That’s unfortunately not how re-investing incoming money works.
Gaming on Linux only has a future because Valve used “windows money” to bring it alive.
Gaming on Mac, right now, has no prospects. And as it’s proprietary, the only corporation that can really change that, is apple. There is no reason to spend on it. Is that fair? No.
And apple is just as quilty of business decisions that screw a few users by taking things in a direction that’s better for the company and the majority of its customers.
You don’t need to explain why companies do things but if we’re here it’s worth noting that some companies will burn money to project stability, long term support and to keep options open. They might have some issues but will bank on being a known quality.
Valve is still entirely at mercy of Microsoft which is why they prop up Linux, not because they’re nice or very profitable there. That means they could do a rug-pull the moment it becomes inconvenient. Linux has no stable APIs either and it doesn’t even attempt ABI stability. Linux support hinges on Proton which left unsupported would deteriorate quickly and with no native versions (which are a pain because API/ABI issues mentioned) it could get where Mac is currently rather quickly.
Apple does weird things constantly but other than insistence on Metal (which can be worked around with MoltenVK which Dota2 does) it sounds that Valve thinks their effort, while profitable, is better spent on things that are more profitable. Fair game to them but as a consumer I will voice my grievances.
And as a reminder, my whole point is that it can’t be said that Valve made an effort - it was a one time thing that was quickly left to rot.
But it does seem I DO need to tell you how Linux works.
Linux runs the world. To say it’s unstable is like saying wood is unstable. You can use it to create any conceivable system, because you don’t need to rely on others to change it. Being a “woodworker” is enough. To achieve the things that can be achieved with Linux using osX or Windows, you need to convince their respective wardens to go poking in their code to make the changes you need.
Linux is the definition of stable, because you can grab its entire code-base and just use it for a given need, forever. You can still rely on ten-year-old software if you have to, you can still run deprecated code, and you can apply security patches without losing access to old features. What the hell do you mean by by unstable APIs? If your services need a certain version of something, you just use that. That’s not wise of course, but if all you’re doing is running an old game via openGL, that’s fine.
The same goes for proton. Once a game works, that’s locked in. They only way that will ever break is if any part of the system is updated in a way that makes using an older version of it, impossible. The list of games that proton can run is growing like a compatibility list for a console emulator, once it’s at 100%, only new games will ever make it go down.
I don’t care if a company “projects stability”. Real stability is hardware that doesn’t rely on a corporate computer network to begin with. Games that run regardless of whether steam is installed, phones that work without an account and cloud agnostic software systems like Nextcloud, Collabora, Matrix. LIKE LEMMY FFS!
And Linux is the only OS level software which has that same kind of immortal stability. Code that will still be there, that will still run, and will still be getting worked on by someone, decades from now. To call Linux unstable, is the most incorrect thing I have ever read. Open source development is a ratcheting mechanism that only goes forward. You can’t uncreate FOSS applications, but proprietary systems die all the time, only for more code that does the same thing to be written within a new context, where FOSS systems just use the same code next time.
If someone needs a piece of code, it’s either already been written, or will be written. If it’s already written, it can simply be used. That’s Linux.
For as long as it has users, FOSS code almost always also has developers. Only proprietary systems can go “out of date” due to a lack of updates despite having users.
It seems to me like you are lamenting exactly the types of things, I run AWAY from companies like apple to avoid, yet you attack the very alternatives that could solve those things, and went into the walled garden willingly, expecting to be cared for.
And no, Valve isn’t one of those alternatives. They are a corporation same as any other, but one that happens to be contributing to the solution right now, rather than the problem.
I ran Linux on desktop for 10 years. I run a Linux home server. You aren’t explaining anything, you’re throwing slogans at me. I’m talking about ABI stability and you talk about uptime and recompiling entire OS. Which will eventually break ABI and therefore all proprietary software like video games.
Well, I was hoping to communicate an idea, calling my attempt a collection of slogans is technically accurate… If a little dismissive of the point they try to make.
There is no reason you’d need to include breaking changes in the OS build, if your purpose is to run games. You’d simply create whatever environment that game needed to work.
That a lot of them depend on a lot of other proprietary things not having their plugs pulled in the future, is a part of the problem and legitimate concern, but beside the point.
I’m not talking about uptime, more like continuity. About developing on and for a system that will still be around decades from now, and still be able to do the things you need it to do. Linux, being FOSS, is the only OS that has any chance at that kind of immortality. That’s what I mean by stability. Not even just compatibility, but capability and longevity.
If you want to run openGL on a modern mac, you simply can’t anymore. Windows does a lot better, but it’s becoming a proprietary dinosaur so full of convoluted code microsoft itself is failing to keep it wholly modern.
That a bunch of translation systems are needed is fine, once they exists, they exist. As long as they aren’t proprietary they can continue be applied wherever needed, and improved when possible.
I approve of valve ditching the proprietary world for the potential to make a lasting contribution to the kind of systems that get passed on, and not kept back because the license was private.
