3 ms·

And GOG refuses to add GNU/Linux support. Considering that many GOG games run in DOSEmu anyway and some come with native Linux support this is not really unders

by fafner 13y ago

And GOG refuses to add GNU/Linux support. Considering that many GOG games run in DOSEmu anyway and some come with native Linux support this is not really understandable.

shmerl 13y ago
> And GOG refuses to add GNU/Linux support. Yes, that's one of their downsides. Even their reasoning is becoming less and less sensible. They claimed they still can't figure out how to offer long term support on Linux. May be Docker can help them.
teacup50 13y ago
Shipping binary software for Linux is like playing a never-ending game of Space Invaders. GOG's position is totally understandable.
- shmerl 13y ago
  No, it's not. Their position is (at least from their last status update): "we are trying to come up with a long term support methodology, and didn't find one yet". It takes them more than a year to design it. It doesn't sound reasonable to me.
  - pquerna 13y ago
    Shipping binaries on Linux is nearly impossible on a long term support basis. FatELF would of addressed at least some of these problems, but was largely rejected by the larger community of people not shipping proprietary products on Linux: https://icculus.org/fatelf/ https://icculus.org/fatelf/
    - derefr 13y ago
      Might Docker containers be a valid solution to this? Shipping old games is a sorta-kinda-similar problem to shipping frozen versions of web-apps.
      - shmerl 13y ago
        That can work probably, since Docker claims that it doesn't impose big overhead, so it can be suitable for gaming.
        techdragon 13y ago
        You would probably find there are performance penalties in areas Docker don't really bother benchmarking or even talking about since they don't align to the design goals. I've only seen some fairly rudimentary demonstrations of VNC and X over the Network for isolating GUI apps in Docker.
        shykes 13y ago
        Docker author here. I really doubt performance would be a problem. Namespaced linux processes access devices the same way every other process does: by getting a file descriptor to it and making syscalls against that. What we need to figure out is a portable way for a docker container to declare "I need access to the following devices". I would love to work with anyone interested to add that to the docker APIs for 1.0. I think long-term stable binary delivery is an important thing to do and I would like to help. Ping me at solomon@docker.com about this anytime.

by fafner 13y ago

And GOG refuses to add GNU/Linux support. Considering that many GOG games run in DOSEmu anyway and some come with native Linux support this is not really understandable.

shmerl 13y ago

> And GOG refuses to add GNU/Linux support. Yes, that's one of their downsides. Even their reasoning is becoming less and less sensible. They claimed they still can't figure out how to offer long term support on Linux. May be Docker can help them.

teacup50 13y ago

Shipping binary software for Linux is like playing a never-ending game of Space Invaders. GOG's position is totally understandable.

shmerl 13y ago
No, it's not. Their position is (at least from their last status update): "we are trying to come up with a long term support methodology, and didn't find one yet". It takes them more than a year to design it. It doesn't sound reasonable to me.
- pquerna 13y ago
  Shipping binaries on Linux is nearly impossible on a long term support basis. FatELF would of addressed at least some of these problems, but was largely rejected by the larger community of people not shipping proprietary products on Linux: https://icculus.org/fatelf/ https://icculus.org/fatelf/
  - derefr 13y ago
    Might Docker containers be a valid solution to this? Shipping old games is a sorta-kinda-similar problem to shipping frozen versions of web-apps.
    - shmerl 13y ago
      That can work probably, since Docker claims that it doesn't impose big overhead, so it can be suitable for gaming.
      - techdragon 13y ago
        You would probably find there are performance penalties in areas Docker don't really bother benchmarking or even talking about since they don't align to the design goals. I've only seen some fairly rudimentary demonstrations of VNC and X over the Network for isolating GUI apps in Docker.
        shykes 13y ago
        Docker author here. I really doubt performance would be a problem. Namespaced linux processes access devices the same way every other process does: by getting a file descriptor to it and making syscalls against that. What we need to figure out is a portable way for a docker container to declare "I need access to the following devices". I would love to work with anyone interested to add that to the docker APIs for 1.0. I think long-term stable binary delivery is an important thing to do and I would like to help. Ping me at solomon@docker.com about this anytime.