7 years later, Valve's Proton has been an incredible game-changer for Linux
Technology
264
Beiträge
107
Kommentatoren
138
Aufrufe
-
What does any of that have to do with the fact that macOS is free?
It is not free if you have to pay a specific hardware from the same company to run it. Same goes for Windows, it is not free if you are forced to buy Windows with the laptop.
In both case you pay for the software through the hardware.
-
Ah cool, thanks for looking all that up. I knew Proton pre-dated Steam Deck, I just wasn't sure exactly where in the timeline it fit between the original Steam Machine launch and the release of the Steam Deck.
It's kind of a shame that Steam Machine failed, but in many ways it was a little too ahead of its time and its failure brought us to the Steam Deck which is a much more sensible approach.
Ultimately none of this would have existed without Wine and ironically the Microsoft app store (or whatever they're calling it these days). The threat of MS getting a stranglehold on program distribution on Windows the way Apple does on OS X and iOS was enough to spur Valve into putting significant effort into making Linux a viable gaming platform, something we're all benefitting from greatly.
People seem to be downplaying somewhat how significant an achievement this is for Linux. The thing is, for most programs you can find alternatives because the point isn't the program it's what you do with it. People don't use Photoshop because they enjoy Photoshop, they do it because they want to create something, which means if you can create that same thing using a different program then you don't need Photoshop. On the other hand games are an experience. The point is the game. Sure you can play a different game, but that's not an Apples to Apples thing as the experience however similar isn't the same. That means games are uniquely placed as a roadblock for migrating away from a platform, something consoles with their exclusive releases have known for a long time. Giving people the option to play the exact same game under Linux as they can under Windows is massive because there really isn't any other way to solve that problem.
No prob!
I think all your other info in the first comment, as well as this more recent one, is pretty much bang on accurate.
Getting gaming to work on linux is the path toward more mass adoption.
Linux has already been increasingly functional, capable, usable, and solid in many other ways, I'd argue superior in many ways... for a while, and gaming really is the last hurdle.
-
It is not free if you have to pay a specific hardware from the same company to run it. Same goes for Windows, it is not free if you are forced to buy Windows with the laptop.
In both case you pay for the software through the hardware.
Of course it is. It cost me nothing to download and install it.
Unless you can show me how you’re actually paying for the operating system, then I don’t see how you can keep making this argument. It makes no sense.
It’s the same nonsense is arguing that you have to pay for Linux just because the computer you are running on cost money.
-
I don’t understand this argument. It makes no sense. Just because a piece of software is included for free with an Apple computer doesn’t mean you’re paying for it. It’s like you see the word “free” and just decide it means something different than what it really means.
Because I am capable of critical and complex thinking. Just because something is labeled as "free" does not necessarily mean there are no costs associated with procuring or using a product. If you're handed a proprietary piece of technology for "free", but the only way to use it is to pay for another piece of technology or software that you have to pay for... it's not free. It's complementary, but it's not free. You still need to pay some amount to use it.
-
Of course it is. It cost me nothing to download and install it.
Unless you can show me how you’re actually paying for the operating system, then I don’t see how you can keep making this argument. It makes no sense.
It’s the same nonsense is arguing that you have to pay for Linux just because the computer you are running on cost money.
You can download Windows for free too. But in both case you won't have any support unless you are running it on the authorized hardware. Windows does it though a licence, Apple through the hardware kirks.
Go on, try installing your "free" OS on a Thinkpad, and tell me if you manage to get it running.
-
Really? Did you pay for it? Because it’s free for me when I download it.
Sounds like you got scammed
That's not the point. You're still going to have to pay money regardless if you want the operating system. Whereas windows and Linux allow you to use their ISOs is any laptop or computer so no buddy.
If I already owned a laptop beforehand and I wanted Linux on it, it's free. If I want MacOS I WOULD HAVE TO GO SPEND MONEY ON A COMPLETELY NEW COMPUTER THAT'S A MAC. that's the point I'm trying to get at.
-
I don’t understand this argument. It makes no sense. Just because a piece of software is included for free with an Apple computer doesn’t mean you’re paying for it. It’s like you see the word “free” and just decide it means something different than what it really means.
