Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

loss32.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 493 posts

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#61

Post by andsoitis »

rickcarlino wrote: post #7

Building GUI utilities based on VB6 instead of status quo web technologies might actually be more stable and productive.

I would pick Delphi (with which you can build Windows, Linux, macOS, Android, and iOS apps - https://www.embarcadero.com/products/delphi)

Alternatively, RemObjects makes Elements, also a RAD programming environment in which you can code in Oxygene (their Object Pascal), C#, Swift, Java, Go, or Mercury (VB) and target all platforms: .Net, iOS and macOS, Android, WebAssemblyl, Java, Linux, Windows.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#62

Post by mpyne »

Goronmon wrote: post #45
pjmlp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gamers have no other option, and thanks Valve, game studios have no reasons left to bother with native Linux clients. Just target Windows, business as usual, and let Valve do the hard work.

...game studios have no reasons left to bother with native Linux clients. How many game studios were bothering with native Linux clients before Proton became known?

That's exactly the point. They weren't, so a Linux user didn't have an option to run a native Linux client in preference to a Win32 version.

That goes back to address the original question of "But would you want to run these Win32 software on Linux for daily use?"

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#63

Post by PunchyHamster »

Ygg2 wrote: post #24
oybng wrote: post #15

It still puzzles me decades later how MS built the most functional, intuitive and optimised desktop environment possible then simply threw it away

It's functional - yes, intuitive - maybe, but optimized is highly debatable. The answer to maintaining a highly functional and stable OS is piles and piles of backwards compatibility misery on the devs. You want Windows 9? Sorry, some code checks the string for Windows 9 to determine if the OS is Windows 95 or 98.

He was talking about user interface not app compatibility

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#64

Post by Verdex »

mikkupikku wrote: post #33

Crazy how, thanks to Wine/Proton, Linux is now more compatible with old Windows games than Windows itself. There are a lot of games from the 90s and even the 00s that require jumping through a lot of hoops to run on Windows, but through Steam they're click-to-play on Linux.

My gaming PC isn't compatible with windows 11, so it was the first to get upgraded to Linux. Immediate and significant improvement in experience.

Windows kept logging down the system trying to download a dozen different language versions of word (for which I didn't have a licence and didn't want regardless). Steam kept going into a crash restart cycle. Virus scanner was ... being difficult.

Everything just works on Linux except some games on proton have some sound issues that I still need to work out.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#65

Post by duped »

senfiaj wrote: post #50

This might offend some people but even Linus Torvalds thinks that the ABI compatibility is not good enough in Linux distros, and this is one of the main reasons Linux is not popular on the desktop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8&t=283s

It's really just glibc

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#67

Post by kwanbix »

senfiaj wrote: post #50

This might offend some people but even Linus Torvalds thinks that the ABI compatibility is not good enough in Linux distros, and this is one of the main reasons Linux is not popular on the desktop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8&t=283s

I agree 100% with Linus. I can run a WinXP exe on Win10 or 11 almost every time, but on Linux I often have to chase down versions that still work with the latest Mint or Ubuntu distros. Stuff that worked before just breaks, especially if the app isn’t in the repo.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#68

Post by wffurr »

Verdex wrote: post #64
mikkupikku wrote: post #33

Crazy how, thanks to Wine/Proton, Linux is now more compatible with old Windows games than Windows itself. There are a lot of games from the 90s and even the 00s that require jumping through a lot of hoops to run on Windows, but through Steam they're click-to-play on Linux.

My gaming PC isn't compatible with windows 11, so it was the first to get upgraded to Linux. Immediate and significant improvement in experience. Windows kept logging down the system trying to download a dozen different language versions of word (for which I didn't have a licence and didn't want regardless). Steam kept going into a crash restart cycle. Virus scanner was ... being difficult. Everything just works on L…

>> some sound issues

Is this 1998? Linux is forever having sound issues. Why is sound so hard?

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#69

Post by shakna »

andsoitis wrote: post #56
mikkupikku wrote: post #33

Crazy how, thanks to Wine/Proton, Linux is now more compatible with old Windows games than Windows itself. There are a lot of games from the 90s and even the 00s that require jumping through a lot of hoops to run on Windows, but through Steam they're click-to-play on Linux.

> There are a lot of games from the 90s and even the 00s that require jumping through a lot of hoops to run on Windows What are some examples?

Anything around DirectX 10 and older has issues with Windows, these days.

One more popular example is Grid 2, another is Morrowind. Both crash on launch, unless you tweak a lot of things, and even then it won't always succeed.

Need for Speed II: SE is "platinum" on Wine, and pretty much unable to be run at all on Windows 11.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#70

Post by dralley »

senfiaj wrote: post #50

This might offend some people but even Linus Torvalds thinks that the ABI compatibility is not good enough in Linux distros, and this is one of the main reasons Linux is not popular on the desktop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8&t=283s

While true in many respects (still), it's worth pointing out that this take is 12 years old.
Post reply on HN