[HN Gopher] Bottles: GUI front end to run Windows software on Linux
___________________________________________________________________
Bottles: GUI front end to run Windows software on Linux
Author : 1_player
Score : 465 points
Date : 2021-12-19 10:58 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (usebottles.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (usebottles.com)
| smoldesu wrote:
| Kinda rediculous that they tell people to install Flatpak for
| "the best experience" when their docs say things like:
|
| "After multiple requests, it is now possible to generate the
| desktop entry for a program directly from Bottles.
|
| ...
|
| this feature is not coming for Flatpak users, due to lack of
| permissions. So if you're using Flatpak, please don't worry about
| this feature, we still have other plans for you."
|
| Sounds like Flatpak _isn 't_ the best experience then, is it?
| morganvachon wrote:
| I'm confused...Crossover (a commercial product using Wine as its
| backend and contributes back to the Wine project[1]) uses the
| term "bottles" for its container-like method to install Windows
| apps on Linux and macOS. Is this an offshoot or extension of
| Crossover, or is it a blatant ripoff of their already existing
| service and name? Codeweavers (the makers of Crossover) have been
| using the term "bottle" in this paradigm since at least the late
| 2000s[2].
|
| [1] https://www.codeweavers.com/crossover#linux
|
| [2] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/crossover-and-
| bottles.5...
| Closi wrote:
| The WineHQ official documentation makes reference to WINEPREFIX
| being termed a 'bottle', and there are quite a few previous
| open source projects listed with titles stemming from bottles,
| so I'm not sure that it's a crossover specific term (and if it
| is, it seems to have been adopted by the open source project
| too).
|
| And let's be honest, although cute, it's a pretty obvious term
| for a project called Wine.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| "Blatant ripoff" is a bit harsh. "Bottles" isn't exactly that
| original or clever when considering the software that
| undergirds it.
| jkepler wrote:
| Especially considering that the wine project which Crossover
| relies in and contributes to also uses the term 'bottles' to
| encapsulate how they create different Windows environments.
| a-saleh wrote:
| Afaik, this project is reasonably old as well, I remember
| looking at early versions when I was at the uni around 2010.
| musicale wrote:
| Apparently we've standardized on Windows apps as the standard
| binary format for games and other software, irrespective of the
| underlying OS kernel.
| cortesoft wrote:
| Is this surprising? It has been the default format for 25
| years, and a lot of experience and tooling has been developed
| to support it. It would be very hard for a competitor to
| overtake that head start advantage.
| iotku wrote:
| Amusingly we're getting to a point where it's easier in many
| cases to just target Windows than ship native binaries for
| Linux.
|
| So then the question arrives: since there's going to be a
| native Windows binary regardless what's the point of putting in
| the extra effort if it works well enough?
|
| I think compatibility layers (Wine/Proton) are very useful
| especially considering many developers don't want to put the
| effort into making a well supported Linux binary (or make
| something open source so it can be compiled/patched against
| updated system libraries), but it very well may be a snake
| eating its own tail situation that hampers further adoption if
| things are "good enough".
| Mandatum wrote:
| .. Does this make Windows on Linux the "Java" of consistent,
| universal binaries?
| phist_mcgee wrote:
| Java has fewer issues with the JVM than Windows games do
| with Windows
| renewiltord wrote:
| Looks terrific. I have actually not needed to use Wine for so
| long due to the proliferation of web software and cross platform
| applications but perhaps if I were to play games!
| Jnr wrote:
| Yes, this would be great for gaming, but I personally play
| almost all of the games from Steam. I even add shortcuts to
| native Linux non-steam games to Steam library, so all of them
| would stay in one place.
| moharoune wrote:
| How does this compare to Wine ?
| boudin wrote:
| I don't know why you're getting down-voted, it's a legitimate
| question since the main page doesn't mention wine once. It is a
| Wine frontend though, seems to also integrate wine-tricks for
| dependencies, DXVK and other things from the wine eco-system.
| dschuessler wrote:
| Judging from the Github project page, it uses Wine itself, so
| is probably just a GUI frontend to it.
| Vinnl wrote:
| I think this uses Wine (it mentions DXVK, which IIRC is for
| Wine), but handles setting it up correctly for every program
| you want to use.
| mozarik wrote:
| https://docs.usebottles.com/components/runners
| rhdunn wrote:
| Bottles are isolated Wine environments, similar to containers
| or VMs. This allows you to install components (e.g. msxml3) to,
| and modify the configuration of that environment to make the
| program work without having it affect other applications.
| mathfailure wrote:
| Isolated wine environments are called wineprefixes in wine
| terms and do not require any additional software.
| hoppyhoppy2 wrote:
| I think bottles allow you to run a different version of
| wine inside each bottle (in addition to offering a noob-
| friendly GUI interface).
| anthk wrote:
| export WINEPREFIX=$HOME/tmp mkdir $HOME/tmp
| wine foo/bar/bla/install.exe
| bserge wrote:
| Wow, it looks great!
| ghostly_s wrote:
| I hate when a product landing page doesn't answer the biggest
| question everyone is going to have. How is this different from
| Wine?
| SSLy wrote:
| That's a strange name, Crossover (the company backing Wine
| developement) uses Bottles as a name for their Wine prefixes.
| nailer wrote:
| Yeah I read the website and thought Bottles for winning Ng
| windows apps on Linux is already a thing - looks like this is a
| different company that's ripped off the name.
| lordofgibbons wrote:
| I want to make sure I understand what this is.
|
| Does this set up and manage multiple isolated Wine & Proton
| environments?
| confiq wrote:
| As far as I understand, yes[1]! I'll quote
|
| > There are two types of runners in Bottles:
|
| > 1. Wine
|
| > 2. Proton
|
| > The Wine runner is used for all Environments and is therefore
| in all bottles created, but also for external prefixes imported
| into Bottles. We support 3 different runners:
|
| [1] https://docs.usebottles.com/components/runners
| badsectoracula wrote:
| I haven't used this software, but FWIW i almost never have to
| create isolated Wine (well, Wine-staging) environments. I've
| installed pretty much everything - applications, games, etc -
| on the default wine prefix and things tend to work just fine.
| Though i do have installed DXVK and VKD3D-Proton as well as the
| windows media framework files for games to work properly, but i
| do not see these as anything different to what i was doing on
| Windows anyway - including using DXVK to run some D3D9 games
| that were otherwise broken.