That’s unfortunately not how re-investing incoming money works.
Gaming on Linux only has a future because Valve used “windows money” to bring it alive.
Gaming on Mac, right now, has no prospects. And as it’s proprietary, the only corporation that can really change that, is apple. There is no reason to spend on it. Is that fair? No.
And apple is just as quilty of business decisions that screw a few users by taking things in a direction that’s better for the company and the majority of its customers.
You don’t need to explain why companies do things but if we’re here it’s worth noting that some companies will burn money to project stability, long term support and to keep options open. They might have some issues but will bank on being a known quality.
Valve is still entirely at mercy of Microsoft which is why they prop up Linux, not because they’re nice or very profitable there. That means they could do a rug-pull the moment it becomes inconvenient. Linux has no stable APIs either and it doesn’t even attempt ABI stability. Linux support hinges on Proton which left unsupported would deteriorate quickly and with no native versions (which are a pain because API/ABI issues mentioned) it could get where Mac is currently rather quickly.
Apple does weird things constantly but other than insistence on Metal (which can be worked around with MoltenVK which Dota2 does) it sounds that Valve thinks their effort, while profitable, is better spent on things that are more profitable. Fair game to them but as a consumer I will voice my grievances.
And as a reminder, my whole point is that it can’t be said that Valve made an effort - it was a one time thing that was quickly left to rot.
Good.
But it does seem I DO need to tell you how Linux works.
Linux runs the world. To say it’s unstable is like saying wood is unstable. You can use it to create any conceivable system, because you don’t need to rely on others to change it. Being a “woodworker” is enough. To achieve the things that can be achieved with Linux using osX or Windows, you need to convince their respective wardens to go poking in their code to make the changes you need.
Linux is the definition of stable, because you can grab its entire code-base and just use it for a given need, forever. You can still rely on ten-year-old software if you have to, you can still run deprecated code, and you can apply security patches without losing access to old features. What the hell do you mean by by unstable APIs? If your services need a certain version of something, you just use that. That’s not wise of course, but if all you’re doing is running an old game via openGL, that’s fine.
The same goes for proton. Once a game works, that’s locked in. They only way that will ever break is if any part of the system is updated in a way that makes using an older version of it, impossible. The list of games that proton can run is growing like a compatibility list for a console emulator, once it’s at 100%, only new games will ever make it go down.
I don’t care if a company “projects stability”. Real stability is hardware that doesn’t rely on a corporate computer network to begin with. Games that run regardless of whether steam is installed, phones that work without an account and cloud agnostic software systems like Nextcloud, Collabora, Matrix. LIKE LEMMY FFS!
And Linux is the only OS level software which has that same kind of immortal stability. Code that will still be there, that will still run, and will still be getting worked on by someone, decades from now. To call Linux unstable, is the most incorrect thing I have ever read. Open source development is a ratcheting mechanism that only goes forward. You can’t uncreate FOSS applications, but proprietary systems die all the time, only for more code that does the same thing to be written within a new context, where FOSS systems just use the same code next time.
If someone needs a piece of code, it’s either already been written, or will be written. If it’s already written, it can simply be used. That’s Linux.
For as long as it has users, FOSS code almost always also has developers. Only proprietary systems can go “out of date” due to a lack of updates despite having users.
It seems to me like you are lamenting exactly the types of things, I run AWAY from companies like apple to avoid, yet you attack the very alternatives that could solve those things, and went into the walled garden willingly, expecting to be cared for.
And no, Valve isn’t one of those alternatives. They are a corporation same as any other, but one that happens to be contributing to the solution right now, rather than the problem.
I ran Linux on desktop for 10 years. I run a Linux home server. You aren’t explaining anything, you’re throwing slogans at me. I’m talking about ABI stability and you talk about uptime and recompiling entire OS. Which will eventually break ABI and therefore all proprietary software like video games.
Well, I was hoping to communicate an idea, calling my attempt a collection of slogans is technically accurate… If a little dismissive of the point they try to make.
There is no reason you’d need to include breaking changes in the OS build, if your purpose is to run games. You’d simply create whatever environment that game needed to work.
That a lot of them depend on a lot of other proprietary things not having their plugs pulled in the future, is a part of the problem and legitimate concern, but beside the point.
I’m not talking about uptime, more like continuity. About developing on and for a system that will still be around decades from now, and still be able to do the things you need it to do. Linux, being FOSS, is the only OS that has any chance at that kind of immortality. That’s what I mean by stability. Not even just compatibility, but capability and longevity.
If you want to run openGL on a modern mac, you simply can’t anymore. Windows does a lot better, but it’s becoming a proprietary dinosaur so full of convoluted code microsoft itself is failing to keep it wholly modern.
That a bunch of translation systems are needed is fine, once they exists, they exist. As long as they aren’t proprietary they can continue be applied wherever needed, and improved when possible.
I approve of valve ditching the proprietary world for the potential to make a lasting contribution to the kind of systems that get passed on, and not kept back because the license was private.