Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: kokoko3k

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: kokoko3kAlso, and absolutely not rhetoric, but really, REALLY out of curiosity:
Why someone on earth could have an interest in opening the whole steam to start obs!?

Presumably the people likely to do this would be people who are opening Steam anyway to play games?

If it were true, then i'd expect fro those people to add every program they use as a non steam application to their steam library.

So you mean, like, they'd add things they do while not playing games to their game-library software because that's exactly the same as adding things they do while playing games to their game-library software?

Ah, understood.
So the use case is that since obs may be used even while they are playing steam games, then it makes sense to take the burden to package and release it as a steam application, because people will prefer to start it from their library.
This honestly I haven't thought to.
Well then, but this still does not help my progress in understanding the motivations, because i don't think they are installing a browser as a steam specific app or any other app one may think of one can use while they are playing.
Ofc I may be wrong, but I really don't believe the number of users starting obs from steam justifies the release in their store.
Probably is just a matter of having more visibility or I just don't know.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: kokoko3kAlso, and absolutely not rhetoric, but really, REALLY out of curiosity:
Why someone on earth could have an interest in opening the whole steam to start obs!?

Presumably the people likely to do this would be people who are opening Steam anyway to play games?

If it were true, then i'd expect fro those people to add every program they use as a non steam application to their steam library.
And while using steam like a start menu may even be a viable solution, I really don't expect them to do so, that's the problem.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam DaweI shouldn't need to explain the same thing over and over and over again to give in to pedantic attitudes over packaging.

...Crystal clear.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam DaweI list the Flatpak as it's the only official cross-distro solution used by the developer. Simple as that. I shall continue to link to Flathub / Flatpak whenever it's available because it works across any distribution AND Steam Deck too. You can argue about preferred packaging all you want, stick to whatever you like, this is the easiest for users so we don't have to list a million ways of installing things across many different distributions.

I am not objecting the listing of flatpak per se, but the assertion that every linux user should stick with it without motivation provided right in the article.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Rodney

Quoting: kokoko3kWhy should (Arch) Linux users stick to Flatpak from Flathub? What are the advantages by using it and not the distribution provided package, if any?
If I am not failing in seeing only disadvantages in this case, could we please stop unconditionally promoting Flathub packages?

The advantage is that it's first-party, fully supported, and contains all the features including service integrations, browser sources, etc. that are often missing from third-party packages. Flathub also makes it possible to install various popular plugins that may or may not be available as system packages.

In this specific case that Flatpak also allows us to patch the dependencies to work around bugs that haven't been fixed in upstream yet, or enable features that aren't available in the specific release it's using.

Thanks for the explaination, but this should be clearly stated in the article, because the advantages provided by the service integrations,browser sources etc are not always needed by every Linux user.
On the other side, someone that uses flatpak will always suffer from his disadvantages.

You may have understand that i don't need/use obs, but still, while i might understand that some features might be missing, (or not?)