|
| I think in general Wine and Wine-staging are good enough
| nowadays to not need game-specific hacks that affect the entire
| wine prefix anymore.
| woile wrote:
| This is literally amazing, very similar to playonlinux, but much
| better looking and intuitive.
|
| Thanks for this, it will make much easier to install linux on
| friends computers hehe
| IceWreck wrote:
| +1 for Bottles. Have been using it for a while. Its excellent. It
| also has an inbuilt task manager, command line access, and so on
| for a container/bottle.
| OJFord wrote:
| I can't find a list of tested working (or to what degree)
| software - does enough work well that I'm supposed to assume
| everything does?
|
| I would love to have Fusion 360 working on Linux.
| bstar77 wrote:
| This is just a frontend to Wine. Most stuff tends to work
| unless it's doing strange things and has unusual dependencies.
| Some resources:
|
| https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=applicatio...
|
| https://www.protondb.com
| profsnuggles wrote:
| I was going to point to the WineHQ AppDB also but the person
| most active in updating the Fusion360 entry seems to be
| working on this. https://github.com/cryinkfly/Autodesk-
| Fusion-360-for-Linux It looks like it's been fairly active
| over the past year so it's probably what I would start with
| to get Fusion running.
| Danborg wrote:
| Has anyone figured out how to run Visio? ;-)
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Can this run office 365 on Linux. I don't really care about
| alternatives, I need Teams, One Drive, PowerBI and Excel or I
| can't move. Otherwise I have to stick with WSL
| jeroenhd wrote:
| No. Wine can't implement modern features fast enough for stuff
| like office to work.
|
| That's not the goal of this tool, though. It's a quality of
| life improvement for programs that are already known to work in
| WINE.
| Shadonototra wrote:
| Well stick to windows, nobody forcing you to move!
|
| If linux doesn't have what you need, it's 100% fine!
|
| Linux is here for people willing to stop depending on
| proprietary mono-platform driven stacks
|
| The world is moving, you'll be left behind, if not already
|
| Developpers already moved with it, what's left are the old "ms"
| office people! the modern ones use gmail suite
| iudqnolq wrote:
| It looks like the only officially supported program that isn't
| a game is amazon music [1]. The main project for running
| windows on Linux has a partially working distribution of Office
| 365. My impression is that it sometimes works with significant
| manual effort, wouldn't be reliable enough to depend on without
| a backup system [2].
|
| When I need Office apps to communicate with clients I use a
| combination of Google Docs download as docx, Office Online, and
| a VM.
|
| [1]: https://github.com/bottlesdevs/programs [2]:
| https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iI...
| MayeulC wrote:
| Android office apps seem to work for me via waydroid.
| Otherwise, web office seems to be enough for 90% of people
| (where libreoffice and onlyoffice already seem to cover the
| needs for 70%). Of course, you might have a very specific need
| for MS Office, no judgement :)
|
| edit: though a VM can work too.
| marcodiego wrote:
| I was able to install following instructions available here:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/hhvx17/off...
| and here:
| https://old.reddit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/hhvx17/off...
| .
|
| I downloaded the installer from a windows machine. After trying
| to install and run, it still complained about a missing
| implementation. The tutorial explains how to install using wine
| 5.11, to make it run correctly, simply run it using wine 5.12
| after installed.
|
| I used bottles to install wine versions my distro wasn't
| shipped with. Also used winetricks to install fonts. At the end
| it works, but be aware: it is slow and buggy.
| senectus1 wrote:
| is that not the same link twice?
| marcodiego wrote:
| Think you're right. Correct links: https://old.reddit.com/r
| /linuxmasterrace/comments/hhvx17/off... and https://old.red
| dit.com/r/linuxmasterrace/comments/hhvx17/off...
| tyingq wrote:
| WSL2 is probably hard to beat. They've added GPU passthrough,
| and now have Wayland built-in with wslg. Some buggy stuff
| remains, systemd support is a bit rough, etc. But they do keep
| iterating. I do wish they had a full-screen mode where you
| could use your own window manager, like many Windows X11
| servers optionally allow.
|
| But it's good enough now that I rarely find things that don't
| work. At least for now, it's also a bit of an escape from
| corporate over-management of desktops. Most companies haven't
| yet figured out how to overmanage it in the way they do with
| regular Windows, Linux, and MacOS.
| Shadonototra wrote:
| That's not the reason people use linux
|
| They move to linux to be in control of their OS, to manage
| their dependencies and to embrace an open platform that scale
| from embedded to IoT to datacenters
|
| If your goal is to use a proprietary OS that spy on you and
| is bloated, only to run a linux VM, then you don't understand
| why cloud native is 100% linux
|
| That's the problem of the people who work at Microsoft have,
| they became blind and don't understand the real intent of
| people using linux!
|
| Bloat driven development is certainly not one of them!
| tyingq wrote:
| I agree that set of people is one group of users. I use WSL
| to write code for work, where I also need Windows for
| Office and some drawing tools. I imagine I'm not the only
| one.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| For everyone questioning the need for MS office. If you are an
| advanced Excel user nothing else will do.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Office online?
| zamadatix wrote:
| It's been getting much better over the years, I remember
| Pivot Tables making it in being the hot shit in the online
| version a couple years back, but it's still not to parity
| for advanced use. The biggest pain point probably being
| limited data sources though I think there is still a file
| size limit too (30 MB last I remember, better than at
| first!). New features still get cooked in the desktop
| previews first as well e.g. even if your account is set to
| insider preview lamdba won't work in Excel Online at the
| moment.
| petepete wrote:
| I've just tried with Office 2013 and 2016, neither worked.
| Didn't make it as far as the installer screen each time.
|
| To make sure it was installed properly I tried Notepad++ and it
| worked flawlessly.
|
| Office is just a bit of a pain.
| citizenpaul wrote:
| I once read that office basically functions like a VM. I
| don't know how true that was but I guess it makes it not
| really software but a deployment.
| Shadonototra wrote:
| -- small rant
|
| The UI looks very nice and polished
|
| .. that would be true if it was a mobile app, not a desktop app..
|
| i'm tired of constant scroll/touch/gesture based UX on desktop,
| it's wrong
|
| -- rant end
|
| Running windows app?
|
| What kind of windows only app does people need nowadays?
|
| I see none personally
|
| Office? meh, gmail/google doc etc replaced it
|
| 3D? blender is here
|
| Game Engines? they run on linux
|
| Editors? they run on linux
|
| What's left? i literally see none!
| 2ion wrote:
| Why is this better than playonlinux (contains "quirk" solution
| for lots of productivity software and is also based on fully
| managed invidiual wine prefices) or lutris or steam w/ proton for
| games?
