Linux Gaming: A Field Report

Christopher "shaithis" Buecheler writes: "GameSpy.com has posted not one, but two articles dealing with the Linux Operating System, and specifically addressing some issues about gaming. Of particular interest to Slashdotters might be the second article, as it will no doubt stir up conflicting opinions.[In] The Linux OS: James Hills talks about the advancement of Linux as a gaming platform. How far has it come, and how far does it have left to go? [And in a] Linux Gaming Overview: James also takes time to create a ten-section comparison between Linux and MS Windows, checking out the differences between the two in a variety of areas." Quick -- can you name seven gaming companies that have entered the Linux scene in the last year? James can.

Comments

How far do we *really* want it to go?

[Dast]

I think a better question is, how far do we want Linux to go towards being an mainstream gaming platform. The issue as I see it is going to mainly come in the form of driver issues. Realistically, I don't think we can expect source drivers for all of the esoteric hardware out there; at best we might get binary drivers for the things we don't write outselves (with a few notable exceptions). So the question arrises, what happens when Linus and Co want to make major changes in the kernel? Do they go ahead and break drivers that allow your mother to play the newest fps? Or do they try to work the changes in via some kludgy hack? Or maybe don't make the changes at all? The same can be said for things like glibc, and many other libraries. What happens when they *need* to change?

Seems to me that Linux is a bit young to have to start worring about being a major gaming platform. Especially with the changes in 2.3.x, new XFree, etc. Maybe we should wait until things settle down a bit before we start thinking about trying to get the best games ported to Linux. How are developers going to feel when they put their time and money into porting some fabulous game, then some major changes role in and break it? They probably won't port another game, making us lose games in the long run.

I think in the future Linux may be a viable gaming platform, but things are moving so fast that we may drive off future ports. Just my opinion anyway.

Militant Linux Geeks

[fence]

These Militant Linux Geeks are a major issue today. While helpful to the development of Linux because they are often programmers who like to go in and hack around in the code, they are also potentially a threat to the OS. These are not people who use Linux because it is better; these are people who use Linux because they like the elitism that Linux gives them. They prefer to understand things that others don't.

This is an excellent point--I've come across several folks who are relatively new Linux users (I've been using/developing under Linux since '94) but consider themselves "Linux Gods".

The elitist attitude that they spout forth does more to damage the Linux "cause" than they know.
---
Interested in the Colorado Lottery?

Re:Militant Linux Geeks

[Shoeboy]

>> I've come across several folks who are relatively new Linux users ... but consider themselves "Linux Gods".
> Is there some environment where they are most common?
It's called slashdot.org

--Shoeboy

Re:Militant Linux Geeks

[Netsnipe]

Before I throw in my two cents, I have to disclaim that there is a tinge of militant elitism within me, but there is a limit to how far it goes. Please do not flame me, because this interpretation is my own and it do represent the views of the Debian community.

"...these are people who use Linux because they like the elitism that Linux gives them. They prefer to understand things that others don't...but these users pose a threat because they often scare mainstream users and investors away from Linux because they make Linux look like a hostile environment... many geeks, militants, and elite users are using hardcore distributions such as Debian and Slackware"

The writer James Hill certainly paints "self-fancied hardcore" Linux users in a bad light, especially those using distributions such as Debian and Slackware, but these extreme cases militant elites are exaggerated and represent only a small part of the community.

The majority of elite users of Linux are NOT generally hostile to new users. I believe that Hill has misinterpreted their motives entirely. Just pop into the Openproject's IRC network irc.openprojects.net and into any of the semi-official and de facto IRC rooms for distributions such as #Debian and see how many users, no matter how arrogant they seem at first are willing to guide newbies through to fixing their problems.

The "schism" appearing between hardcore militants and mainstream users is not aimed at users themselves, but at the vendors that are developing the easier to use distributions. Elitists are proud of the Unix tradition, remember their roots, and see the new rash of distributions as more of a threat and more often than not, a pollutant that threatens to bring in the same problems that have rendered platforms such as Windows impotent. A hindering pollutant from the Old World of Microsoft that Linux does not need.

Sure newbies will always need easy-to-use point and click UIs to let them get a foothold in Linux, but we don't wish for them to cling onto the same principles that drive those distributions. But they have to realise that there is much more to Linux than KDE and simplistic programs.

