Progress of DirectX 11 in WINE

[TrashyMG]

It always seemed a little strange that a lot of Linux folks are desperate to run Windows software but won't do the reasonable thing and run Windows to do it

I fit in that category a bit, I do like a bit of the older Windows titles I played in the early to mid 90's to the early 2000's, however most of those games have got opensourced engines now, so I'm finding it easier to stay with native solutions. Then there are odd things like Notaz's blizzard ARM ports, which requires an ARM compiled version of WINE to run the games properly.

 

[Yoyobuae]

How is WINE at all ethical from MS's POV?

Simple: From my point of view, MS has zero ethics. So why should I care about what's ethical for MS?

I frankly believe that the world would be a better place without MS in it. Or if MS was radically different and didn't pull off all the BS the did/do/will continue doing. Since I can't travel to the past and stop MS from existing, I'll at least try not to support them in any way.

if every time MS develops a new version of DX and immediately people start creating WINE wrappers or layers around it so they can run it outside of Windows... then what incentive does MS have to keep pushing new developments in gaming?

Well, they could do it to make a good product (but that's a concept MS has trouble grasping).

Besides you can't seriously claim that somehow the small minority that gets a machine without Windows pre-installed AND uses Linux AND runs stuff on Wine is somehow seriously hurting Windows sales. It's more likely that Windows piracy hurts them a lot more (and didn't they even offer Win10 updates to pirated copies of previous Windows versions?).

 

[ZXDunny]

Simple: From my point of view, MS has zero ethics. So why should I care about what's ethical for MS?

Because you're better than that?

Well, they could do it to make a good product (but that's a concept MS has trouble grasping).

But you kinda want DirectX and Windows API layer in linux, yeah? And (the linux community) wants it badly enough to create WINE and re-implement DirectX. They must be making something good.

Besides you can't seriously claim that somehow the small minority that gets a machine without Windows pre-installed AND uses Linux AND runs stuff on Wine is somehow seriously hurting Windows sales. It's more likely that Windows piracy hurts them a lot more (and didn't they even offer Win10 updates to pirated copies of previous Windows versions?).

I don't think they actually did that, no. Just a free upgrade from 7/8/8.1 to 10, which has become the most obnoxious clusterfuck in living memory if you're on 7 and want to keep it. I run a machine with 10 on it, and it's actually a very, very nice upgrade - but not everything is compatible with it so people want to stay on 7 and MS are making it very difficult to do that.

 

[Klumpen]

But you kinda want DirectX and Windows API layer in linux, yeah? And (the linux community) wants it badly enough to create WINE and re-implement DirectX. They must be making something good.

No Linux user I know of sees anything positive in DirectX and would prefer OpenGL any day, unfortunately devs often don't care about that.
The main purpose of DirectX these days (since DX10 to be precise) is forcing people to use the current OS from Microsoft and not adding even more fancy effects that add even more distractions from actual gameplay.

Nobody here wants DirectX but some of the games that have no native Linux ports, that's all.

 

[ZXDunny]

No Linux user I know of sees anything positive in DirectX and would prefer OpenGL any day, unfortunately devs often don't care about that.

And why is it that they don't care about it? I mean, Linux is obviously the superior OS - just ask anyone around here. Surely the developers will be jumping at the chance to get their games onto Linux natively?

The main purpose of DirectX these days (since DX10 to be precise) is forcing people to use the current OS from Microsoft and not adding even more fancy effects that add even more distractions from actual gameplay.

Nobody here wants DirectX but some of the games that have no native Linux ports, that's all.

No disagreement here, but it is interesting that people will viciously defend open source and free software, but when it comes to getting what they want on their OS of choice their moral stance flies out the window and they really have no problem ripping off some other company's hard work to do it - after all, APIs are subject to copyright. But god forbid they actually pay the people who developed the technology in the first place.

 

[WizardStan]

I'll at least try not to support them in any way.

By purchasing games and software for Windows to be played via Wine you are indirectly supporting Microsoft: these companies can't tell your intentions at time of purchase, all they know is they wrote a Windows app and someone paid them money for it. If you really don't want to support them in ANY way you wouldn't encourage Wine use; you'd encourage and write open source replacements for the software people needed, and Indie cross platform games instead of complaining about the Windows games you can't play.