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| i could never under the new phoenicis playonlinux. it is
| molasses slow, takes a toll on pc, is buggy. eh.
| macco wrote:
| Wow, the first impression is really great.
|
| Finally, a Wine frontend that feels polished and easy to use for
| beginners. Heck, the documentation alone is worth the project.
|
| I love PlayOnLinux but their decision to go the Java route was a
| mistake and the rewrite seems to take ages.
| CursedUrn wrote:
| This looks cool. Does it make use of the tech Valve has been
| developing for gaming in Linux?
| 1_player wrote:
| Yes, you can choose which Wine environment to run on, by
| default it's a vanilla Wine environment, or you can pick which
| Proton version you prefer.
| drekk wrote:
| It (optionally) uses a fork of Proton, the Valve-developed
| compatability layer. All containers use Wine, but Proton and
| Lutris are more complex and support more modern titles
| unbanned wrote:
| I don't want to have to learn an entirely new vocabulary for
| every new utility that comes out.
| mathfailure wrote:
| tl;dr: that seems to be a GUI to create&mange separate
| wine/proton-based wineprefixes and install libs/apps into them
| using winetricks.
|
| Basically, just another Lutris/PlayOnLinux/whatever else.
| [deleted]
| amelius wrote:
| Where's the run-MacOS-apps-on-Linux equivalent?
| mastazi wrote:
| It's called Darling, apparently it works well for most Terminal
| apps while support for GUI apps is still limited at the moment
|
| https://www.darlinghq.org/
|
| https://github.com/darlinghq/darling
| MayeulC wrote:
| It's a shame winepak never really took off
| https://www.winepak.org/
|
| To make this clear, there hasn't been much activity since 2018:
| https://github.com/winepak/winepak
| 1_player wrote:
| That's fantastic! I've been trying to package as many apps as I
| can as flatpak (because flatpak rocks, fight me), I will
| definitely look into winepak to package Windows-only software.
| The fact that it uses a standard and common-place technology,
| it just needs more exposure IMO. This is the first time I have
| heard of it.
|
| EDIT: nevermind... $ flatpak remote-add --if-
| not-exists winepak
| https://dl.winepak.org/repo/winepak.flatpakrepo error:
| Signature made Fri 20 Jul 2018 03:30:34 BST using RSA key ID
| A959831C080B608F BAD signature from " <julian@richen.io>"
| Key expired Tue 09 Jun 2020 19:16:34 BST
| alvarlagerlof wrote:
| It's not active anymore.
| MayeulC wrote:
| Which is a real shame. I can definitely see some value in
| winepak, and flatpaks could be built from Lutris install
| scripts, etc.
|
| I don't have much interest in windows apps, but I wouldn't
| mind donating a bit of money (as opposed to free time) to
| the project.
|
| Edit: https://github.com/winepak/winepak/issues/23#issuecom
| ment-64...
|
| > _The biggest issue with winepak, which is why I haven 't
| been working on it, is that it all revolves around me
| building things instead of a remote server doing it and
| having people contribute. I really just need to get the
| buildbot & sdk in a place that it can auto build an push
| out. Then it can do all the signing and building again and
| this shouldn't happen. I just need to find the time._
|
| Maybe a few PR around automation, and/or donated CI runtime
| could help a whole lot?
| smoldesu wrote:
| I mean, I can see why. At this point, Flatpak has more open
| issues than Wine itself...
| 1_player wrote:
| The flatpak hate gang strikes again. Seriously, more bugs
| than Wine? For the first time we have a cross-distro
| packaging system, and I still hear people complaining that
| the olden days were better. Are you kidding me?
|
| Honestly, I don't even care to entertain this discussion, as
| for the FIRST TIME in Linux history there is people packaging
| an application and it works exactly the same everywhere, and
| some can only meet this achievement by unpaid volunteers with
| _snark_ because it's not "perfect".
|
| It's tiring to see any effort to make the Linux desktop a
| reality met with unconstructive opposition from daily Linux
| desktop users.
|
| /rant
| grozzle wrote:
| no-one here said the olden days were better. it is possible
| for something to be _generally_ in the right direction, but
| still in great need of improvements. dismissing anything
| not as positive as you 'd like as unconstructive is itself
| unconstructive.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Flatpak is only exciting Redhat who wants to easily provide
| up to date software on a very old stable base and to be the
| Google of linux software distribution and to prospective
| developers who don't at present already have a method of
| getting debs and rpms to end users easily. This is a small
| group.
|
| For end users its meant slower startup, apps that ignore
| user themes, concern that a rogue developer will poison the
| well with outright malware, concern that a legit developer
| will get hacked and instantly disseminate malware to all
| users with their flatpak installed, flatpak only bugs,
| permissions issues, and additional complexity in managing
| software.
|
| For developers who already have their software widely
| available via traditional packaging its something else they
| have to do in addition to traditional packaging not an
| alternative because its not universal. In fact last year
| only a single digit percentage said they used it.
|
| If your prospective users aren't excited about your product
| perhaps one needs to reconsider if its the users fault for
| not being excited.
| MayeulC wrote:
| I am excited about flatpak for multiple reasons, which
| boils down to sandboxing:
|
| 1. Proprietary software: most proprietary software
| authors do not play well with packagers. Moreover, I want
| any proprietary software properly sandboxed
|
| 2. Software that you need sandboxed for various reasons:
| I've been running flatpak nightlies of stuff I otherwise
| have installed on my system
|
| 3. Installing a program without installing a whole bunch
| of dependencies, hard to clean up after
|
| 4. Cleaning up my home directory
|
| Sandboxing (I know most flathub packages have leaky
| sandboxes, but that's a start) limits the effect of
| compromising one flatpak. To be clear: I treat any piece
| of proprietary software as a possible RCE by the author.
|
| User themes issues are probably fixable.
|
| Slower startup as well, to an extent.