Elite users are not hostile to Linux users; most of them are willing to help any new user become just as skilled in using Linux as they are - as long as they are using the same "hardcore" distributions, not giving into shallow marketing campaigns and adopt the same principles that many of us share such. This is so that they too can enjoy Linux to the same depth as hardcore Linux users believe the rest of the populus should.

Re:SUPERB IDEA I JUST HAD

[a troll]

As a troll, I hate to make an intelligent post, but I'll be proud to sacrifice my karma to give it an initial rating of '1' before the fascdot moderators show up.

If Blizzard did port Diablo2 to linux, very few people would buy it because if they had really wanted it they would have already have bought the Windows version.

In addition, the usual intelligent arguments about that Blizzard won't/can't anyways. etc.
---

No, I *Never* Troll...

[Sir_Winston]

Why do so many of the more zealous people believe that anyone who disagrees with them is trolling?

> Not in Windows 2000 you don't. You have \WINNT\Profiles\\My Documents

Most Windows users do not use Win2K. Most Windows users, especially end users, use Win9x/ME, and that has the dir structure I outlined. When the 2 OSes, Win2K and the 9x codebase, get merged into one unified OS for both consumer and business desktops, I would expect that they'll go with the 9x/ME dir structure because it's what end users and most business users (non sysadmin types) would prefer. So my point stands and I'll ignore your tangential argument about the NT/2K dir structure, which I repeat will probably be replaced in the next release with a more consumer friendly 9x style since it will be intended for home users too.

> And about that tasks folder, have you ever tried to edit a task on a remote system?

No, because I am an end user and not a systems administrator. I don't need to do a damned thing remotely, like 99% of computer users. Don't assume that the average user does stuff like that, they don't, so it's a pointless argument. While I do have more knowledge than the *average* user, and less than an *average sysadmin*, at least I know enough to make arguments and points that are useful and relevant to a discussion about how OSes work for the vast majority of people. The vast majority find the Linux directory structure confusing and too restrictive, with the Windows system making much more sense.

> Have you tried this? I have. It's a sure way to break third party applications

Poorly coded ones, I'm sure, however any third party apps made by *real* developers work fine. I did once try that; for fun I installed Win95 on my laptop in a directory called FuckingUseless.

> Unless you share the workstation with others. In which case you HAVE done something bad.

I repeat, start thinking like a user, not like a developer. What percentage of Windows machines used as either workstations or home computers are single-user? I'd bet the vast, vast majority are, in which case customizing the directory structure is fine. Not just fine: PRODUCTIVE. I get things done much faster when the PC is set up with the directories how I like them. And since most Windows boxen are single-user, this means that it's a great feature. Stop thinking like an admin, start thinking like a user.

> I think the real difference is that you don't really grasp that Win98 is a single
> user system and Linux is a multi-user (timesharing) system and that tradeoffs need to be made

No no no no no no no. You don't seem to understand that I'm talking about workstations and home computers, not servers and shared corporate machines. This is the fundamental problem with a faction in the Linux community: some people refuse to start looking at how Linux needs to evolve in order to replace Windows both at the workstation and the home computer levels. I'm not a fan of Microsoft, and I'm not a troll. I use MS operating systems because, for a GUI user like me, who also likes easier-to-use Windows-style apps, I can get things done faster and more efficiently in Windows even when I factor in a daily crash. I don't expect the Linux community to make things more like Windows in order to cater to my personal needs, but the *fact* remains that if you ever want to replace Windows, if you ever want to eradicate MS both from the corporate and home desktops, you have to start thinking about what non-geek and even windoze-geek and mac-geek end users want: ease of use. We don't care about how it works well in a milti-user setup, because most users use single-user workstations and home PCs. MS understands this, and as long as Linux geeks want to continue to write for Linux geeks while ignoring the mass of users, MS will always dominate. I don't want it to, but that's the way it is.

Dreamcast is not WinCE-based

[TheInternet]

Dreamcast is really best thought of as a WinCE based, Java capable, net console, that also plays some pretty kickass games for a 128bit graphics system with a total of only 24MB of RAM.

