Quoting: GuestThis topic is also going into dangerous territory and no longer relevant to the article, other than that it's rather obvious that open source drivers really do matter to some people, it's not something to be dismissed, and will be a factor in purchasing decisions.

You are so right about this. This comments thread looks more and more to look like a Phoronix forums thread

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestLinux will never get really popular if it won't get with the times and deliver actual value instead of advertizing ideologies.

I'm sorry to disagree, but I am part of the people who think performance is not the only valuable metrics.

Linux, without these ideologies, is basically Windows. Right now, I honestly don't see the interest a user would have in moving from Windows to Linux without these ideologies, considering Linux is not really supported by companies outside of the server world.

Oh and these so-called ideologies do have concrete consequences in real life: for instance I can still run very old AMD GPUs thanks to AMD open sourcing at least their specifications at the time and the performance are still pretty good (considering the GPU). On the other hand, I recently revived a PC with an old NVIDIA GPU and wasn't able to install the official NVIDIA drivers because they decided not to support this card anymore, so the only fallback was nouveau, which is less then ideal 3D performance-wise. Another example is that AMD cards do work with Wayland right now, while it is still not possible with NVIDIA's. And another example is that I'm not afraid to upgrade my system because I know the AMD drivers are coming with the new Linux kernel. Oh and I like the fact that any developer can improve the AMD drivers now as some improvements in mesa can benefit the whole graphics stack.

To me, thinking Open Source is merely an ideology means you completely missed the point here. Open Source is a way to prevent monopolies by releasing control over the source code and letting anyone to read, modify, and run it.

And, please, don't say things like "For most people(>99%)" if you don't have at least one source to prove it. This statement is a bias that is but an extrapolation of your way of thinking: "if I think this is the best, then everyone must be thinking the same".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

@liamdawe, @samsai: I'm listening to the episode right now, I think it would be interesting one day to talk about Fedora. Far from me the idea of starting a distro war. I appreciate it is not the most popular distro out their (though still in the top 10... out of 250 active distros, it's not that bad :D ), but I think Fedora brings something more to the Linux community than a mere new distro. Here is my list of advantages:

• Vanilla GNOME


• No anti-design software installed by default


• More bleeding edge than Ubuntu (Linux kernels are still upgraded in between distro releases)


• More stable than Arch, but less than Ubuntu


• Often first to brings/try modern features: Wayland, Flatpak, Btrfs (along with openSUSE I think), systemd, ...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I actually loved the idea @Samsai proposed in the last podcast: if Valve makes a streaming service, then you'll be able to buy your games, own them, and play them whenever and wherever you want, whether it be your PC or through streaming.

This! This is the solution that I want. I know that any game bought through Stadia is yours (unlike Netflix where your show might disappear any day), but your only support is streaming. What if your game is lag-sensitive? What if your internet connection is down? What if you want to mod your game? What if Stadia gets killed by Google like most of the products they created in the past?

I know that Steam isn't perfect and still has DRM on some games, but it's the most Linux-friendly I know and they are actually contributing to the Linux community (SteamOS, Steam Link, Proton, Mesa devs).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So hyped!!! I love this game :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam DaweYou can fix that yourself. Set your desktop configuration for controllers to an actual gamepad, then it works.

Does anyone succeeded in having their PS4 or Xbox 360 controllers working with this game?? I think I've tried everything I know from my linux-fu training, but it doesn't work (and it's only for this specific game since my controllers works very well on other games like Stardew Valley). I'm at a loss here...

Thank you

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: vipor29they should of known they needed to do that and now the flood gates are gonna come down on them for it.its there own fault.

Libretro is an open source, community driven, low-funded project about playing retro games, and the hack was not about leaking private data, but about crippling a github repo.

Let's be reasonable, please. They don't have to know everything about security, they have the right to be wrong, it is not a bank.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ArehandoroI face this constantly at work. And to be honest, it's bullshit. With setups like MFA from Azure AD, with the Authenticator app, where not even a code is needed to use the 2nd factor. Or with tools like Yubikey that can be used for the same, but also as main way to authentication in websites, any developer complaining about the nuisance of 2FA goes into the "Suspicious list" right away.

And there's also Bitwarden which simplifies it even more with storing the TOTP url. You don't need a second device (which is a security risk), but it is still way harder to hack your account since the hacker should have direct access to your machine in order to get both your password and the TOTP address (which are protected by a main password in Bitwarden).

Here's a very interesting blog post from Bitwarden explaining 2FA in general, and their system:
https://bitwarden.com/blog/post/basics-of-two-factor-authentication-with-bitwarden/

Also, they answer the question "some may ask what is the point of having your username, email, and your two-step login code all stored within the same application [...]? Doesn’t that negate the value of two-step login?"