|
| Unfortunately, developers are pretty bad at packaging
| generally, and don't have distro maintainers watching
| over their CVEs and upgrading dependencies with the
| flatpak model... Although users could still dig in and
| fix these by themselves, and sandboxing still gives a few
| protections.
| authed wrote:
| Can Wine nowadays run CAD software like Inventor, etc?
| 41b696ef1113 wrote:
| It was not immediately obvious to me - can I also restrict
| network access?
| Santosh83 wrote:
| I mean, what the hell? This is from India:
|
| "The website has been blocked as per order of Ministry of
| Electronics and Information Technology under IT Act, 2000."
|
| Why has the Indian govt blocked this website?
| webmobdev wrote:
| Same here on Airtel, India - blocked.
| blahgeek wrote:
| I'm curious, how does this work? It's a HTTPS site, so it's
| basically a MITM attack, which is not technically possible, is
| that right? Are you required to install some certification from
| gov?
| Delk wrote:
| Maybe they block entire domains, not individual pages?
|
| That wouldn't be affected by HTTPS at all.
| tanduv wrote:
| Depends on the ISP, but some have even done deep packet
| inspection - https://iamkush.me/sni-airtel/
| gombosg wrote:
| The initial TLS handshake contains the hostname in plaintext,
| also DNS queries can be sniffed. On the other hand, MITM
| would be like changing a certificate in an attempt to alter
| traffic, this case is simple traffic blocking by doing packet
| inspection. (Which is also not nice obviously)
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| Is it still blocked for you? I'm on ACT broadband and the site
| is available to me, but i think Jio is generally more
| restrictive.
|
| (For anyone reading from outside India, yes, the government
| blocks a lot of websites, different internet providers seem to
| implement different lists, and nobody afaik knows what the
| actual official list is - or maybe there isn't one, just
| general instructions from the government about what sort of
| websites to block, hence the variance.)
| Santosh83 wrote:
| Surprisingly it is not blocked now. What changed within half
| an hour? Very inexplicable. I'm on BSNL landline broadband,
| fwiw.
| zinekeller wrote:
| (not Indian)
|
| Maybe the way they implement it is if the domain is first
| visited by their user, it is put in a queue to review if
| it's compliant?
| syntaxfree wrote:
| I wonder if this will work for running Java GUI scientific apps
| (Gephi, Concept Explorer) that are pretty much impossible to get
| running correctly on Linux.
| Koshkin wrote:
| You mean, "impossible to get running correctly _anywhere_ "?
|
| (The problem with running Java apps is that they are tied to a
| range of versions of JRE, like, for instance, version 8 or
| earlier.)
| rtpg wrote:
| Ooh this looks very nice. I love how wine "just works" but it
| means I'm sometimes just really unaware of what's going on or how
| my system is configured.
|
| I admit I sometimes just open winetricks and more or less
| randomly click on a bunch of things to see if it will fix issues
| when I have them... this might help me out with that
| throwawayboise wrote:
| If you need Windows software, why not just run Windows? Why make
| life more difficult?
| nu11ptr wrote:
| Many people (like myself) are very happy with Linux and have
| been for years. We have no interest in "auto rebooting for
| security patches", "treating file locking like it was security"
| or having "relevant ads" shown to us. However, there might be 1
| or 2 Windows apps we wish to run, so things like this are nice.
| I assure you that my overall experience is not "more difficult"
| than Windows (the exact opposite in fact).
| jpeloquin wrote:
| Because we need some Windows-only software and some Linux-only
| software. And the occasional Mac-only (or whatever else)
| software too. Life is _less_ difficult when it all works in the
| same window manager and accesses the same filesystem, if that
| is possible.
| dijit wrote:
| Windows is kinda crap.
|
| The cost of it not withstanding, the OS itself is just janky.
| So. I'd prefer not to.
| dartharva wrote:
| People keep saying that, but the only stable experience I
| have had is with Windows. Every single Linux distro I have
| tried (Ubuntu, Debian, Manjaro, Fedora) has been inherenty
| more sluggish and painful to use than Windows for me (even if
| you were to ignore the initial setup problems with various
| hardware).
|
| Windows unactivated is actually free to use (just use a
| generic key from its official documentation) and most of its
| preloaded bloatware can be removed with single-use scripts.
| dijit wrote:
| I guess it depends where you are?
|
| It's so much of a surface area that it's hard to be
| objective on all fronts, nothing is perfect and I could
| come up with 1000 ways that Linux is better or that macos
| is better or that windows is better. But it largely doesn't
| matter.
|
| The parent postulated "why not use windows". Well, I don't
| like using windows but often I need to run software
| developed for windows.
|
| The same way that windows now has an emulation/virt layer
| for Linux, people want to use Linux programs from windows.
|
| I dont begrudge those users for using Linux software on
| windows or look down on them for that.
|
| Enjoying the Experience of the operating system you use is
| just so incredibly subjective...
|
| I recently had the mispleasure of reinstalling a windows
| machine and kept getting frustrated at the requirement to
| have a Microsoft account, drivers that didn't seem to find
| my drives (?) but could with an Intel computer from the
| same brand (and similar model) of motherboard. I got
| frustrated when trying to use the win32 api because it
| expects WTF16, padded and null terminated strings but only
| passed as mutable pointers.
|
| And if you want to pass a strict to a function, you must
| pass a raw pointer. Which is inherently unsafe in rust.
|
| These things annoy me.
|
| Then: I tried to activate windows and saw the jaw dropping
| price. The price is more than a quarter of a reasonably
| priced home PC. No wonder the OEMs install bloatware to get
| the price down.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| I've tried this on PopOS and unfortunately it was really unstable
| and couldn't start applications. But otherwise I think the
| interface is already better and simpler than some other GUI
| frontends for wine.
| mackrevinack wrote:
| this could be a completely different issue to yours, but i ran
| into a problem with some software where i selected the .exe
| installer to run but it wouldn't work as bottles didn't have
| access to the other installer files in the same folder.
|
| when i moved the installer files inside the bottle it worked no
| problem. alternatively, flatseal will let you set up
| permissions for bottles so that it can access your home folder
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| Will this enable me to run Office365 and CreativeCloud on Linux?
| Snetry wrote:
| As a developer within this space I am excited for the format for
| application installers since the alternatives are all terrible
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Looks like a replacement for ye-olde PlayOnLinux, which if I ever
| move to Linux Desktop[0] was going to be something I would write
| my own tooling to replace[1].