Dreamcast is not WinCE-based, it is WinCE-capable. Each piece of software can opt to use WinCE as its operating system, or an alternative. I believe most shipping games use an alternative.

- Scott


------
Scott Stevenson

Apple corrections

[TheInternet]

The problem (and how Linux cannot fall into the same trap) is that Apple refuses to bend the needs of the OS towards developers' needs. All the standards for UI and UI consistency across apps doesn't do a heap of good when iD is trying to port Quake III Arena to the system, which has its own UI.

I have to admit, I don't really get this point. I don't see how having interface guidelines impeded Quake III development. I also don't see how this situation is signficantly more difficult than the Windows side of things.

Apple has to get off its bandwagon and start positioning OpenGL within the system (as they are doing in MacOS X) NOW to developers, instead of continuting to push stale standards like QuickDraw (Apple's Vietnam, next to OpenDoc).

Ummm, okay.

First, Apple has been pushing OpenGL as the primary Mac 3D API for more than a year and a half. Here is the original press release. It has been standard issue since last October.

And as for QuickDraw being "Apple's Vietnam", QuickDraw is actually the foundation for 2D graphics on all versions of Mac OS prior to X (Mac OS X uses Quartz). Every single Mac application ever created uses it. QuickDraw 3D, however, was a good 3D API. There was no other reasonable alternative when Apple created it. Some Mac developers feel that it is easier to developer for QD3D, but Apple realizes that OpenGL is the standard, so it is (wisely) backing it. And unlike OpenGL, QuickDraw 3D has a standard file format (3DMF).
------
Scott Stevenson

Primitive?

[Motor]

Is anyone else sick of Windows people saying "primitive command line"?

Maybe it's because they used to be forced into using the DOS command line - a brain-damaged version of a unix shell.

I recently heard it from a guy who flunked out of a Solaris sysadmin teaching program. Apparently, he couldn't handle having to compile up Apache ... following the instructions was too much for him (how he expected to sysadmin without basic computer knowledge, and why he thought he should be paid £30,000+ is another matter).

Why can't these people realise there is more than one way to access a computer - and that a command line is often the best for certain jobs, and a GUI for others?

ummmm.....

[fluxrad]

Linux, the new kid on the OS block

does anyone else find it exceedingly odd that an OS that's older than 95, 98, and the majority of the NT strain of Winvirus is the new OS on the block?!?!

Wouldn't that make Windows 2000 some sort of embryonic OS???


FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network

No Way--Windows Dir Structure Makes *More* Sense

[Sir_Winston]

In your root drive you have, in Windows, a \My Documents folder for most user stuff (if you choose to use it for that), a \Program Files folder for applications, a \Recycle Bin for trashed files, and a \Windows folder for the actual system files. That makes sense. The \Windows folder is then subdivided into folders for different types of components, and most of the folder names make sense--like, \Command is where the command-line stuff is, \Tasks is where scheduled tasks are kept, etc.

But the most important thing about Windows is that you don't even have to use its directory structure at all. You can fsck up the names entirely, installing Windows into a directory called \MSSUCKS and using the registry or any number of third-party graphical programmes to change the other usual system folders into whatever you want--and because the information about which folder does what is stored in the Registry, almost all installation routines will still work properly, and if they don't automatically pick the right folder a few clicks will point them to the right one.

Of course, there's little reason to completely change most system folder names, but the huge advantage of the Windows directory structure is that you can add your own directories in the root of the main drive without feeling as if you're doing something "bad." For example, my root directory looks like this:

Desktop - I like to use an open folder for my main workspace, and keep the "real desktop" clear.

Downloads - I put all my downloaded stuff here, subdivided into \Documents \Installers \Icons \Pictures and several other types.

Games - All my game programs, because I prefer them separate from the rest of my apps and adding them to a subdir in \Program Files doesn't seem as useful as giving them their own dir.

Girls - Well, pictures of girls, mostly porn, further subdirectoried into \Amateurs \Bestiality \BJs \Bondage \Cartoons \Cheerleaders \Facials, and many others. ;-)

MP3s - Since I have so many, and use them so often, they deserve their own root folder instead of being in Downloads.

My Documents- I use this folder only for documents I myself write and pictures and mpegs I myself scan and capture, not for all user stuff.

