to use it".
its not the developers fault if we dont have an standard on linux like windows have with .exe, we are just now making those techs that work across distros and even with then some distros chose to not support all of then or offer a crap support so we still have to solve "political problems" before we can solve "techinical" ones, not to mention is a bit hard to make those packages last time i checked.
but hey, if you think otherwise you can always package yourself once they relase the source code...
Sorry, I don't agree. If you have a app and are releasing it out there for people to use, you can do your part to easy things for the end user, just like you do with the Windows executable. Appimage is not a new thing, and way before it, some devs just released a compressed file with precompiled stuff and their dependencies. Just drop it on a folder and off you go. Mozilla does it for ages with Firefox and Thunderbird.
Some devs, even the ones doing commercial stuff, just don't get it, or blatantly refuse, to accept that not all Linux users feel comfortable with the command line. It is a attitude problem. The old excuse for lack of standardization doesn't cut anymore.
4 Likes, Who?
Quoting: M@GOidQuoting: elmapulQuoting: M@GOidI wish Appimage became more widespread. So many projects have a Linux port but don't provide a convenient way to use the thing. Meanwhile those same projects don't have a problem providing a Windows executable.
That just contribute to the bad look Linux have among Windows users "I don't use Linux because I don't want to compile a program to use it".
its not the developers fault if we dont have an standard on linux like windows have with .exe, we are just now making those techs that work across distros and even with then some distros chose to not support all of then or offer a crap support so we still have to solve "political problems" before we can solve "techinical" ones, not to mention is a bit hard to make those packages last time i checked.
but hey, if you think otherwise you can always package yourself once they relase the source code...
Sorry, I don't agree. If you have a app and are releasing it out there for people to use, you can do your part to easy things for the end user, just like you do with the Windows executable. Appimage is not a new thing, and way before it, some devs just released a compressed file with precompiled stuff and their dependencies. Just drop it on a folder and off you go. Mozilla does it for ages with Firefox and Thunderbird.
Some devs, even the ones doing commercial stuff, just don't get it, or blatantly refuse, to accept that not all Linux users feel comfortable with the command line. It is a attitude problem. The old excuse for lack of standardization doesn't cut anymore.
yeah i already download those tar.gz where you suppose to extract and run the stuff.
but often they dont work, there is a reason for that.
0 Likes
ssj17vegeta Nov 7, 2022
Quoting: CyborgZetaI'm not a fan of AppImage, personally. They're arguably more portable than Flatpak, but they lack Flatpak's sandboxing. The only AppImage I use is for Balena Etcher, because there's not Flatpak available.
I've been curious about it. I really wonder why anyone would be interested in sandboxing, as an end-user.
I mean, since Firefox is a snap on Ubuntu and "benefits" sandboxing, all HTML pages located in /usr/local/ are unopenable, several extensions I used (ex: VideoDownloadHelper and its companion app) no longer work (for "valid" reasons, still, it's a PITA)...
Aside from the added security for apps you don't trust (which by definition I tend to avoid installing in the first place), what's in it for the average Joe ?
2 Likes, Who?
QuoteThey're not yet providing a full changelog between the small releases of the 2.0 release
You can compare tags
https://github.com/cemu-project/Cemu/compare/v2.0-13...v2.0-14
0 Likes
Quoting: MixaillThanks but I am aware of it, it's not very friendly for users to go over commit logs :)QuoteThey're not yet providing a full changelog between the small releases of the 2.0 release
You can compare tags
https://github.com/cemu-project/Cemu/compare/v2.0-13...v2.0-14
2 Likes, Who?
See more from me