|
| It is not clear from looking over the website, but since bottles
| appear closely related to Flatpak I am wondering if they support
| being installed to a different path than the default. Flatpak
| doesn't allow you to do this in a piecemeal way[2], but it does
| allow you to set up more than one entire Flatpak environment to
| different paths[3]. I'm hoping bottles can at least manage that?
|
| [0] There are dozens of tools on my list for this, mostly around
| application and container management.
|
| [1] I am a very vocal critic of the way Linux Desktop does
| things, but Windows is becoming worse at an alarming rate so it
| will probably be the least-worst option in a few years.
|
| [2] A regression from features we had in desktop OSs since the
| 80s.
|
| [3] Not that any GUI frontend for it pays attention to that.
| _sigh_
| bogwog wrote:
| Idk anything about bottles, but just curious why you would want
| that feature? Like, what is a compelling use case for it?
|
| You probably know this already, but the point of Flatpak is to
| offer sandboxing and packaging of all dependencies in an
| isolated way. Being able to install and run flatpaks from any
| directory seems like it'd be difficult to implement for little
| benefit. It's a bad fit for the tech IMO, and unnecessary since
| AppImage already offers exactly that functionality, but without
| the sandboxing (and other) features.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| > Idk anything about bottles, but just curious why you would
| want that feature? Like, what is a compelling use case for
| it?
|
| Being able to run some applications from super fast but small
| NVMe disk and less important ones from slow but huge spinning
| rust disk, being able to run applications from a network
| share, CD, USB stick, etc. Desktop OSs have been able to do
| these sorts of things since the 1980s without all the hoops
| Linux Desktop software makes you jump through to do them.
|
| > Being able to install and run flatpaks from any directory
| seems like it'd be difficult to implement for little benefit.
|
| If Flatpak had considered this ability from the beginning it
| wouldn't be. Hell it might not be that difficult now, I
| haven't looked at the source for Flatpak and how it does
| things behind the scenes is otherwise not documented as far
| as I can tell. As you mentioned, AppImage implements it
| without much difficulty, and AppImages can be securely
| isolated by firejail. Combining the two concepts in the same
| package shouldn't be that hard. Keep runtimes in
| "installations" and let applications exists as single-
| directory self-contained units wherever the user wants them.
| What is fundamentally difficult about this?
|
| > unnecessary since AppImage already offers exactly that
| functionality
|
| If AppImage were fast becoming the new standard in Linux
| Desktop application distribution we wouldn't be having this
| conversation.
| bogwog wrote:
| > Desktop OSs have been able to do these sorts of things
| since the 1980s without all the hoops Linux Desktop
| software makes you jump through to do them.
|
| Linux desktops _can_ do this. Flatpak maybe can 't (Idk, I
| don't use them that often, but I'd be surprised if they
| couldn't), but even before AppImage, Flatpak, Snap, etc you
| could always just run an application from wherever you
| want. You could do that 20 years ago, and you can do it
| today.
|
| Desktops in the 80s didn't have sandboxing, but modern
| Linux desktops do. You can either implement sandboxing
| yourself through syscalls, use something like Systemd, or
| use the significantly more user friendly Flatpaks.
|
| ...Or don't use sandboxing at all, and do whatever you
| want. Download a (hopefully statically-linked) ELF from the
| internet, chmod +x it, then execute.
|
| > standard in Linux Desktop application distribution
|
| There is no such thing. There never has been, and there
| never will be :P
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| > Linux desktops can do this.
|
| Yeah, in theory they can. In practice the community
| abhors the concept of managing applications like they
| were just regular files and prefers complicated tooling,
| gigantic databases of dependencies, and armies of
| maintainers. It isn't that it _can 't_ do it, it's that
| it _doesn 't_ do it.
|
| You clearly have never tried this in reality. It doesn't
| work the vast majority of software without a lot of
| effort.
|
| > Desktops in the 80s didn't have sandboxing
|
| Sandboxing is orthogonal to how the applications are
| managed, whether or not they use hardcoded paths, and
| even if they use giant unwieldy dependency chains. There
| is no conceptual limitation to having both simple
| application management and sandboxing.
|
| > Download a (hopefully statically-linked) ELF from the
| internet, chmod +x it, then execute.
|
| Statements like this make it clear how never-fucking-ever
| you actually tried to do this.
|
| > There is no such thing. There never has been, and there
| never will be :P
|
| Did I mention the other thing I hate about Linux Desktop?
| It's community. It's full of condescending know-it-all
| dismissive and pedantic assholes. There is a standard,
| and it is package management. Only the most obtuse
| definition of standard could ever conclude otherwise.
| Flatpak is gaining ground, which is better than
| continuing with the current paradigm as far as I'm
| concerned, but it is still worse than the simple way
| things were done in saner desktop operating systems.
|
| Of course, next you'll tell me that "Linux is just a
| kernel" or some other useless pedantic defensive
| nonsense. I've had to deal with crap like that for 20
| years now, which is part of the reason I still use
| Windows.
| pxc wrote:
| > [T]he Linux community abhors the concept of managing
| applications like they were just regular files and
| prefers complicated tooling, gigantic databases of
| dependencies, and armies of maintainers.
|
| > Flatpak is gaining ground, which is better than
| continuing with the current paradigm as far as I'm
| concerned, but it is still worse than the simple way
| things were done in saner desktop operating systems.
|
| (and from your other comment:)
|
| > Application management on Linux is already complicated
| enough without having to learn a new language to use it
| effectively.
|
| Linux is the only system (maybe now FreeBSD, if they've
| completed the migration to a packaged base system yet)
| where every single piece of software on a complete and
| usable system can be managed uniformly with a single set
| of automatic tools. You are absolutely correct that
| people using such a system are loathe to return to the
| fundamentally unmanageable anarchy of a system like
| Windows, where * every installer does
| basically whatever the hell it wants; * you can
| never really be sure that an uninstaller does its job;
| * much software simply cannot be installed or uninstalled
| non-interactively; * managing non-interactive
| installation for apps which DO support non-interactive
| management is often achievable only through some bespoke
| process; * every single fucking program feels
| entitled to litter your system with its own bespoke auto-
| update mechanism (sometimes one that runs in the
| background constantly!); * a brand new system with
| virtually no desired application software takes up 20-40
| GiB, instead of 4-8 GiB; * it is difficult to even
| *discern* whether or not the whole system is up to date,
| and bringing a system up to date requires several manual
| processes; * even in the year of our lord two-
| thousand and twenty one, whole system installs
| mysteriously become slow after a few years so that they
| must either be reinstalled (the only sure-fire way) or
| treated with a laborious, manual cleanup process just to
| achieve sane, normal performance again.