Program Files- Duh, all the non-game programs

Temp - I prefer my Temp dir in the root of the drive, not in \Windows, so I changed it.

Toolbars - I use two big toolbars on my desktop, which is one of the reasons I work in a window called Desktop instead of putting documents and icons and shortcuts on the real desktop--the Left and Right toolbars list all the shortcuts I ever use, and put everything just 1-click away. So, the folders full of shortcuts which I use in the toolbars are here.

Windows - The system files.

To me, this layout makes sense. In Windows you are free to customize the directory structure as much as you want, to create a machine that is easiest for you to work with. In Linux, everyone always tells you "this must go here" "that must go there" "keep all user files here." Bollocks, it makes no sense for me personally to have a root filesystem that isn't optimal for my personal configuration. And what the Hell is up with /usr /usr/local /lib /usr/lib??? HUH??? Talk about confusing structure. But in Windows, all the system stuff is in \Windows and all the apps are in \Program Files and that makes sense.

As for your question about how the directory structure under C:\Progam Files\ should be, the answer is "whatever you like it to be." I find it amusing how Linux users like to be able to customize their window managers and desktops, but say woe to the man who customizes his directory structure... Don't get me wrong, I'm not flaming or anything, I'm just saying that Windows *does* make sense in its directory structure, more so than Linux because customizing that structure is easy and you aren't expected to always stay within a rigid hierarchy. For example, in my ow \Program Files directory, I subdivide by type of application, like \CD Burners \Compression \DVD Utils \Graphics \HTML Editors \Internet \Office Apps \System Utils and a few other directories. It makes perfect sense and makes me able to navigate quickly and easily.

I think the fundamental difference here is that the Linux directory structure makes a lot of sense for command-line users, because everything is in short hierarchical directory names that you can type to quickly if you know where they are supposed to be. But Windows directory structure is better for GUI users, because the names are longer and more descriptive and the structure can be easily put into custom configurations perfect for point-and-click quickness.

Re:It's all about standards and driver implementat

[Inoshiro]

1) Linux drivers are not at all like Windows drivers. We have loadable modules, not VxDs. You could setup a system let people download a Makefile + source + shell script to auto compile, copy to /lib/modules/{kernel}, and insmod/add to /etc/rc.d structure very easily. Which would address your point.

2) I fail to see why you are saying this. DRI does this now. Linux 2.4.x-pre supports your USB devices now (and will be released RSN :)). The only missing glue is the input API. Perasonally, I wouldn't mind it if SDL became standard. It works on almost everything now.

3) I'm not sure what you're aiming at. Putting game binaries in /usr/local/bin or /usr/local/games with the data files in /usr/local/games/lib/{game name} is an accepted standard.

Btw: OpenDoc is Corba, and is alive and well in Gnome, etc. Please keep your facts straight.
---

Militant Linux users

[Sayjack]

These Militant Linux Geeks are a major issue today. While helpful to the development of Linux because they are often programmers who like to go in and hack around in the code, they are also potentially a threat to the OS. These are not people who use Linux because it is better; these are people who use Linux because they like the elitism that Linux gives them. They prefer to understand things that others don't.

There are a few of these around. I suspect that a large percentage of them are former Amiga owners (Which holds a special place in my heart as a truly magnificent machine). I have always been amused to see these folk arguing "My OS is harder to use than your OS so I'm superior so nyaaah".

I've also never quite understood the BSD/Linux and Linux distribution controversies. It really doesn't matter to me which distribution of Linux or whether BSD ends up taking over the largest marketshare as long as some Linux derivative is out there competing effectively with Microsoft.

To me, it's all unix. I tend to select my distributions based on who has the biggest marketshare not because I favor one over the other, but because I want to support a move for consolidation among the distributions and because I haven't seen enough difference between the distributions to really care (I've used RedHat, Mandrake and Slackware). I use my system to do real work and from my viewpoint each distribution enables me to do it remarkably well.