 

[edlee]

Applications Programming Interfaces (APIs) are not subject to copyright protection. Oracle recently lost a court case against Google for duplicating the JAVA programming language APIs without a license.

 

[ZXDunny]

Applications Programming Interfaces (APIs) are not subject to copyright protection. Oracle recently lost a court case against Google for duplicating the JAVA programming language APIs without a license.

Wrong. Oracle did not lose. Google successfully proved that what they did was classed as "Fair Use" - And the reason they had to do that was because APIs are copyrighted.

 

[Klumpen]

By purchasing games and software for Windows to be played via Wine you are indirectly supporting Microsoft: these companies can't tell your intentions at time of purchase, all they know is they wrote a Windows app and someone paid them money for it. If you really don't want to support them in ANY way you wouldn't encourage Wine use; you'd encourage and write open source replacements for the software people needed, and Indie cross platform games instead of complaining about the Windows games you can't play.

Exactly. That's why I encourage everyone who wants to make a tiny difference to only buy DRM-free native Linux ports, that's what I do with the rare exception of some ancient games which were written at times when Linux wasn't even a choice for gaming (90s).
BTW: The native Linux port of Strife which is available on GOG too by now is awesome.
If enough people buy it, Night Dive Studios may even be encouraged to make native DRM-free Linux ports of Turok and some other games too.

 

[edlee]

Wrong. Oracle did not lose. Google successfully proved that what they did was classed as "Fair Use" - And the reason they had to do that was because APIs are copyrighted.

Even if you are right, that is a meaningless distinction. The practical effect is that APIs are not subject to copyright protection.

 

[ZXDunny]

Even if you are right, that is a meaningless distinction. The practical effect is that APIs are not subject to copyright protection.

"Even if I am right"?

Good god, has the last couple of weeks completely passed you by? It's only Google's re-implementation of Sun's APIs that has been ruled fair use. APIs are absolutely copyrighted and this ruling, though probably the only sensible verdict that could be reached in light of that fact (which should never have happened on appeal, as it did) but the effects could be far-reaching indeed - vexatious litigation is only the tip of the iceberg in this case.

Now that APIs are copyrighted, the nastier companies or individuals are free to sue whomever they please who may have reimplemented say, the C Standard library (as an example, that's unlikely to happen, but substitute any library you please) and if they have enough cash reserves to keep a smaller outfit in court they can easily bankrupt them and force them out of business. It's a shitty decision, but now we're stuck with it and it has completely changed the way we develop code now in a legal framework.

 

[Neelix]

And why is it that they don't care about it? I mean, Linux is obviously the superior OS - just ask anyone around here. Surely the developers will be jumping at the chance to get their games onto Linux natively?

It has nothing to do with which OS is superior, it's to do with which OS is more popular. Commercial developers will always follow the money, which generally means developing for Windows, Android or iOS, because those are the systems that are the most popular. Which system is actually superior for any given purpose isn't really a factor in the prevailing market conditions.

-Neelix

 

[edlee]

ZXDunny and I seem to have a different view of what an API is. An API is a set of function names, their parameters, and data types of the parameters, not the underlying functions themselves. The underlying functions are copyrighted, but the superficial interface is not copyrighted. WINE implements independently written versions of the Windows API. So, how is WINE a rip-off? What is your point?

 

[ZXDunny]

ZXDunny and I seem to have a different view of what an API is. An API is a set of function names, their parameters, and data types of the parameters, not the underlying functions themselves. The underlying functions are copyrighted, but the superficial interface is not copyrighted. WINE implements independently written versions of the Windows API. So, how is WINE a rip-off? What is your point?

The point is that you're wrong. An API is a framework for talking to a library or set of such - the structure/function and procedure declarations. The "superficial interface". These are copyrightable. Everyone assumed that they weren't, Google certainly assumed that they weren't. A court declared that they weren't, and then Oracle took it to appeal and now they are. That's what the whole case was about - that Google took the API and wrote a compatible set of functions and procedures with the same declarations. Google did not take the actual implementation - the meat of those Java functions and procedures - they just wrote a set of 37 libraries that had the same parameter lists and structure definitions as Sun's Java (but better).

