8 ms·

But why should Linux have an equivalent of such features?

by movedx 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lelandbatey 2y ago
Why should a kernel have anything? Because it's useful and convenient, as the OP mentioned.
- movedx 2y ago
  It _can be_ useful. It can also _not_ be useful to others. It sounds like it's not a choice in this case, but a forced feature, and that's fine for some and not for others. So again, why _must_ Linux have an equivalent?
  - scoodah 2y ago
    No one used the word must until you right now. The OP comment was posting a valid thing that Windows has that Linux does not. It’s fine if Linux doesn’t have it but I don’t understand where you’re coming from as presenting this as though someone said Linux must have this.
    - movedx 2y ago
      > Linux doesn’t have a good equivalent for these. That implies Linux must or should have an equivalent to those features found in Windows -- you can choose any word you like, friend. There is no other reason to make that statement but to challenge the fact Linux doesn't have those options. Fun fact: I switched to Kubuntu recently and I didn't even have to install a graphics driver. It was just there, just worked, and my AMD 7700 XTX is working fine and playing Windows "only" games via Proton just fine as well as Linux native games just fine. I'm simply trying to get people to think about design choices and questioning or stating why one thing is better than another.
      - alt227 2y ago
        Dont read into the text too much, this doesnt imply what you are saying at all. The reason to make that statement is to point out that there are differences in functionality. Nobody in the thread said one situation was better than the other, until you did.
      - lelandbatey 2y ago
        > Linux doesn’t have a good equivalent for these. That literally does not imply a need for those features. It points out a thing that Linux lacks, which is true. And that's where it stops. You are projecting an implication that "Linux does need x, y, or z because Windows has X, Y, or Z." We're not sitting in a thread talking about what makes Linux/Windows better than the other, we're in a thread talking about just factual differences between the two. You can talk about two things, compare them, and even state your own preference for one or the other without stating that each should do everything that the other can do. E.g. snowmobiles are easier to handle while driving in the snow than a Boeing 737. I like driving my snowmobile in the snow more than I like taxiing a Boeing 737 in the snow. We can talk about things without implying changes that need to happen.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    This line of thought is precisely why Linux continues to falter in mainstream acceptance. Windows exists to enable the user to do whatever he wants. If the user wants to play a game or watch a video, Direct3D is there to let him do that. If he doesn't, Direct3D doesn't get in the way. This is far better than Linux's (neckbeards'?) philosophy of Thou Shalt Not Divert From The One True Path which will inevitably inconvenience many people and lead to, you guessed it, failure in the mainstream market. Contrast Android, which took Linux and re-packaged it in a more Windows-like way so people could actually use the bloody thing.
    - agumonkey 2y ago
      Not to contradict but it seems to me that *nixes have always split user interaction and 'compute'. To them running a headless toaster is probably more valuable than a desktop UI.
    - movedx 2y ago
      > If the user wants to play a game or watch a video, Direct3D is there to let him do that. If he doesn't, Direct3D doesn't get in the way. I _just_ moved from Windows 11 to Kubuntu. None of that stuff is missing. In fact, unlike Windows 10/11, I didn't even have to install a graphics driver. My AMD 7700 XTX literally just worked right out of the box. Instantly. Ironically that’s not the case for Windows 10/11. This isn’t a “My OS is better than your OS” debate — we’re talking about why D3D being integrated into the kernel is a good idea. I’m playing devil’s advocate. And thus, you missed my point: "Why should Linux have an equivalent to Direct3D" isn't me arguing that Windows having it is bad, it's me asking people to think about design choices and consider whether they're good or bad. > This is far better than Linux's (neckbeards'?) philosophy of Thou Shalt Not Divert From The One True Path which will inevitably inconvenience many people and lead to, you guessed it, failure in the mainstream market. If you think Windows having Direct3D "built in" is why it has mainstream dominance, then you potentially have a very narrow view of history, market timing, economics, politics, and a whole range of other topics that actually led to the dominance of Windows.
      - Hikikomori 2y ago
Const-me 2y ago
Because modern world is full of computers with slow mobile CPUs and high-resolution high refresh rate displays. On such computers you need a 3D GPU to render anything, even a scrolling text, at the refresh rate of the display. A 3D GPU is a shared hardware resource just like a disk. GPU resources are well-shaped slices of VRAM which can store different stuff, just like files are backed by the blocks of the underlying physical disks. User-space processes need to create and manipulate GPU resources and pass them across processes, just like they do with files on disks. An OS kernel needs to manage 3D GPU resources for the same reason they include disk drivers and file system drivers, and expose consistent usermode APIs to manipulate files. It seems Linux kernel designers mostly ignored 3D GPUs. The OS does not generally have a GPU API: some systems have OpenGL, some have OpenGL ES, some have Vulkan, some have none of them.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  Or a modern OS does what Linux does, expose DMI and let a userspace driver manage the GPU.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  > Because modern world is full of computers with slow mobile CPUs and high-resolution high refresh rate displays. And Linux does run on such computers. But it also runs on mainframes, and on embedded systems with no graphics whatsoever. And it runs on a much wider variety of CPUs than Windows does. So for Linux, it's much more of a stretch to assume that the device looks something like a PC. And if it's not going to be there in a wide variety of situations, then should Linux really have 3D graphics as part of the kernel? (At a minimum it should be removable, and have everything run fine without it.)
  - simonask 2y ago
    Isn't that a somewhat myopic view of what Linux should be, especially considering that its by far largest install base is billions of Android devices? Linux isn't always running on devices that have a direct human interface, but when it does, it is arguably the most important function.

