I certainly believe it’s within the realm of possibility. With software coming to the platform, we will begin to see more linux gaming rigs in the living room. What people say and what winds up happening has a habit of not matching up – I need to see proof before I’m a believer and start passing thumbs ups and tip of the hats. When it comes to linux I’ve lost a lot of optimism over the years so these days I’m reserved when people make announcements. If this actually materializes and does have any impact then I would need to revise the `throwing linux a bone` comment accordingly. Neither do I, if other distros are allowed to support it themselves, then Linux wins all around, don’t you agree? What threw me off was your characterization of this as throwing linux a bone, when it’s actually quite significant.Īs long as that support works correctly and is reasonably stable I would agree its a linux win. I can’t see any motivation or benefit to actively blocking other distros. Of course most people talking about loki games don’t mention that the problem is over 10 years old and that time frame in Windows has its own huge issues. The loki Linux binaries only require minor work around and a tolerance that you have brought back a security risk. Reality if you are not running Linux or OS X with wine running the windows binaries is hard. See person being unfair saying hey it simpler to install the games in wine. Sorry to say installing a game from the year 2000 on Windows 7 or 8 its more good luck if it works due to all the security changes. If loki had appears in 2004 the problem would have never happened with them. Yes why 2.2.5 does not break loki games is that it performs badly. Linux Distributions don’t want 2.2.5 installed due to security and performance issues. Micorsoft libc has broken more times and require more versions installed over the same time frame. Going from userspace threading to kernel space threading was a one off event. Running by crossover or transgaming in fact takes unrequited overheads.īasically over 10 years has passed since the last time glibc has broken backwards compatibility. Yes nvidia and ati closed source opengl in fact still checks functionality against glibc 2.2.5. Running on wine is taking a kick in teeth for no good reason. Yes the gentoo binaries for making loki binaries work in fact work on all distributions. The Current Linux kernel ABI is still compatible with glibc 2.2.5 that was released in 2002. So to run loki and older applications like that install older glibc. Linux world don’t build you application depending on bugs. Yes if your application expects locking do the locking call yourself. Like depending on c function calls to trigger locking that the newer versions don’t. Plus it was that the applications were expecting behaviours that were not in any standard. There were too many minor changes to support the new threading features of the newer kernels to locate what one was breaking old glibc 2.2 applications. 0 was 2.4.0 when it was resolved that solving the compatibility issue was impossible. In fact glibc 2.2 to 2.3 was the last time glibc backwards compatibility was busted this was 0. The loki games are that old they run into a major redesign in glibc and kernel threading. So a Distrobution with newer glibc will run what was built on a distribution that has old glibc but not the reverse. The issue is Linux has backwards compatibility not forwards compatibility with glibc except for a few rare events. Now if you had built on Debian stable then went to run on Ubuntu no Glibc error. Debian testing has in fact came into alignment. Ubuntu had a newer version glibc than most other distributions for a while. And it was the same during the loki games and corel wordperfect era. Today, you cannot even compile a qt app on ubunut and run it on another similar distro without having a GLIBC Number error.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |