zlacker

[return to "Building the DirectX shader compiler better than Microsoft?"]
1. mouse_+L9[view] [source] 2024-02-10 11:35:17
>>emidoo+(OP)
Microsoft has no incentive to make good software. Most people will use it no matter what.
◧◩
2. lukan+eg[view] [source] 2024-02-10 12:48:12
>>mouse_+L9
That is not true. People use it as long as the pain of using it, is lower than the pain of switching. Assuming they have even something to switch for.
◧◩◪
3. pjmlp+kh[view] [source] 2024-02-10 13:01:01
>>lukan+eg
Thankfully Valve is doing the good work to keep game developers targeting Windows and DirectX without caring about alternatives on the PC space.
◧◩◪◨
4. WhyNot+xr[view] [source] 2024-02-10 14:49:46
>>pjmlp+kh
Honestly, I don’t think this is a bad idea. Games are usually distributed in binary form, and Linux is an awful target for distributing binaries. Especially if you want them to work 10 years later.

Imagine games that dynamically link some library (or glibc). They wouldn’t run on other Linux distributions with mismatching dependencies (or a different libc).

Sure, 100% statically linked binaries might work. But wine also runs on non-Linux.

Windows is a sufficiently homogeneous target, and wine works well enough. Heck, some games run better in Linux+Wine than they do in windows.

[go to top]