Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualIn the end, most manufacturers of the ill-fated netbook switched over to Windows. Predominantly because Microsoft offered Windows licenses for less than they do on more powerful devices.

Microsoft made Windows free for those OEMs (while forcing an insipid specs list that would ensure netbooks lost out to tablets), and had a concerted FUD campaign about customer hostility to Linux.

I'm pretty new to the free software scene, and I certainly wasn't there at the time, so I can only rely on sources I could find after the fact. Hadn't Microsoft mostly stopped its campaigning against Linux by the end of the 2000s?

I don't think regular users of GNU/Linux distributions at the time needed Microsoft to tell them that they were bewildered by the operating system at the time: Ubuntu vs. College Freshman

I'm happy to be corrected, and if you could direct me to some more sources, as I'm mostly going off the Wikipedia page for Netbooks, that would be appreciated. The article I link reported that Microsoft offered licenses cheaply, not free of charge.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyMakes me wonder about, not just copycats, but other experiments with Linux-based hardware that might not even involve gaming as a focus. [...] You could make Chromebook-alikes with real Linux on them. [...] Who knows? The example of the Steam Deck's success could spark the growth of a wider Linux-hardware ecosystem.

This sorta happened before with netbooks over a decade ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20090305075848/http://www.pcworld.com/article/160567/think_linux_rules_on_netbooks_think_again.html

In the end, most manufacturers of the ill-fated netbook switched over to Windows. Predominantly because Microsoft offered Windows licenses for less than they do on more powerful devices. Which makes me wonder why manufacturers like ASUS, HP, Acer and like would switch from ChromeOS to a GNU/Linux distribution. As far as I can tell, ChromeOS doesn't have a licensing fee, so GNU/Linux has no advantage over it there.

It would be nice, but I think OEMs find Google's brand name reassuring and don't see a reason beyond a programming audience to choose a GNU/Linux operating system like Ubuntu.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mr-victory

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualIf you're wondering why H.265/HEVC (and now VVC) never got much adoption compared to its predecessor, this is why.

I converted all of my videos to H265 back then with VLC and saved around %80-95 disk space. Do you think I should convert them to AV1, would I reclaim even more disk space? I don't care about patents because both Arch Linux and VLC just ignore their existence and ship all the codecs.

As much as I'm excited about AV1, I've not done much with the AV1 encoders/decoders that exist today, so I really don't know if they are more space-efficient. Given that AV1 was developed quite some time after H.265, I would guess that its main competition is with H.266/VVC now. I'll have to try it out someday. Preferably with some hardware acceleration...

H.265 is a great codec. MPEG-LA made hundreds of millions of dollars developing the standards, after all. My hope is that AV1 can be even better without causing trouble for software developers everywhere.

As for why ffmpeg's x264/x265 can be freely used by free software media players that distribute their software to users like VLC, it has been suggested that France cares less about software patents than other countries (I don't know how true this is). I don't think MPEG-LA is interested in going after VideoLAN anyhow. ffmpeg themselves do not distribute binaries (only source code), so they are not infringing on any patents.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ElectricPrismI really hope Fedora closes the gap, they are doing a Raspberry Pi release, but I think some of their strict adherence to FOSS and making it harder to get mp3 codecs and other "absolutely proprietary" stuff do cost them the lead.

This has little to do with philosophy and everything to do with MPEG-LA's software patent business model.

Unfortunately, patented codecs like H.264 (mp4) and mp3 can only be distributed after paying MPEG-LA a licensing fee for every person you distribute it to; unless you work out an agreement with MPEG-LA like Cisco did to distribute H.264 to an unlimited number of people, which is what allows Firefox users to play that codec—but that is far from cheap. While it's probable that MPEG-LA won't go after Red Hat, SUSE or Canonical for this, MPEG-LA is completely legally in the right to do so.

This doesn't only affect free software. DaVinci Resolve does not include encoders/decoders for H.264 or AAC due to patents in their GNU/Linux version of the free version of their software, and the Studio version still doesn't include AAC.

Fortunately, mp3's last patents expired in 2017. H.264's patents will last until 2027 or 2032 depending on who you ask. You might think that 30 years for a video codec's patents to expire is a long time, especially with the fast-moving software landscape. You're not the only one who thinks so. Facebook, Mozilla, Netflix, Amazon, Cisco, Google, Intel, Microsoft, and even Apple (despite their reluctance to implement support for VP9) all agree that they want nothing more to do with patented codecs. That's why they formed the Alliance for Open Media and created AV1 in response to H.265 and its significantly more complicated (and expensive) patent pools.

If you're wondering why H.265/HEVC (and now VVC) never got much adoption compared to its predecessor, this is why. Everyone is sick of the patent pool model except for MPEG-LA. However, TV stations and broadcast media are still happy to adopt these new standards, so it's unlikely it will go away completely.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I like that GOG doesn't require a client to play their Linux games, unlike Humble's Game Collection.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I've always had some questions about ChromeOS that I've long tried to find answers for, but with little luck. Maybe someone here knows?

1. ChromeOS is known for being easy to use, stable, and secure, despite its Linux heritage. Why is that? What makes popular distributions like Ubuntu, Mint and Fedora worse in usability? Doesn't Google need to release the sources for patches that touch the kernel?
2. ChromeOS is not released under a free license, despite the obligations of the GPLv2 (although ChromiumOS is). This is similar to the deal with Android, from what I know. How did they manage that, I wonder? Do any improvements to the desktop experience make it back to mainline Linux? I know of Mozc and some fonts as examples.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Easier solution for regressions: allow people to keep older versions of the game installed or downgrade like GOG does instead of forcing people to update to a possibly non-functioning version. Won't work for multiplayer games, but works for the other ~70% of the games.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlInteresting. Are these games DRM-free?

I'm also curious to know. Given that Amazon Kindle has almost single-handedly ushered in an era of DRM-encumbered ebooks with few people noticing or caring, I would think no, but Amazon surprises me sometimes.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Unexpected, but very welcome.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

And I just started playing Alice: Madness Returns...

These sorts of regressions in WINE compatibility seem to happen more often than I expected for what you would expect to be mostly static games.

View this comment - View article - View full comments