|
| Software management on Windows is absolutely riddled with
| problems that are hugely minimized by traditional Linux
| package managers and can be more or less totally
| eliminated by more innovative ones. People who are
| already using Linux are opposed to your proposition
| because we've been there on other operating systems and
| you are asking to _drag us back to hell_.
|
| Flatpak isn't a 'step in the right direction' which will
| eventually take us to the manual, repetitious, chaotic,
| redundant mess of managing software on other operating
| systems. It's a fundamental improvement over that model,
| because it retains * very good
| deduplication of shared runtimes via OSTree; * easy
| management by automatic tools; * conventional and
| technical constraints on what applications can do to set
| themselves up; * a single central interface for
| software distribution; * a more complete
| specification of the dependency chain, unlike the
| implicit and unspecified dependencies on various Windows
| components from different eras that cause the base
| Windows installation (even without any applications) to
| grow and grow and grow.
|
| Flatpak is not going to give those things up, and if it
| did it would not be 'advancing'.
|
| > > > standard in Linux Desktop application distribution
|
| > > There is no such thing. There never has been, and
| there never will be :P
|
| > Did I mention the other thing I hate about Linux
| Desktop? It's community.
|
| This is how you react to playful commiseration about the
| difficulty of coordinating unification between
| independent, distributed, democratically managed
| volunteer projects? Please, I urge you in the strongest
| possible terms: continue using Windows exclusively,
| forever and ever. :)
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| > Linux is the only system (maybe now FreeBSD, if they've
| completed the migration to a packaged base system yet)
| where every single piece of software on a complete and
| usable system can be managed uniformly with a single set
| of automatic tools.
|
| Only the software that has been painstakingly packaged
| for that particular version of that particular
| distribution can be managed by said tools. This is one of
| its biggest flaws and part of the reason Flatpak even
| exists.
|
| You rightly describe a lot of problems with the installer
| mechanism of traditional Windows, which is not what I am
| advocating for[0]. I'm advocating for something more like
| original Mac applications, or RiscOS AppDirs, or
| NeXT/current MacOS Application Bundles, or just folders
| with files in them in DOS, or you know, AppImage. Single
| object applications that can be copied, deleted, and
| moved the same as any file _without_ a bunch of special
| tooling. I contend that the need for special tooling is
| to work around an overly complicated model, not inherent
| to the problem space.
|
| > This is how you react to playful commiseration about
| the difficulty of coordinating unification between
| independent, distributed, democratically managed
| volunteer projects? Please, I urge you in the strongest
| possible terms: continue using Windows exclusively,
| forever and ever. :)
|
| When someone asks me about my use case for features for
| the sole purpose of being pedantic and telling me things
| I already know that are entirely useless and that I have
| heard variations of _for twenty goddamn years_ while
| literally using an emoji that represents a human face
| sticking it 's tongue out... well let's just say I'm not
| inclined to have a high opinion of them. Frankly, there's
| good reason Linux is in a distant third place as a
| Desktop OS, despite how much Windows sucks, and it isn't
| because it provides a seamless experience and its
| community is so helpful and welcoming.
|
| [0] It's weird that when you criticize something in Linux
| Desktop, for some reason its proponents always go all
| whataboutism on Windows.
| opan wrote:
| I would much rather see Guix or Nix become the standard
| than Flatpak/AppImage/Snaps.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Yeah, a lot of people would, but I honestly can't see
| why. Application management on Linux is already
| complicated enough without having to learn a new language
| to use it effectively. I get that many people find value
| in its declarative nature, but the reason I think that is
| so attractive is that the current paradigm is so utterly
| terrible it makes what should be a relatively niche
| requirement (declarative application management) look
| like a good general solution.
| bogwog wrote:
| Oh sorry, I didn't realize that I was the asshole. Thanks
| for clearing that up.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| Right? After that rant...
| michaelmrose wrote:
| > Being able to run some applications from super fast but
| small NVMe disk and less important ones from slow but huge
| spinning rust disk
|
| 1TB NVME drives aren't very expensive on the order of
| $80-$100 US. This is already big enough for your entire OS
| even with several very large games installed. The natural
| split if you have multiple drives would be between OS and
| backups/multimedia.
|
| I see this immediately being used for pirated software and
| games. It could also be used to implement a cross platform
| app store like interface to install legitimate software. It
| could even be integrated with the same store interface as
| one uses to install traditional packages and flatpaks for a
| true one stop shop.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| > 1TB NVME drives aren't very expensive on the order of
| $80-$100 US.
|
| That isn't the point. I have in my possession several
| small form factor computers that have _16GB_ disks in
| them. "just spend $80-100 each on them" is not a good
| excuse for having such an inflexible system that it
| demands everything be on one disk.
|
| The original Mac did this on floppies in 1984. It is
| 2021, our software should be able to do better.
| wizzledonker wrote:
| This looks great, I love the clean GTK for this user interface.
| Say what you will about GTK and Gnome... for beginners on an
| operating system such as Ubuntu, having a consistent application
| concept is very important.
|
| Curious how this compares to Lutris[1]. I can see it has support
| for it as a runner, however as far as I can tell it achieves the
| same thing by maintaining separate wineprefixes.
|
| [1] https://lutris.net/
| brnt wrote:
| Re consistency: Am I the only that finds all those
| burgerbuttons and cluttered window frames (I think they may
| even call them decorations!) anything but?
|
| Give me a title bar and good old many bars please.
| Jnr wrote:
| Lutris is great, but the UI is not as polished, and is probably
| still geared towards more advanced users.
| simion314 wrote:
| >Say what you will about GTK and Gnome... for beginners on an
| operating system such as Ubuntu, having a consistent
| application concept is very important.
|
| Consistency is important but is not like the majority of the
| apps are GTK3 (or whatever is latest) with the GNOME styles
| even if those GNOME designers pretend nothing else exists and
| nobody should remove the GNOME branding from the GNOME apps.