Do you also think the engine that comes with your car is free because the manufacturer doesn't sell it as a separate item and it's not listed on the receipt?
Edit: His answer proves he's just a troll. Weird thing to troll about though but I don't judge what someone gets off to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
-
Because I am capable of critical and complex thinking. Just because something is labeled as "free" does not necessarily mean there are no costs associated with procuring or using a product. If you're handed a proprietary piece of technology for "free", but the only way to use it is to pay for another piece of technology or software that you have to pay for... it's not free. It's complementary, but it's not free. You still need to pay some amount to use it.
This is the same faulty logic as arguing that Linux also costs money because you have to pay for a computer to run it on. Any operating system requires that you own a compatible device to run it on.
You’re just drawing some imaginary line at Apple computers. It makes no sense.
-
You can download Windows for free too. But in both case you won't have any support unless you are running it on the authorized hardware. Windows does it though a licence, Apple through the hardware kirks.
Go on, try installing your "free" OS on a Thinkpad, and tell me if you manage to get it running.
I don’t understand how compatibility has anything to do with the cost of something. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, any operating system requires that you pay money for a compatible device to run it on.
You’re just drawing some imaginary line at Apple computers. But that makes no sense.
-
That's not the point. You're still going to have to pay money regardless if you want the operating system. Whereas windows and Linux allow you to use their ISOs is any laptop or computer so no buddy.
If I already owned a laptop beforehand and I wanted Linux on it, it's free. If I want MacOS I WOULD HAVE TO GO SPEND MONEY ON A COMPLETELY NEW COMPUTER THAT'S A MAC. that's the point I'm trying to get at.
Compatibility has nothing to do with how much something costs. The fact is, there’s no way to actually buy macOS. Because it doesn’t cost anything.
As I’ve said elsewhere, by your logic, every operating system cost money to run because you have to pay money for a compatible device to run it on.
You’re just drawing some imaginary line at Apple. That makes no sense.
-
Do you also think the engine that comes with your car is free because the manufacturer doesn't sell it as a separate item and it's not listed on the receipt?
Edit: His answer proves he's just a troll. Weird thing to troll about though but I don't judge what someone gets off to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
I don’t see how cars and engines have anything to do with the fact that macOS is free.
And, yeah, if it’s not listed on a receipt as something I paid for, you can’t argue that I paid for it. Or that anyone did. That’s absurd.
-
I want it to evolve to support more desktop applications. This is the one thing that will continue to hamper Linux adoption. Games are the best place to start, but we need all those old obscure, irreplaceable desktop apps to work now.
It's built on Wine, any general improvements to compatibility will generally support desktop programs using the same APIs
-
This is the same faulty logic as arguing that Linux also costs money because you have to pay for a computer to run it on. Any operating system requires that you own a compatible device to run it on.
You’re just drawing some imaginary line at Apple computers. It makes no sense.
To be extremely pedantic, there's licensing costs involved with a bunch of 3rd party libraries included in the OS (HDR, h265, radios, etc), but they cover those royalties / fees via hardware sales and the license to use it follows the hardware
-
To be extremely pedantic, there's licensing costs involved with a bunch of 3rd party libraries included in the OS (HDR, h265, radios, etc), but they cover those royalties / fees via hardware sales and the license to use it follows the hardware
That’s a pretty specific and bolt claim. Presumably, you have proof of this? I doubt it, because this sounds like, at best, a guess.
Because every piece of evidence is that the license to use macOS is free. In fact, if you claim otherwise, then please, show me where I could possibly pay for it.
Any windows license always cost money.
That’s the difference between “free” and not free”. One cost money, and the other one does not.
-
does turbotax support linux?
No but I think the point being made is that people that have been clinging to Win 10 as a refuge from the crapfest that Win 11 is are going to start running into significant problems soon. Increasingly you're not going to be able to get software for Windows 10. A lot of people are opting to migrate to Linux rather than going from Win 10 to Win 11, and as the holdouts on 10 are increasingly corned some amount of them will make the same decision.
-
Compatibility has nothing to do with how much something costs. The fact is, there’s no way to actually buy macOS. Because it doesn’t cost anything.
As I’ve said elsewhere, by your logic, every operating system cost money to run because you have to pay money for a compatible device to run it on.
You’re just drawing some imaginary line at Apple. That makes no sense.
You're missing the core point: Compatibility directly impacts accessibility.
Just because something doesn't have a price tag doesn’t mean it's actually usable without cost.
macOS is only 'free' if you already bought into Apple’s walled garden.
That’s like saying Disneyland is free because walking around inside the park costs nothing—after you paid $150 to get in. -
That’s a pretty specific and bolt claim. Presumably, you have proof of this? I doubt it, because this sounds like, at best, a guess.
Because every piece of evidence is that the license to use macOS is free. In fact, if you claim otherwise, then please, show me where I could possibly pay for it.
Any windows license always cost money.
That’s the difference between “free” and not free”. One cost money, and the other one does not.
It's paid for as a part of the hardware and not listed separately on the receipts. All those 3rd party components in the OS are not free and has to be paid for. That comes from the hardware sale.
You agree that the terms of this License will apply to any Apple-branded application
software product that may be preinstalled on your Apple-branded hardwareyou are granted a limited, non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time.
to download, install, use and run for personal, non-commercial use, one (1) copy of the Apple
Software directly on each Apple-branded computer running macOS Sonoma, macOS Ventura, macOS Monterey, macOS Big Sur, macOS Catalina, macOS Mojave, or macOS High Sierra
(“Mac Computer”) that you own or controland you agree not to, install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so.
You're only allowed to use Mac OS and software for it on a Mac computer, which you have to pay for.
The license additionally calls out included 3rd party licensed fonts which which you can't use unrestricted without a specific license from the market of that font
-
I don’t see how cars and engines have anything to do with the fact that macOS is free.
And, yeah, if it’s not listed on a receipt as something I paid for, you can’t argue that I paid for it. Or that anyone did. That’s absurd.
If including it with a paid product has a cost for the manufacturer, then you did pay for it as a part of the price of the product which you did pay for.
-
macOS has been free for, like, 15 years.
Yes, you have to already own an Apple computer, but Apple users don’t pay for OS upgrades.
Technically, anyone could download the OS images, but there’s not a lot that non-Apple users can do with them.
Are you ASD? I'm not saying MacOS isn't free man since anyone can get a copy and use virtual PC. I'm saying I will never get a Mac because they are too damned expensive.
Nuance, man. Nuance.
-
That’s a pretty specific and bolt claim. Presumably, you have proof of this? I doubt it, because this sounds like, at best, a guess.
Because every piece of evidence is that the license to use macOS is free. In fact, if you claim otherwise, then please, show me where I could possibly pay for it.
Any windows license always cost money.
That’s the difference between “free” and not free”. One cost money, and the other one does not.
Here you go https://www.cnx-software.com/2017/10/30/h-265-hevc-license-pricing-updated-for-low-cost-devices/
The license to use macOS is not free. You must run it on a Macintosh computer and, keeping in terms of the license, cannot be run on non-Macintosh hardware. You must therefore purchase a Macintosh computer to use macOS. See Page 2, Section 2 of the Software License Agreement.
You keep repeating this argument of "show me where I can possibly pay for it" presumably because you know that it is not for sale and this is common knowledge.
What is being omitted here is that because anyone has the ability to put a PC of their own components together, Microsoft has two roads for these people: give Windows away where Microsoft sees none of that money back, or sell you a license to use Windows - they choose the second option. This is why you can buy a license for Windows. If you could only use prebuilt machines and were unable to make your own PC, the license cost would be passed onto the manufacturer and thus amortised in the final sale price, and you would also not have the ability to purchase a Windows license directly
Apple doesn't need to do these extra steps because they are both the software vendor and manufacturer, thus the development costs associated in macOS is also amortised in the final sale price.
Please stop defending a trillion dollar corporation over specific pedantics and omissions. macOS is complementary software, it is not free.