Oracle won their case, eventually, that these API declarations were copyrighted material, and took Google to court for damages to the tune of 9 Billion dollars, give or take. Google asserted that their re-implementation of the API was fair-use under copyright law. The jury decided that they were right. Which was good for Google, and good for Android. But bad for everyone else.

Imagine if the owners of the C standard library (someone created it after all, it's copyrighted) decided to take a small compiler author to court for copyright violation? They can do that now (not that they would, but if Oracle owned the standard libs then they might well do) and unless the defendant has sufficient cash resources to defend themselves, they're sunk.

That appeals court should never had declared APIs copyrighted works, but they did. So now they are. And for all legal purposes, always have been.

 

[levi]

Of course APIs (in terms of names, parameters and return types) are copyrighted - even this that I'm typing now is copyrighted to me. But the case Dunny referrers to suggests to me that any pure reimplementation of an API counts as a fair use excemption to copyright. Big company with lots of lawyers and money might still try to scare you off, but provided you can afford to defend yourself in court, you ought to win based on this existing ruling, But nothing's guaranteed in a court of law if a flashy lawyer can impress the jury.

 

[ZXDunny]

Of course APIs (in terms of names, parameters and return types) are copyrighted - even this that I'm typing now is copyrighted to me. But the case Dunny referrers to suggests to me that any pure reimplementation of an API counts as a fair use excemption to copyright. Big company with lots of lawyers and money might still try to scare you off, but provided you can afford to defend yourself in court, you ought to win based on this existing ruling, But nothing's guaranteed in a court of law if a flashy lawyer can impress the jury.

EXACTLY MY POINT. Thankyou.

Yes, APIs should not be copyrighted. Hell, my employer might well be up the creek if whoever owns the VST standard decides to get pushy. Fortunately we can afford to defend ourselves, but even so - the landscape has now changed, and quite a few companies are looking at their code bases very carefully to make sure they're safe now. And a lot of them aren't.

 

[thatgui]

then what incentive does MS have to keep pushing new developments in gaming?

Why not see it this way ?
The faster WINE gets compatible to the current DirectX standard, the more people that use Linux will probably buy games based on it > sales figures go up for DirectX based games > a big library of games for Windows means Windows is still the thing for gaming on the PC > loop back to start.

 

[edlee]

I thought that it was already well settled that software can be independently written to have the same functionality as other software and share the same programming interface. There was at one time just one BIOS from one company. An independent programming team then replicated the functions of the original BIOS software without looking at the original BIOS software. In order to function in a PC, the second BIOS had to respond in the same way to the same programming interface as the original BIOS.

 

[ZXDunny]

I thought that it was already well settled that software can be independently written to have the same functionality as other software and share the same programming interface. There was at one time just one BIOS from one company. An independent programming team then replicated the functions of the original BIOS software without looking at the original BIOS software. In order to function in a PC, the second BIOS had to respond in the same way to the same programming interface as the original BIOS.

Yes. That was Phoenix when they clean-room reverse engineered IBM's BIOS which unlocked a flood of IBM clone PCs, and yes it was ruled by the courts to be non-infringing. That has all changed though, when an appeals court (which consisted of a group of judges that had no idea what they were being asked) ruled that google's reverse-engineering and subsequent re-implementation of the Java API was a copyright infringement.

It was the wrong decision, and it resulted in the recent court case where Google had the onus of proof put upon them to prove that they were doing so under fair use; it was the last avenue they had left to get away with it under the new ruling. This has ramifications for all sorts of things - emulators (they re-implement the "API" of a cpu architecture, and that is now unlawful), reverse-engineered hardware specs, etc etc. They will all, if challenged, have to prove that they're covered under fair use.

 

[ekianjo]

Why not see it this way ?
The faster WINE gets compatible to the current DirectX standard, the more people that use Linux will probably buy games based on it > sales figures go up for DirectX based games > a big library of games for Windows means Windows is still the thing for gaming on the PC > loop back to start.

To be fair Windows has remained the main bastion for PC Gaming no matter what happened on Mac/Linux. So htat situation is not going to change anytime soon.