Response to "Linux Gaming Finally Doesn't Suck" video

October 2, 2018

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

Linux has no (easy) way to install drivers and often needs to be compiled against or into the kernel.

Windows is designed to load external drivers all the time. That is the big difference...

Well not exactly like that btw, it's the configuration the real issue. Linux just works in another way, similar to Mac OS. They are both Unix-Like system, so basically almost similiar approach in graphics modes, there is also a MacOS distro without the GUI. It is just made in that way, you could easily make Linux like that but that does not make sense, Imho TTY's (the virtual terminal consoles) are useful in case of program issues. You are forced to reboot in Windows if something goes wrong.

Anyway, Linux is a monolithic kernel which means EVERY kernel module (drivers) is loaded every time, even though they are not required. This is different than the Windows microkernel.
But they "invented" the kernel modules, they can dynamically be loaded or unloaded so they take less memory and resources instead of having them to be loaded every time, so like a microkernel.
There is also the udev utility which takes care of this "unloading/loading" procedure by checking all the devices in the PC and loading the correct driver/kernel module, depending on their device fingerprint, this is a better, faster and cleaner approach than Windows tbh. Windows by default loads EVERY driver with no intelligence, except if they are the Microsoft ones (I mean the shitty default ones who no one uses) and It's basically not portable, if you change your system you need to uninstall all the drivers first. Linux can be basically shutted down, took to another system, and if the kernel modules required are present, everything will work. NVIDIA drivers which are proprietary, just can't be included for licensing reason, so they are installed in the system "after" a typical distro install. In that case, since there also are the open source drivers, one of them needs to be disabled manually. Years ago you needed to manually blacklist `nouveau`, thanks god in the recent ubuntu nvidia packages this is did automatically. That is a reason for why people should use the distro packages.

You can't compare imho this to Windows, there is the direct NVIDIA support, the one implemented in Linux is not just used by all distros.
Also all linux drivers are made directly from hardware/CPU vendors, basically the whole linux project excluding what basically a kernel does, is made with drivers. There are tons of lines of code just for drivers. Check their github. You will often find who maintains that code.

Some years ago I had a problem with my Realtek LAN drivers, and talked directly to a Realtek guy via email, and I helped him debugging the issue. The next week he released a new version of the driver in the linux kernel main source tree. So you could easily say that it is not different from when Windows has issues.

Back to what I was talking.
Most distros devs builds all the modules possible.

Take that as an example, this is my kernel size. It can include just the basic kernel tasks required, in Ubuntu all the kernel drivers are in /lib/modules, if you check the folder size, is like 700MB's of kernel modules binaries! Ready to be loaded when they needed. Sometimes there are also drivers required for certain programs like Virtualbox. They are loaded manually.

Idk if you ever tried to plug a PS4 controller, it works perfectly. There is a builtin module driver unlike in Windows. You can even check them by searching in the respective folders.

There is no thing like fragmentation tbh. Software cycles and distros are different things. A distro maintaintes often does not develop anything, with the obvious exceptions. Like Ubuntu and their Unity desktop. A package maintainer just builds the software. And most of the time, they just build a script which automatically packages the program when a stable update is present.
Software in Linux/Unix systems is ALWAYS portable as long it respects some rules. They basically needed to be packaged as someone may need it. This is like how the AUR works
There are tons of software in MacOS developed in the same manner as Linux or BSDs systems. All MacOS .app are like snap builds, they are "containers containing" all the software and libs needed.

The fact is most of the time ubuntu devs/maintainers does not have enough testers for their packages, or maybe they are just lazy as*

Woops this post became too long. So basically back to the bumblebee issue, there is just the Ubuntu devs/packagers who don't fuc**ng fix their sh*t lmao

Edited October 2, 2018 by Guest

Stefan Payne · October 2, 2018

3 hours ago, MEC-777 said:

Windows 10 feels to me like it's been copying things that Linux has been doing for years.

Funny how we all perceive things differently.

Copying the good stuff isn't a bad thing, that is what we all want. We want the best solution for our problems. Whoever came up with it first? Who cares!!

IIRC the Window 95 menu is something that came from Nextstep or something like that.

Compared with that, the PROGMAN.EXE was just horrendeous, good that we got rid of it (though M$ delivered that file with Windows 95 and IIRC was included up until Windows XP SP1).

And therefore the Menubar of Win95 is the best we have for most stuff. Though you can extend that design with what M$ did with Windows XP, Vista and 7. Or move to the Windows 10 version.

If there are ways to do the stuff better, great. Implement it. But the OSX UI is not better, just different and for a completely different kind of people with entirely different problems. As an option, its OK, but I don't want that to be the default...

@Lukyp

Thank you for your big posting! Very informative!

I really like those constructive discussions.

48 minutes ago, EPENEX said:

What you're basically saying is that variety and choice is a bad thing. With GNU/Linux you get to choose and have the freedom to use what works for you.

No, I'm always for choice. Choice is a good thing.

But you also have to think about the users and that you have to learn many things new from one Linux distribution to another...

And there are some things that require (a lot of) work under Linux...

MEC-777 · October 2, 2018

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

Copying the good stuff isn't a bad thing, that is what we all want. We want the best solution for our problems. Whoever came up with it first? Who cares!!

IIRC the Window 95 menu is something that came from Nextstep or something like that.

Compared with that, the PROGMAN.EXE was just horrendeous, good that we got rid of it (though M$ delivered that file with Windows 95 and IIRC was included up until Windows XP SP1).

And therefore the Menubar of Win95 is the best we have for most stuff. Though you can extend that design with what M$ did with Windows XP, Vista and 7. Or move to the Windows 10 version.

If there are ways to do the stuff better, great. Implement it. But the OSX UI is not better, just different and for a completely different kind of people with entirely different problems. As an option, its OK, but I don't want that to be the default...

Yep, I agree 100%. Was never saying it was a bad thing. This is what refinement and improvement is all about.

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, I'm always for choice. Choice is a good thing.

But you also have to think about the users and that you have to learn many things new from one Linux distribution to another...

And there are some things that require (a lot of) work under Linux...

Again, agree 100%. You can even substitute "from one Linux distro to another" with "from one OS to another" and it holds even more true. Windows to MacOS, MacOS to Linux, Linux to Windows - it doesn't matter. There will always be a learning curve and elements of each that various user will prefer over the other.

MEC-777 · October 2, 2018

Lots of great discussion happening here, btw. Awesome to see.

What's interesting for me is that I have seen a shift here in comparing similar threads on Linux from 2-3 or so years ago. Where back then; most people were trying to down-play and discount Linux, saying it's difficult and not ready, etc.. Now, there seems to be more people actually advocating FOR Linux and showing others that no, it's not difficult to use and simply requires a little extra time to learn because it's different from what most people are used to.

It's really cool to see this happening. It is a slow shift, but a noticeable shift no-less.