|
| Just want to mention that GNOME are the bad guys, KDE
| distributions will provide GNOME integration with packages and
| themes that attempt to keep Qt and GTK application consistent
| in look and feel but I never seen GNOME distros attempt to
| integrate with the non-GNOME apps.
| ravenstine wrote:
| As much as I think that GNOME is a joke at this point (and
| has been for well over a decade), is that really such a bad
| thing that they focus on supporting their graphical toolkit
| of choice?
|
| Besides, the real solution here is for developers to switch
| to QT and stop using GTK. ;)
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Qt, unfortunately, by nature of being C++, is much harder
| to link into a different language. GTK is a plain C API.
| So, if you're using plain C, Rust, C#, etc, it's a heck of
| a lot easier to use GTK than Qt.
| simion314 wrote:
| The thing is that GNOME project and GNOME based distros
| should put just a bit of effort to support Qt programs,
| like have the same File Picker Dialog or even have GTK2
| and GTK3 use the same fucking File Picker or at least
| with the same fucking File Sorting.
|
| About easy of use I am sure that you are more productive
| with a professional toolkit like Qt and a mature language
| like c++ then fucking around with some
| broken/incomplete/buggy C# or Rust GTK bindings. Though I
| think you can do simple Python apps with GTK GUIs but for
| professional applications that are targeting
| crossplatform trust me Qt is the solution (I never seen a
| good GUI cross platform pro application , Linus Torvalds
| himself used Qt for his app because his Red Hat friends
| could not answer him on how to do some complex GUI in
| GTK)
| tadfisher wrote:
| You get the DE's file chooser if you use xdg-desktop-
| portal, which has a KDE backend.
| simion314 wrote:
| This is a recent development and that was designed to
| support GNOME/RedHat's flatpack , we should not get
| tricked to believe GNOME would have done this for helping
| someone else then themselves(do they support this in GTK2
| apps too?, I really hate having different file choser
| with different sorting order of files and folders)
| 1_player wrote:
| > GNOME are the bad guys
|
| Just because you disagree with them, it doesn't make them the
| "bad guys".
| smoldesu wrote:
| I would agree if
|
| a. Their development team was more professional (locking
| threads when feedback starts coming in, making offhand
| derogatory comments about people's reading comprehension
| skills, trying to minimize serious problems to avoid
| dealing with merge requests/more work, blaming downstream
| actors like PopOS! for simply using their software and
| disagreeing with their ethos, etc.)
|
| b. They used their funding to actually fix issues (GTK4
| still has text rendering issues. 8 months later. Insert
| obligatory "thumbnail file picker" comment here)
|
| c. They didn't regress features that previously worked (No
| more extensions, no more desktop tweaks, overall fewer
| settings in new releases, design upgrades that are
| decidedly opinionated)
|
| d. They didn't treat their opinions as gospel (eg.
| encouraging Flatpak-or-die culture when Flatpak itself is
| still in it's infancy and wildly unstable, going out of
| their way to obfuscate theming interfaces, having "one guy"
| come up with a new design for something and implementing it
| before the community decides if it's something they want)
|
| Yeah, I think I am comfortable calling them "the bad guys"
| in the current landscape of Linux. GTK's team is still fine
| (barely) but the overall effort to combine the two, add
| middleware like libadwaita, move fast and break things, and
| blame it on the user when things stop working is just
| getting to be asinine.
|
| They can have a vision if they want, but it shouldn't have
| to come at the expanse of the rest of the community. That's
| how you burn goodwill.
| axiolite wrote:
| > GTK's team is still fine (barely)
|
| Really? Isn't GTK where the CSD (client side decoration)
| is being forced onto every app, with no way to use
| native/normal window manager borders? It seems rather
| widely despised:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16241923
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/xfce/comments/lcj7cq/why_is_csd_
| bad...
| smoldesu wrote:
| That's more of a GNOME effort, if I'm being honest. It's
| a feature that's provided via GTK's libraries, but the
| whole "we're going to add CSD and you're not going to do
| anything about it" has been more of a GNOME sentiment[0].
|
| [0] https://blogs.gnome.org/tbernard/2018/01/26/csd-
| initiative/
| phkahler wrote:
| Yeah, that goes against everything Wayland.
| simion314 wrote:
| >Just because you disagree with them, it doesn't make them
| the "bad guys".
|
| I was replying on the consistency topic. some projects
| offer the user a consistent experience by offering both
| Qt/GTK support and others don't care and would rather force
| their branding on you.
| ayushnix wrote:
| They're making their desktop environment and apps into a
| walled garden on a platform like Linux. Most GTK4 apps
| won't be usable outside the intended desktop environment
| for which they're built.
|
| They also engage in carefully crafted doublespeak when it
| comes to things like extensions and user choice regarding
| configuration.
|
| Call it what you want but they certainly don't intend to
| play nice with anyone and have adopted the approach of "my
| way or the highway". Perhaps they're emboldened by all the
| corporate backing they have from Red Hat and SUSE. They
| also have the advantage of being the default DE on most
| distros. Hell, even distros like NixOS encourage users to
| use GNOME, which is absolutely insane when you think about
| it.
| pxc wrote:
| > even distros like NixOS encourage users to use GNOME,
| which is absolutely insane when you think about it.
|
| ? NixOS doesn't have a default desktop environment. At
| the same time, the graphical installation media images
| have always come with Plasma as long as I can remember,
| and the example desktop environment commented out in the
| template given by nixos-generate-config has likewise
| always been Plasma.
| ayushnix wrote:
| I'm taking about the "Recommended for most users" tag for
| the GNOME ISO.
|
| https://nixos.org/download.html#nixos-iso
| pxc wrote:
| Wow! I can't believe I've never noticed that. For many
| years, the _only_ graphical installation disk was based
| on Plasma, and I think it also had that tag. NixOS only
| started shipping a GNOME iso for installation purposes a
| little over a year ago (for 20.09), and I kinda never
| noticed.
|
| Looks like the main reason GNOME is recommended for
| installation media at the moment is that it does a better
| job of autodetecting HiDPI displays, and then scaling
| appropriately: https://github.com/NixOS/nixos-
| homepage/pull/643
|
| There are also some packaging issues for Qt with NixOS,
| because Qt plugins fundamentally rely on 'impurity' at
| runtime, and the Qt framework makes promises it doesn't
| keep about binary compatibility.