Quoteaur/cef-minimal-obs-bin
aur/cef-minimal-obs-rc-bin
aur/cef-minimal-obs-studio-browser-bin
aur/droidcam-obs-plugin
aur/droidcam-obs-plugin-bin
aur/droidcam-obs-plugin-git
aur/obs-advanced-scene-switcher
aur/obs-audio-monitor
aur/obs-audio-pan-filter
aur/obs-backgroundremoval
aur/obs-backgroundremoval-git
aur/obs-build
aur/obs-build-git
aur/obs-cli
aur/obs-cli-bin
aur/obs-cli-leafac-bin
aur/obs-color-monitor
aur/obs-command-source
aur/obs-controller-git
aur/obs-dir-watch-media
aur/obs-downstream-keyer
aur/obs-dvds3
aur/obs-dynamic-delay
aur/obs-face-tracker
aur/obs-freeze-filter
aur/obs-ghostscript
aur/obs-glcapture-git
aur/obs-gnome-screencast
aur/obs-gnome-screencast-git
aur/obs-gphoto
aur/obs-gradient-source
aur/obs-gstreamer
aur/obs-hevc-vaapi-git
aur/obs-image-reaction
aur/obs-image-reaction-bin
aur/obs-infowriter
aur/obs-media-controls
aur/obs-midi
aur/obs-motion-effect-git
aur/obs-move-transition
aur/obs-multi-rtmp
aur/obs-multi-rtmp-git
aur/obs-multisource-effect
aur/obs-ndi
aur/obs-ndi-bin
aur/obs-ndi-git
aur/obs-nvfbc
aur/obs-nvfbc-git
aur/obs-openvr-git
aur/obs-pipewire-audio-capture-bin
aur/obs-plugin-input-overlay
aur/obs-plugin-input-overlay-bin
aur/obs-plugin-looking-glass
aur/obs-plugin-looking-glass-git
aur/obs-plugin-spectralizer-bin
aur/obs-plugin-tuna-bin
aur/obs-plugin-tuna-git
aur/obs-ptz-controls
aur/obs-qtwebkit-git
aur/obs-recursion-effect
aur/obs-rendering-lag
aur/obs-replay-source
aur/obs-rgb-levels-filter-git
aur/obs-rtmp-nicolive-git
aur/obs-rtspserver
aur/obs-rtspserver-bin
aur/obs-rtspserver-git
aur/obs-scale-to-sound
aur/obs-scale-to-sound-bin
aur/obs-scene-collection-manager
aur/obs-scene-notes-dock
aur/obs-scene-switcher
aur/obs-scrab
aur/obs-service-download_files
aur/obs-service-download_url
aur/obs-service-format_spec_file
aur/obs-service-format_spec_file-git
aur/obs-service-recompress
aur/obs-service-set_version
aur/obs-service-source_validator
aur/obs-service-tar_scm
aur/obs-service-tar_scm-git
aur/obs-service-verify_file
aur/obs-shaderfilter-git
aur/obs-source-copy
aur/obs-source-dock
aur/obs-source-record
aur/obs-source-switcher
aur/obs-spectralizer
aur/obs-streamfx
aur/obs-streamfx-git
aur/obs-studio-browser
aur/obs-studio-ftl
aur/obs-studio-git
aur/obs-studio-rc
aur/obs-studio-tytan652
aur/obs-teleport
aur/obs-text-pango
aur/obs-text-pthread
aur/obs-time-warp-scan
aur/obs-transition-matrix-git
aur/obs-transition-table
aur/obs-tuna
aur/obs-v4l2sink-git
aur/obs-virtual-cam-filter
aur/obs-vkcapture-git
aur/obs-vnc
aur/obs-websocket
aur/obs-websocket-git

QuoteIn this specific case that Flatpak also allows us to patch the dependencies to work around bugs that haven't been fixed in upstream yet

I still fail to understand why an opensource project offers full support to a binary release only, this way of offering support is kinda new to me.
Resolving deps should be a distro work for their provided packages and imho upstream should take care of developing code that targets specific deps and provide hints to distro mantainers, instead.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: gamingonlinux.com"For Linux users though, you should just stick to Flatpak from Flathub."

Quoting: https://archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/obs-studio/obs-studio 27.2.3-1
Build Date: 2022-03-14 20:45 UTC

Why should (Arch) "Linux users" "just stick to Flatpak from Flathub" ?
What are the advantages by using it and not the distribution provided package, if any?
Also, If I am not failing in seeing only disadvantages in this case, could I kindly ask to put a stop in unconditionally promoting Flathub packages?

Also, and absolutely not rhetoric, but really, REALLY out of curiosity:
Why someone on earth could have an interest in opening the whole steam to start obs!?
(it is even possible that running it could prevent other games to even launch because of how steam works, but i might be wrong here, but that's not the point anyway -edit- nope, it doesn't).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TuxeeSo we have a bundle dedicated to charity and the "discussion" starts with bashing Humble Bundle and people feeling compelled to tell, why they are not donating.
Interesting.

