DX11 Coming To Linux (But Not XP)

gr8_phk writes "As reported over at Phoronix, the Direct X 11 API now has an open source implementation on top of Gallium3d which should ease porting of games to Linux with or without Wine. While still in its infancy, you can see where this is heading. All this while Microsoft hasn't offered DX11 for their own aging WindowsXP. Could it be that Linux may soon support this Microsoft API better than Microsoft itself?"

Comments

Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you?

[mark-t]

Because I can't help but think that this may be some sort of scheme to put OpenGL out of the picture....

I'm generally not one to presume conspiracy right off the bat, but there's something about this that just doesn't quite seem on the up-and-up, IMO.

Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you?

[Beelzebud]

Except this isn't being done my MS. Like it or not, modern game companies are using Direct X more and more. OpenGL is already out of the picture, for the most part. With people like John Carmack now even coding in Direct X, it makes sense to try to get a solution for Linux.

Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you?

[mewsenews]

OpenGL is already out of the picture, for the most part.

OTOH, Macs run OpenGL and are stereotyped as having an affluent user base. Blizzard still releases Mac versions of games. Steam for Mac launched in May. Not really "out of the picture" yet.

Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you?

[fnj]

As the developer claimed:

the Direct3D 10/11 APIs are vastly better than OpenGL and can be supported with orders of magnitude less code and development time

I call BULL SHIT. I call it loudly and I call it with a big raspberry. Because: OH REALLY??? ONE HUNDRED or more times more code and development time? Thats what "orders of magnitude" with an "s" means.

Re:Does this smack of a hidden agenda to you?

[Anonymous Coward]

DirectX 10+ is vastly superior to what is available on Linux for writing apps,

1. Direct3D - OpenGL is OK. It's not the largest problem after all!

2. DirectInput - what is the Linux analogy? Using X.Org shitty API? It's akin to using Windows' WM_KEYPRESS and similar messages to do keyboard interface, except it's even more cryptic. X.Org is OK for desktop apps, like Win32 API is OK for desktop apps, but that's about it.

3. DirectSound - let's not even get started on the horrendous crap ALSA has become. It's a prime example of *over-engineered*, unusable project. Hell, even my headset returns multiple interfaces while in fact it is 2 channels OUT, 1 channel IN. Yet in Alsa it has a shit ton of options that are completely useless, like emulating 7.1 input. WTF??

Here's more proof how crap ALSA is,
      http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/alsa-lib/index.html

Even the documentation is a mess. Click on high level control interface and you get a blank page!
    http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/alsa-lib/hcontrol.html

Going from a different path (modules => high level interface), thus ignoring the main navigation page gets me a page with NO overview, *nothing*.
    http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-doc/alsa-lib/group___h_control.html

ALSA is one of many OSS projects that makes me ashamed of OSS. You look at projects like PostgreSQL that has *clear* and *concise* documentation available,
      http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.0/static/index.html
to something like ALSA, and you want to cry. ALSA looks like overengineered project by a 20 year old that simply ignored making any documentation. Winsauce!

DirectX is NOT only about graphics. It's too bad that Linux/XOrg tends to be barely about graphics and almost nothing about the rest.

And I'm speaking as someone that uses Linux 100% of the time.

Re:OEM vs. retail pricing; pro vs. home

[MBGMorden]

The OEM version is available with any hardware purchase. My understanding is that to meet the requirement when ordering just the software they'll throw in a tiny "hardware" component (usually a screw or a cable) to legitimize it. If you have ANY other piece of hardware in your order though then even that is not needed.

In regard to features, you have a point there, though several features that were limited to the "Professional" version of XP (such as SMP support) have migrated to the "Home" version of Windows 7. That's assuming they were even using XP Pro. I know a lot of people that were using XP Home just fine. And if you really do need Professional, then the OEM Windows 7 Pro is only $40 more than Home Premium.