Basically the title

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        30·
        2 months ago

        Browser too, and the whole activeX, and DirectX api system to practically force windows only development.

          • Mactan@lemmy.ml
            242·
            2 months ago

            for the millionth time they get to stand on the shoulders on all the wine development that came before it. and now we have to reckon with the bullshit of proton patches that never go upstream to make wine better for all

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              4·
              2 months ago

              for the millionth time

              Why are you mad at me? Have I ever even interacted with you before?

              Calm down.

              • Mactan@lemmy.ml
                2·
                2 months ago

                Coincidently one of the things they list (named pipes) as an improvement is something I’ve had a nuisance with for years. there’s multiple things that I would love wine to have that it does not but proton does

                • nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  @mactan @drosophila Problem I run into is most of the games I play have a rootkit anti-cheat and that does not work with wine. So I’m forced to do a virtual machine with virtual gpu pass-through. Big pain in the ass to setup and Ubuntu pretty regularly breaks it with various “upgrades”.

            • Soluna@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              11·
              2 months ago

              Tbf if wine were released under regular GNU instead of LGPL, Valve wouldn’t have been able to make Proton proprietary, and so their contributions would also be open source. It is unfortunate that this is the situation, but by using the LGPL license WINE basically permitted this, no?

                • Soluna@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                  4·
                  2 months ago

                  Okay my bad, I think I just misunderstand BSD-3 and read somewhere that Proton is Valve’s proprietary software. In terms of open source software, the only licenses I’m really familiar with are GNU, Apache, and MIT. So I read one thing online saying Proton was proprietary and assumed BSD-3 was a proprietary license without looking into it further.

            • IceFoxX@lemm.ee
              12·
              2 months ago

              Criticism may be justified, but without Proton, how far would wine have come? Without Steamdeck + proton, gaming would still be a no-go for linux and absolutely not worth mentioning. So fewer users would have switched to linux.

              OK let go back and bring wine forward … Maybe it will be something in 10-20 years ( well for released titles and not future Titels.)

      • nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
        6·
        2 months ago

        @Mwa @wildbus8979 Yes, early on there was AT&T and Berkley, System-V became AT&T’s mainstream though there were off-shoots like CB-Unix for PDP11/70’s which only had 64k I+D space, and Berkeley had 4.2 and 4.3BSD, and now you have offshoots of those, such as FreeBSD and NETBSD, MacOS is a highly mutilated BSD sitting atop a Mach micro-kernel with the Mac finder sitting on top of the whole mess. The Mach microkernel provides a layer of hardware abstraction that makes it easy to jump between architectures as Mac has often done. What I do not like about MacOS is that they include only drivers necessary for their hardware and forbid the use on Non-Mac’s by license. This limits your selection of things like video cards to those they specifically chose to use.

        • Mwa@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          Ohh yeah locked down unix like the one used in game consoles like Playstation and Nintendo switch (these consoles are very very locked down no terminal or anything) and macos (less locked down) as well atleast macos you can install outside of the appstore which I HATED on ios and iPados

          • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
            2·
            2 months ago

            I know. At the time of the ACPI debacle, Mac OS X didn’t exist yet, and NeXT was essentially irrelevant because a) it didn’t run x86 and b) it only ran on proprietary hardware.

            • nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
              11·
              2 months ago

              @wildbus8979 Actually, because it used a Mach microkernel, it could easily be ported to ANY hardware, that is the whole entire point of Mach. Also it did run on the Mc680x0 family and that was what Mac was based upon at the time, prior to Power PC chips, prior to Intel, prior to M chips, and it is precisely that Mach microkernel that enabled the easy transition from one hardware platform to the next.