If were you, I'd read again the comments.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: brokkrI can't help feeling point number 1 doesn't do much to clear things up.

Wouldn't the release of Hitman (2016) on GOG be able to tick that box? Single player mode was accessible offline. Just not all of it. I would have given them more credit for including the word 'fully'. Or even 'fully*' with some allowable *-caveats.

I think that's the point of what they're saying, so stuff like HITMAN would now be allowed on.

I hope not, or else even a "minimal, insignificant" part of the game could be played offline in single player.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm curious to see how it will work with static frames.
I imagine that temporal AA induces some sort of subtle movement to the camera (?).
It this is true, then it would not be possible to implement such thing on compositor side, like with FSR today.
Somebody has some insight on TAA?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ShmerlWhat's with all this pointless mental gymnastics and arguing semantics for nothing?

Since F.Ultra is M.I.A., but I still think we need a recap, here it is:
* tohur says google can't do it because it is not possible to do reverse engineering in so little time, so they are using wine.
* mirv disagrees.
* elmapul says wine devs states they didn't reverse engineering windows
* mirv expresses that reverse engineering means disassembling, not reimplementing public interfaces
* f.ultra agrees that wine is not reverse engineering
* tohur insists in saying that wine is reverse engineering, specifically "clean room reverse engineering"
* f.ultra insists in saying wine is not reverse engineering and seems to give another definition of "clean room reverse engineering": "black-box reverse engineering"
* tohur specify that "black-box reverse engineering" = "clean room reverse engineering":
* F.Ultra explains that "clean room reverse engineering" is really different from "reverse engineering" and even different from "black box reverse engineering"
(My note: and he is actually/formally right: https://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/intellectual/reverse/study.php even if it is a bit borderline IMHO, it may depends on the abstracion level used.)

* kokoko3k fails miserably and confuses "Clean room reverse engineering" with "black-box reverse engineering", but states: "apart from definitions, I think the concept seems clear to everyone." (please note: "apart from definitions")
* Shmerl directed to kokoko3k: "What's with all this pointless mental gymnastics and arguing semantics for nothing?"
...which is exactly what i said, so i don't have an answer for you, obviously, since my intent was to bypass the definitions and focus on the facts.

Facts are that wine is not built empirically. And apart from some minor, but still unintended and undocumented behaviour, wine devs don't need to deduce anything.
This is because they don't target a specific software, but the whole operating system so they don't need nor care to understand what functions are called by a specific software.
Given their goal, they know that they need to implement the whole thing, all of the public interfaces/functions available by using the available documentation.

To Over-simplify the process:

Microsoft Windows:
For every f function implemented in Windows, Microsoft tells you that given certain parameters and types, you have to expect his return vaule(s) to be in a certain way, but don't tells you how it arrives to the results.

Wine:
For every f function implemented in windows, I am free to implement it in whatever way i think is the best so that given the same parameters, the return value(s) will be the expected ones.

Since deduction is needed when you don't know something that has to be deduced, you are still free to call the wine development as you like, but rest sure that there's no deduction involved, and if there is, is by mistake, in the sense that it means Microsoft failed to document something, which is a corner case that also means that the return values of the above function are undetermined, which is obviously an unintended mistake/defect.

And here we can finally return to the cause of the dispute with a reasoned answer:
* tohur says google can't do it because they can't do reverse engineering in so little time, so they are using wine.

On the contrary, they can, in so little time, because they can:
1) use a "-insert something here- reverse engineering" to discover the windows subset of functions they need to implement
2) just use public available definitions of what they discovered in #1 to reimplement them as they please,as long as the documentation is not unintentionally lacking, hopefully, without deducing anything.

View this comment - View article - View full comments