Quoting: BitwardenThe answer depends. Let’s break it down.

• Your Bitwarden Vault hopefully already has two-step login using some other method. (ie. do not use the Bitwarden Authenticator to protect your Bitwarden account.) Therefore it is currently protected with a high level of security and, in fact, two-step login.


• Having two-step login enabled for websites and applications is always better than not having it enabled. A tighter bundling of two-step login makes it easier to use more frequently, which promotes better security hygiene as a practice.


• If you need to share an item, you can share it with two-step login enabled, which, again, is better security practice. This is a collaboration and two-step login power move.


• You do not need to remember which authentication app you used, since it is built in.


• You can always choose, on an individual basis, which login you want to authenticate internally within the Bitwarden app, or externally using a separate Authenticator app.

Bitwarden users find that the integrated Authenticator functionality provides faster workflows with better security and dexterity for collaboration. Users also note that they apply different policies to different types of accounts. Primary financial institutions may be authenticated externally using a separate Authenticator app, while all of their ecommerce logins are authenticated internally within Bitwarden.

Also.. Bitwarden is open source ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Just finished all the Transport Fever 2 missions :D
Now, I'll start on free maps!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestYou've given a very narrow view of what constitutes a game, though I'm sure that wasn't your intent. If you want to make a game that looks and plays like, say, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, then no you probably wouldn't create an engine from scratch.

But let's take the example of Star Swarm (I'll let you look that up). Particularly at the time, and I daresay it's still true, other engines couldn't handle what it was doing. Not without lobbing stupidly massive computing power at the problem. And therein lies the crux: requiring obscene computing power reduces potential customers, and also makes development an utter pain. Tailoring your own code base to the desired game type has performance, sometimes stability, and development benefits in many (not all) situations.

It's a balancing act of course. If an existing game engine does all you need, use it. If not, can it be modified to do what you need, and what effort will that require. Is it complete overkill, will it limit potential customers and sales, or will it provide more.

No Man's Sky. Existing engines couldn't handle the procedural generation requirements, as in literally weren't written to handle the data precision needed. The developers had to write their own engine.

Generic game engines are great for many developers, but if you overlay the use cases in a sort of Gaussian distribution, there's still extreme ends where a pre-existing game engine simply isn't suitable. That's because not all games are the same (thank goodness), and not all developers have the same level of resources available to them.

And I've ignored something else that goes into making a game: the reasons for making it. Particularly for indie developers, there are programming language reasons (a game is a great way to hone one's skills), personal satisfaction, of just plain freedom to play around entirely unconstrained by someone else's whimsy. Graphics aren't everything, after all.

You're argument about space exploration games is completely valid, I actually experienced it, but I think you're underestimating a lot the resources needed to build a game engine and the tools around it. In the end, you're the one giving a narrow view of what constitutes a game. You found one game type that proves your point and deduced it should invalidate everything I said?

To be clear, I never said all the games should use the same game engine, but nowadays game developers have choices. And as game engines improved over the years, I am sure about 95% of the games could be done with these game engines now. I would even say that with technologies such as DOTS in Unity, even huge space exploration games could be done with it (but it is still too experimental to start a game on it, yet).

TL;DR: their are exceptions of course, yet my points are still true for a crushing majority of game types. And I'm not pulling arguments out of my ass, I do have a lot of experience in developing both game engines and games.

As for the pleasure of writing a new game engine, I completely get it: I'm the first one wanting to create everything from scratch, because it's more exhilarating, but with the increasing quality required by players nowadays, as a game dev, you need to wonder if it is really worth it, and ask yourself: do you want to make a game? or an engine?

Quoting: ObsidianBlkIf I may add just my two cents on top of this...

If there were not some people out there that took on the challenge of making new game engines, then we wouldn't have the likes of Godot, Unity, Unreal, Game Maker, Cryengine, etc, etc. Furthermore, if *everyone* falls into the belief that it's not worth making a game engine, how many future engines with even better features or design methodologies may we miss out on?

The great many game developers out there may be best suited to make their game in a pre-existing engine. For those that are excited about going the extra (thousand) mile(s) and building something literally from the first bit onwards, it's those dedicated souls that keep the industry growing, give the others options, and allows everyone to build something new!

I think we do need more choices, but the situation changed a lot within the last decade. We went from very few public game engines (e.g. Unreal, CryEngine) that cost millions of dollars, to dozens of game engines that can go as low as completely free.

Of course, there will always be the need to create new ones, but at some point, game dev is a job on its own, and engine dev is something else. If a studio would really like to create a game engine, I would advise them to have at least one successful game before, so that they have enough resources to code their own game engine.

View this comment - View article - View full comments