1: https://github.com/hexops/DirectXShaderCompiler/blob/4190bb0...
This one hits the nail on the head, and the reason why not just Microsoft, but a lot of large software players are not incentivized to create better software.
At the end of the day, people like power, to make money, and the people at Microsoft are no exception. And businesses are businesses, enterprises to make money, not altruistic benefactors of humanity, or optimizers of a specific domain, like software. So what business will do are their original thing AND business tactics, and the larger the business, the more tactics they have to employ, otherwise they won't be as large, or even simply won't be, at all. So, on the top, it's all ruthless business tactics. As Microsoft is a large player for a long time, they have quite the rep sheet[0], but they are not unique in doing this. It's the name of the game.
[1] Case in point: glibc's compatibility guarantees are weaker than what you get on Windows. (For instance, your system's glibc cannot be older than what a game is built against, which may present problems for devs using Fedora/Arch and players on Debian/LTS Ubuntu, something I've experienced first-hand for my apps.) The X11 to Wayland migration is also still underway. (Though things are getting better, the attitudes of some Wayland maintainers are a bit concerning: "I don't [care] what you think is normal behavior for games. You get certain guarantees with wayland. Deal with it. If clients decide to do exactly what they do on windows or X11 they won't work correctly." [3] I'm not sure game developers would enjoy such reception.)
[2] https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
[3] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/18...
[1] https://github.com/hexops/DirectXShaderCompiler/blob/4190bb0...
"dxil.dll is closed-source, so we cannot simply patch it in the same way. To fix this, we outright disable runtime loading of dxil.dll and silence warnings related to it not being present / the final binary not being code signed. Instead, once the compiler would emit a compiled shader blob, we perform our own code signing algorithm (Mach Siegbert Vogt DXCSA) which results in a bitwise identical compiled shader, and thus dxil.dll is no longer needed to perform code signing of shaders."
[1] https://github.com/hexops/DirectXShaderCompiler/commit/7a013...
I appreciate this quote[0] from the microsoft camp. Setting clear expectations that something will not be done is a nice bit of fresh air.
[0] https://github.com/microsoft/DirectXShaderCompiler/issues/57...
https://github.com/baldurk/renderdoc/blob/4a620bb5a16b4de4e2...
Edit: apparently dxil.dll is not part of DXC (the classic move to make "open source" software dependent on external proprietary garbage, apparently.) But I'd still doubt it's a managed DLL.
And then the same can be said about a lot of Microsoft products. DirectX is no different; it's the canonical Microsoft piece of shit, and that goes all the way back to the OpenGL days [1].
[1] https://www.gamedeveloper.com/programming/why-you-should-use...
There are "source code" files in zip and tar.gz
Aren't those source code for those dlls?
I'd say win32/flatpak/libretro are the only sane way for games to target linux right now. The fact that linux doesn't have real "runtime" and major components required by games link against libc is what makes linux really unstable for anything that needs to open window, draw stuff using GPU and play audio. It's possible to create static binaries for linux that work for eternity, thanks to kernel being actually stable. But link against something in /usr/lib and it all goes to hell. If the GPU drivers and libs that provided basic window / audio did not depend on libc and were standalone, the situation would be much better. Here's good video about this problem space btw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq1XqP4-qOo