On the other hand, I have a windows partition because

1. I sometimes like to play games which aren't available to linux
2. My wife likes to surf the net and hasn't quite got the hang of the linux command line.
3. Linux doesn't have visio *yet*.
4. If my wife screws up the computer, at least the damage is contained within the windows partition which doesn't really contain anything valuable anyhow (except perhaps my previous high scores :-))

The Linux mantra nowdays consists of "World Domination", but the Linux militants seem to want to keep it within the fold of the hardcore unix geeks. Sorry guys, you can't have your cake and eat it too. World domination comes hand in hand with user friendliness.

"Standards" conflict

[expunged]

My problem with the article is the talk of "standards". In section 3 (standards), he says:
Many people are working to create standards today such as the Linux Standards Board or LSB. This group is working to create standards for how Linux operates. While the lack of standards is an area that threatens to kill Linux right now, it is changing dramatically as the OS becomes more mainstream.

Later, in section #10 (distributions and open sourcce), he says:
You have no options as to how Windows 98 will look, act, or what applications will be included.

and

With Linux however, that product can be specialized to give your customers EXACTLY what you or they want. Furthermore, you are never stuck with a single vendor.

So, because windows has so many "standards", it's light years ahead of linux in that department. But because of those "standards", you are stuck buying from one vendor. Hello.

When we start to have "standards" aren't we erasing the choices that many of us make that make our systems different but also make them *ours*? I don't like KDE and I don't like enlightenment, but somehow these have become "standard" to new users as to what a window manager and a desktop environment are. They never got to make the choice. Some people are the same way with their feelings about bash, but it's the majority of default shells on linux distributions.

I think the LSB and others that have standards goals need to be more specific as to what these standards are. Are they something like "a distribution must contain these applications and use these environments" or "a desktop environment must have these features"?

I think "standards" can go too far. I don't *want* a unified linux. I don't want to be forced to use something I can't stand. I want to be able to choose the look and feel of my computer from numerous different vendors.

I don't think the "let's be like windows" solution is a good one.

-nicole

Why the hell does Gamespy care about Linux?

[Wee]

It's not like they actually have a Linux port of gamespy or anything, is it? So why do they bother? I think maybe they should just move on to other topics...

And why do they talk about driver issues and "user support" differences in the OS'es? Please. Linux ain't windows, never will be. I figure that anyone who wants to get Linux running their Nvidia, SB Live, Athlon Big Gaming Box Bad Boy probably doesn't give a rat's ass about how to get drivers installed. They could probably actually figure it out without Gamespy bothering to mention it to them. Gamespy's article doesn't really break any new ground, does it? I mean, it's not like the Linux gaming issues are big secrets, right? Two points to Gamespy for stating the obvious.

People just don't use Linux for gaming that much -- it's still best as a server and a rock-solid workstation. Yeah, it's nice to play Q3 sometimes, but not crucial. Windows is still better at gaming, probably because MS gives hard/software developers one place to aim. I know a lot of people that dual-boot just to play games. To me and them, windows is the console of the computing world: we use Linux to get stuff done and windows as a game machine. Another point and a half to Gamespy for much ado about gaming nothing.

Although I might be talking out my ass, though. Once I can run both Eudora and Tribes2 on my Linux partition, that windows drive I've got is in serious jeopardy...

-B

Free-ISPs; Linux doesn't get a 10 for question #9

[Spoing]

9. ISP and Cable modem support

Linux - 3 / 10 (promoted / actual)

Windows 98 - 10 / 8

For general networking, Linux is amazing.

Having said that, there is one area for ISP support that Linux isn't as good as Windows; free ISPs. Most free services either require Windows or are hostile to non-Windows systems, including Macintosh and BSD.

On top of that, some free ISPs are thwarting attempts to login using anything except for the Windows-only tools they provide. The reason is simple; a Linux system connecting to these services doesn't use the ad-laden login tools, so the free services can't justify allowing these freeloaders on thier systems!

I think getting a free ISP for the cost of some advertising is a fine exchange...but the ISPs are not doing anything to get thier ads on the 'un-supported' systems. Catch-22? You decide.

So, while many free ISPs can be made to work with Linux, fewer support it and a few are actively making it harder to use thier services.

Because of the minimal support by free ISPs for anything that isn't IE under MS Windows 98, I'd can't give Linux a 10 out of 10 in this category.

In a blatent attempt to get people to tell me something I don't know, here's what I do know so far.

First off, this month Juno -- a free ISP that hasn't supported Linux in the past -- has bought both FreeWWW and Worldspy -- two ISPs that have had support for Linux. Some people have complained that Juno's free service can't use Netscape or other browsers and requires IE...though I'd like to know if that's the case or not. Supposedly there's a way around this.

Free ISPs that can be used with Linux;

www.freewwweb.com

Freeweb Linux link; read the notes on Juno's buy out of Freewww

Worldspy - Bought out by Juno

www.freei.net

www.netzero.com- first have to set up in Windows to get encrypted password/ID, then put in login under Linux

www.freedsl.com - I know nothing; some Linux users. See this link to a Usenet post

Notes on how to use different free ISPs; I'd give attribution for the information below but I didn't keep it when I first grabbed it!

[Most of this is from Deja and Google from 2 months ago; I didn't write it, I'm just passing it along.]

1. freei.net - download the software, get your local access number and use something like kppp (or pppd for you people that like to make things hard...). your login name is @.freei.net. your password is the one you entered when you signed up.

   -----

   A very good success story. If you and your friend are looking for a backup to freewwweb, Worldspy does work (with a little effort) but you need to setup and run the process from Windows in order to obtain the DNS info along with the cryptic user name. That means that if your username you signed up with is Ron123 then your Linux name to key into kppp will be something like: nvnet.asdfasdf@microportal.com . Trust me it does work and several others on this NG have made it happen as well. Good luck. blariz

   --------

   Better go to http://autoreg.freewwweb.com/ for a fast registration without downloading those huge browsers.

   -----------

   Well, that sort of depends on the definition of 'is'! :-)

   I had noticed two mentioned, FREEWWWEB and DIAL4LIFE. I went to the web site for freewwweb to get an access number, but they all end with XXXX, which doesn't work. So I then went to dial4life and looked up their access numbers. It turned out to be the same list of towns and numbers except this one had the last 4 digits posted correctly. I followed the link to their instructions, and lo and behold, I was back at freewwweb!

   So, I ended up installing freewwweb using the dial number I found at dial4life. And it WORKED! That little bit of good luck was my payback for putting in two solid weeks of hell trying to get linux installed at all!

   BTW, I wasn't asked for a credit card at all.

   -----------

   I just called worldspy's tech support and asked about Linux and he said "you could try it, but they don't support it". I then asked if they used pap authentication and the support guy had no idea what I was talking about. I had tried it briefly this morning before going to work and got the connect, but immediately pppd died (I'm assuming because of the username/password authentication). I don't know whether that's because they don't use PAP or whether my account that I had just signed up for 30 minutes earlier hadn't been activated yet.

   ------

   Actually I had to do a little hacking but didn't have any problem. I use Win95's dialer when in Win95. After installing worldspy.net and getting frustrated with all the windows that are used just to log on, I decided to find a way around them. Checking the DUN file it created for dialing I found that my user name was relaced with a code that looks like a wierd email address. Then I created a new dialer and copied the code to it and used my normal password. It worked! I logged on without going through all the BS they give you. Next I switched to Linux and set up ppp the same way and it works too. Now I have a FREE ISP with none of the BS, not even their home page. Try it, you'll like it.

   -----

   The ticket is to get a bogus account set up under Win98, then run RASSpy or a logging program to get the user/password strings (which are usually encrypted or modified by their software) required for a straight logon, then just configure a standard call-up profile with this info in whatever program you're using, then throw away all the FISP's software. Works for any platform or O/S.

   Instant raw ISP!

   Naturally, you get rid of all their ads, timeouts, spyware and other crap in the bargain.

   Some FISPs have gotten wise to this hack and have blocked logging in their DUN profiles or made it impossible to run RASSpy, but at least 2/3 are still hackable using this workaround.

   NetZero, which is otherwise pretty high-quality access, has made this impossible in v.3, but if you can get an earlier version of the software you can run the hack and use the info for a clean login.

   Juno, Freei, Bluelight and a whole bunch more are currently easy to do this with. I get faster connects with NetZero and NZ is less congested than the other FISPs I've tried, but this may vary from user to user.

Re:No Way--Windows Dir Structure Makes *More* Sens

[Shoeboy]

The windows dir structure makes sense? When did that happen? I suspect you're trolling, but I'll respond anyway -- I like trolls.