|
| Here are some of the relevant issues for historical
| context and some of the tradeoffs Nixpkgs developers have
| faced when it comes to handling Qt and KDE packaging:
|
| https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/86369
|
| https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/54525
|
| https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/44047
|
| I realize that may not be a fully satisfying answer as to
| why the GNOME-based installation graphical ISO is
| recommended over the Qt one because one can imagine that
| the Qt packaging issue should be resolved some other way,
| or see the difficulty of packaging Qt plugins and
| applications in Nixpkgs as fundamentally a Nix defect.
| But I hope it makes that decision make more sense.
|
| FWIW, afaict Plasma is the more popular of the two major
| DEs on NixOS, and it's what I've always used on NixOS
| myself, including now. It is definitely usable.
| mechanical_bear wrote:
| I don't know the intricacies of the politics at play
| here, so could you explain why this is "insane"?
| ayushnix wrote:
| I guess this is just my opinion but NixOS is probably the
| most esoteric Linux distribution I've used. Anyone who
| intends to use NixOS comfortably probably isn't
| apprehensive about configuration and customization,
| things which are the antithesis of everything GNOME
| stands for.
|
| I fail to see why GNOME, or any DE for that matter, is
| something that should be recommended by a distribution
| like NixOS.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Being the default and thereby "recommended" desktop in
| NixOS a lot different than in other distro's.
|
| In other distro's, to get a non-default desktop, you have
| to download a whole different distro "spin", like
| Kubuntu. Or add the new desktop packages and manually
| configure them all.
|
| With NixOS you use the same install image, and just
| change two or three lines in the master configuration.nix
| file, and re/build. You can change back and forth between
| DE's that use different window managers with a reboot, or
| between DE's that use the same window manager with a
| relog [3].
|
| Most the major desktops are supported in NixOS [1][2].
| Gnome being the default means little, is easy to change
| should NixOS community ever form a consensus about
| changing the default (say in response to Gnome crossing
| some line), and is easy for end users to change any time.
|
| ----
|
| # Gnome
|
| services.xserver.enable = true;
|
| services.xserver.displayManager.gdm.enable = true;
|
| services.xserver.desktopManager.gnome.enable = true;
|
| ----
|
| # KDE
|
| services.xserver.enable = true;
|
| services.xserver.displayManager.sddm.enable = true;
|
| services.xserver.desktopManager.plasma5.enable = true;
|
| ----
|
| [1]:More info:
| https://nixos.org/manual/nixos/stable/index.html#sec-x11
|
| [2]:Supported desktops: https://search.nixos.org/options?
| channel=21.11&from=0&size=5...
|
| [3]:https://www.reddit.com/r/NixOS/comments/otnfq6/i3_or_
| sway_wh...
| ayushnix wrote:
| I wasn't questioning NixOS's customisability. I was
| questioning the choice to promote GNOME as "recommended
| for most users" on the download page.
|
| https://nixos.org/download.html#nixos-iso
|
| There's no need for a distro like NixOS to do this. It
| only serves to lend weight to the arrogance displayed by
| GNOME.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Right.
|
| What actually makes them the bad guys is that they parlayed
| the goodwill of the original GNOME (2 and prior) which was
| very open to change and community contribution into the
| restrictive community hostile thing that it is today.
|
| I don't mind that it exists, but they should have changed
| the name and been more clear about the direction.
|
| And should just be less obnoxious all around.
| bayindirh wrote:
| > Just because you disagree with them, it doesn't make them
| the "bad guys".
|
| Since the KDE 3.5.x days, it's always KDE guys who try to
| build corresponding GTK themes of the themes they default
| on the corresponding release, or build corresponding Qt
| themes of the GTK themes put forward as default by the
| GNOME guys.
|
| Moreover, there are always ways to make GNOME subsystems
| work well on KDE systems, and KDE guys always make sure
| that the standards they propose work with the GNOME without
| much hassle. Also, KDE guys put forward cross-DE ways to
| make user experience better (XDG base folder specification,
| for example).
|
| OTOH, GNOME people sit on their high thrones like they're
| the only game in town. I respect them deeply, but I can't
| appreciate them just because they auto-generated their JS
| introspection layer from C code automatically, but _didn 't
| bother to write any documentation, because you can try it
| all in the built-in JS console_.
|
| I have a couple of more, lower level stories with them,
| which caused a lot of all-nighters and project
| postponements, but that's for another comment.
|
| Their attitude is not helpful.
| greggh wrote:
| If you look at the screenshots, the very first screenshot says
| it is using Lutris as a "runner".
| mrtnpwn wrote:
| It has a runner manager so you can choose whatever WINE
| runner you like. Default is just the vanilla runtime.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Lutris is focused mostly on games and options that benefit
| games.
| nicce wrote:
| You can run manually any application you want. It just does
| not offer one-click install for non-games. I believe lutris
| offers better runner configuration.
| xfiderek wrote:
| https://docs.usebottles.com/faq/why-bottles#why-not-just-pol...
| sharmin123 wrote:
| Signs Of A Cheating Girlfriend: Gather Proof To Make A Decision:
| https://www.hackerslist.co/signs-of-a-cheating-girlfriend-ga...
| cosmotic wrote:
| How does this compare to codeweavers crossover which is also a
| GUI for wine that uses the term 'bottles'?
| [deleted]
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| First impression is that the gui is beautifully designed,
| installation on NixOS was (as always with prepackaged Nix
| packages) painless.
|
| I'm not sure what I should use it for though since I don't really
| run any windows applications other than games, and I use QEMU for
| that, only game that hasn't worked in QEMU is "Halo Infinite".
| brianjlogan wrote:
| How's that work? You have a QEMU windows box setup to game on?
|
| Why not use Proton?
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| Yeah I have a QEMU windows box that I game on.
|
| The reason I don't use proton is because compability isn't
| 100%, whereas actually running windows gets you to a 100%, if
| we don't count games with predatory anticheats, but those
| don't work on proton either (For now).
|
| I'm REALLY superstoked about Intels new HPG GPU's, it's
| rumored they'll have SR-IOV support, meaning I could
| partition the GPU to run both Windows and Linux at the same
| time. (There's support for it in my 11th gen Intel CPU on my
| work laptop, but the software isn't there yet, so I'm not
| certain it'll work)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-19 23:00 UTC)