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

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: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.
---

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?

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.

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.