In your root drive you have, in Windows, a \My Documents folder for most user stuff (if you choose to use it for that)
Not in Windows 2000 you don't. You have \WINNT\Profiles\\My Documents\ How does that compare with /home//docs?

\Program Files folder for applications
Which, incidentally, you need to have on each drive if you're committed to putting apps in that folder. Since drives get mounted under an individual letter, there's no way to have a coherent filesystem hierarchy on a system with multiple drives.

a \Windows folder for the actual system files. That makes sense. The \Windows folder is then subdivided into folders for different types of components, and most of the folder names make sense--like, \Command is where the command-line stuff is, \Tasks is where scheduled tasks are kept, etc.
\WINNT on real MS operating systems. I object to the assertion that this makes more sense than /bin. You can convince me otherwise by explaining why I have a \WINNT\system and a \WINNT\system32? And about that tasks folder, have you ever tried to edit a task on a remote system? Here's what happens, you mount the \\server\admin$ share, you cd to tasks, suddenly there's the tasks folder on your own box! There's no way to open that folder on a remote box through the GUI. There's also no tool supplied to edit them through the command line and no remote management tool. To top it all off, the scheduled tasks component REPLACES the reasonably functional AT service that NT has been shipping with forever.

You can fsck up the names entirely, installing Windows into a directory called \MSSUCKS and using the registry or any number of third-party graphical programmes to change the other usual system folders into whatever you want
Have you tried this? I have. It's a sure way to break third party applications. Broke a lot of in house apps too, and I was working at MS at the time. Even a lot of older MS applications couldn't handle it.

the huge advantage of the Windows directory structure is that you can add your own directories in the root of the main drive without feeling as if you're doing something "bad." Unless you share the workstation with others. In which case you HAVE done something bad. Your files go in %windir%\profiles\username on NT. In linux they go in ~username. Only castrated systems that don't support multiple users make it easy to pollute the top level directory.

To me, this layout makes sense. In Windows you are free to customize the directory structure as much as you want, to create a machine that is easiest for you to work with.
If you ever work on a shared system, you'll lose this freedom in a hurry.

In Linux, everyone always tells you "this must go here" "that must go there" "keep all user files here." Bollocks, it makes no sense for me personally to have a root filesystem that isn't optimal for my personal configuration.
No one has ever cracked my linux box and criticized my filesystem layout. I doubt it's happened to you. You can fuck with the filesystem all you want as long as you're using it as a single user box.

And what the Hell is up with /usr /usr/local /lib /usr/lib??? HUH??? Talk about confusing structure. But in Windows, all the system stuff is in \Windows and all the apps are in \Program Files and that makes sense.
So what's in \WINNT\Driver Cache and how does it differ from \WINNT\System32\DLLCache and how does this differ from \WINNT\System32\Cache? It seems that the details are always a bit fuzzy. And how do I know if a dll is in \Program Files\Common or \Program Files\Office?

I think the fundamental difference here is that the Linux directory structure makes a lot of sense for command-line users, because everything is in short hierarchical directory names that you can type to quickly if you know where they are supposed to be. But Windows directory structure is better for GUI users, because the names are longer and more descriptive and the structure can be easily put into custom configurations perfect for point-and-click quickness.
I think the real difference is that you don't really grasp that Win98 is a single user system and Linux is a multi-user (timesharing) system and that tradeoffs need to be made to keep one user from mucking with anothers files. NT makes a lot of those tradeoffs too.

--Shoeboy

It's all about standards and driver implementation

[Fervent]

As the article points out, the major issues holding Linux back today from being a viable gaming platform are standards and driver implementation. I've only been able to get a few games to properly work with my system (after numerous hours downloading and adjusting new drivers). Some games won't work at all. This is a far cry from Windows 98 SE.

What Linux needs to push it into the realm of gaming heaven:

1.) A feature like WindowsUpdate, which downloads and installs the latest drivers for hardware. This is an underappreciated Godsend for Windows users (where I dabble on occasion). Why can't a Linux distributor, particularly a highly-paid one like Corel, Caldera or RedHat, implement a simple website which includes up-to-date driver downloads? I don't mean the "system updates" that RedHat offers, with the simple updates to the kernel. I'm talking full-on driver updates, something I can just click and it will say "You are not using the best drivers for your GeForce board? Should I download and install the newest ones for you?" Review the changes (of course) and bam, one step closer to gaming heaven.