But why should Linux have an equivalent of such features?

by movedx 2y ago

But why should Linux have an equivalent of such features?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lelandbatey 2y ago

Why should a kernel have anything? Because it's useful and convenient, as the OP mentioned.

movedx 2y ago
It _can be_ useful. It can also _not_ be useful to others. It sounds like it's not a choice in this case, but a forced feature, and that's fine for some and not for others. So again, why _must_ Linux have an equivalent?
- scoodah 2y ago
  No one used the word must until you right now. The OP comment was posting a valid thing that Windows has that Linux does not. It’s fine if Linux doesn’t have it but I don’t understand where you’re coming from as presenting this as though someone said Linux must have this.
  - movedx 2y ago
    > Linux doesn’t have a good equivalent for these. That implies Linux must or should have an equivalent to those features found in Windows -- you can choose any word you like, friend. There is no other reason to make that statement but to challenge the fact Linux doesn't have those options. Fun fact: I switched to Kubuntu recently and I didn't even have to install a graphics driver. It was just there, just worked, and my AMD 7700 XTX is working fine and playing Windows "only" games via Proton just fine as well as Linux native games just fine. I'm simply trying to get people to think about design choices and questioning or stating why one thing is better than another.
    - alt227 2y ago
      Dont read into the text too much, this doesnt imply what you are saying at all. The reason to make that statement is to point out that there are differences in functionality. Nobody in the thread said one situation was better than the other, until you did.
    - lelandbatey 2y ago
      > Linux doesn’t have a good equivalent for these. That literally does not imply a need for those features. It points out a thing that Linux lacks, which is true. And that's where it stops. You are projecting an implication that "Linux does need x, y, or z because Windows has X, Y, or Z." We're not sitting in a thread talking about what makes Linux/Windows better than the other, we're in a thread talking about just factual differences between the two. You can talk about two things, compare them, and even state your own preference for one or the other without stating that each should do everything that the other can do. E.g. snowmobiles are easier to handle while driving in the snow than a Boeing 737. I like driving my snowmobile in the snow more than I like taxiing a Boeing 737 in the snow. We can talk about things without implying changes that need to happen.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  This line of thought is precisely why Linux continues to falter in mainstream acceptance. Windows exists to enable the user to do whatever he wants. If the user wants to play a game or watch a video, Direct3D is there to let him do that. If he doesn't, Direct3D doesn't get in the way. This is far better than Linux's (neckbeards'?) philosophy of Thou Shalt Not Divert From The One True Path which will inevitably inconvenience many people and lead to, you guessed it, failure in the mainstream market. Contrast Android, which took Linux and re-packaged it in a more Windows-like way so people could actually use the bloody thing.
  - agumonkey 2y ago
    Not to contradict but it seems to me that *nixes have always split user interaction and 'compute'. To them running a headless toaster is probably more valuable than a desktop UI.
  - movedx 2y ago
    > If the user wants to play a game or watch a video, Direct3D is there to let him do that. If he doesn't, Direct3D doesn't get in the way. I _just_ moved from Windows 11 to Kubuntu. None of that stuff is missing. In fact, unlike Windows 10/11, I didn't even have to install a graphics driver. My AMD 7700 XTX literally just worked right out of the box. Instantly. Ironically that’s not the case for Windows 10/11. This isn’t a “My OS is better than your OS” debate — we’re talking about why D3D being integrated into the kernel is a good idea. I’m playing devil’s advocate. And thus, you missed my point: "Why should Linux have an equivalent to Direct3D" isn't me arguing that Windows having it is bad, it's me asking people to think about design choices and consider whether they're good or bad. > This is far better than Linux's (neckbeards'?) philosophy of Thou Shalt Not Divert From The One True Path which will inevitably inconvenience many people and lead to, you guessed it, failure in the mainstream market. If you think Windows having Direct3D "built in" is why it has mainstream dominance, then you potentially have a very narrow view of history, market timing, economics, politics, and a whole range of other topics that actually led to the dominance of Windows.
    - Hikikomori 2y ago

Const-me 2y ago

Because modern world is full of computers with slow mobile CPUs and high-resolution high refresh rate displays. On such computers you need a 3D GPU to render anything, even a scrolling text, at the refresh rate of the display. A 3D GPU is a shared hardware resource just like a disk. GPU resources are well-shaped slices of VRAM which can store different stuff, just like files are backed by the blocks of the underlying physical disks. User-space processes need to create and manipulate GPU resources and pass them across processes, just like they do with files on disks. An OS kernel needs to manage 3D GPU resources for the same reason they include disk drivers and file system drivers, and expose consistent usermode APIs to manipulate files. It seems Linux kernel designers mostly ignored 3D GPUs. The OS does not generally have a GPU API: some systems have OpenGL, some have OpenGL ES, some have Vulkan, some have none of them.

marcosdumay 2y ago
Or a modern OS does what Linux does, expose DMI and let a userspace driver manage the GPU.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
> Because modern world is full of computers with slow mobile CPUs and high-resolution high refresh rate displays. And Linux does run on such computers. But it also runs on mainframes, and on embedded systems with no graphics whatsoever. And it runs on a much wider variety of CPUs than Windows does. So for Linux, it's much more of a stretch to assume that the device looks something like a PC. And if it's not going to be there in a wide variety of situations, then should Linux really have 3D graphics as part of the kernel? (At a minimum it should be removable, and have everything run fine without it.)
- simonask 2y ago
  Isn't that a somewhat myopic view of what Linux should be, especially considering that its by far largest install base is billions of Android devices? Linux isn't always running on devices that have a direct human interface, but when it does, it is arguably the most important function.