2.) A better standardized X needs to be in place. I want full support for DirectX-like screen calls and antialiasing for fonts. I want OpenGL embedded in the system itself if I'm going to use it. I want support for USB devices like mice out of box. I know this is going to be difficult, but these are areas Windows is flogging Linux in. I can set up a Windows 98 system, plug in a few peripherals, have the system detect them, install the latest DirectX and bam, full support for 99.9% of the best games out there.

3.) Position Linux to developers as a viable gaming platform. This is the most difficult task, and can only be done after the first 2 are completed. The Mac has been jockeying for developer support for years. The problem (and how Linux cannot fall into the same trap) is that Apple refuses to bend the needs of the OS towards developers' needs. All the standards for UI and UI consistency across apps doesn't do a heap of good when iD is trying to port Quake III Arena to the system, which has its own UI. Apple has to get off its bandwagon and start positioning OpenGL within the system (as they are doing in MacOS X) NOW to developers, instead of continuting to push stale standards like QuickDraw (Apple's Vietnam, next to OpenDoc).

These are not simple changes, but they are necessary to gaming development on the Linux platform. Hopefully distributors will realize them and get Linux in a position where it can take over Microsoft's PC gaming crown.

Confusing directory structure?

[sparty]

Does anyone else find the Windows directory structure more of a PITA than *nix? It seems to me that /etc, /usr, /usr/local, /lib, /usr/lib/, and /home all have a fairly defined purpose, whereas %WINDIR% (whether it be C:\WINDOWS or C:\WINNT or whatever) tends to a black hole, there usually isn't a $HOME, the directory structure under C:\PROGRA~1 is often odd (do programs go in C:\PROGRA~1\company\proggie or just C:\PROGRA~1\proggie?), and there's a whole lot of crap in C:\, etc

They forgot speed.

[be-fan]

True, Windows is and for the forseeable future will stay faster than Linux. Why? Mainly because of DirectX. DirectX is essentially a tool to allow developers to shove aside Windows. While running a DirectX application, Windows is effectivally shut out for a great deal of the time. Running in exclusive mode DirectDraw, for example, gives around 90-something% of the processor time to the application. It allows direct access to hardware, and essentially behaves like DOS with standardized hardware acceleration. This is the exact kind of behaviour Linux (and UNIX in general) prevents against. While multiple users, and the general abstraction and generality of UNIX's design may be great for some things, it is not great for games. Case in point: DRI. DRI is an attempt to to put direct hardware access into Linux. It does it in the UNIX-way (client-server, abstracted, general and portable) and it seems hurts performance in the process. Otherwise NVIDIA probably would have chosen THAT for its drivers instead of creating its own kernel driver (which I think probably behaves a lot more rudely to the OS than does DRI). Before you flame me, think of the reasons behind their desicion. Making their own system certainly wasn't to protect source code, they could have made binary DRI drivers. It certainly hurt them, because they have to spend much more effort to maintain drivers in sync with kernel versions and XFree86 updates, plus they lose any other *NIX users. The only reason they could have chosen to do their own is because DRI wasn't fast enough. And if it doesn't work for NVIDIA, that's a big warning sign. They have the fastest hardware available, and will for the near future, and if it doesn't serve their needs, then something is wrong with the system. Also, it seems to me, that DRI just won't cut it for the broad range of cards at the consumer level. They all depend on varying different models of rendering, and by not allowing apps direct access to the drivers, DRI inherently preaches a particular way of rendering. For a marginal OS, that is very dangerous, because the hardware vendors will NOT give a thought to the needs of DRI while they're designing hardware. SGI pulled this off, because THEY design the hardware AND software, but Linux doesn't have this luxury. I use this point (DRI) to try to explain that the "UNIX-way" just won't work with games. While its flexibility, stability, and tweekability make it a great OS for many tasks, it just doesn't work for games. In fact many of these traits (its flexibility and the abstraction that leads to stability and portability) actually work AGAINST it being a good gaming OS.