XP or Linux?

**~~Cecil900~~** · 10-18-07, 05:56 PM

Isnt one of the problems with linux is because games are built around EXE, which is a windows file so you have a third party program in the middle that is taking up even more resources, and time tso you can run an EXE on linux.

Correct me if im wrong.

**a weakling spaz** · 10-18-07, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by a weakling spaz

Source on linux is far from ideal. Valve's support isn't quite up to par with a company like id, which has historically released linux binaries for the dedicated server before the windows binaries. You also have to consider that their games were not built on DirectX and were designed to run as a client on linux as well, while source is the opposite.

Emphasis on the word HISTORICALLY. Since Doom III, things have changed. And I guarantee quake wars is a windows majority. As will their updates be, as well as third parties updating their software to work with quake wars (motherboards, graphics cards, etc).

I didn't emphasize anything other than historically. While id is affiliated with the product, Quake Wars was developed by Splash Damage. Doom III was the last game developed by id.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by a weakling spaz

Bottom line, If you're running your own servers and you're willing to put in the time and deal with some frustration for the sake of saving some money and using your preferred platform, then linux is a good choice. When you want to get it working quickly, with little to no frustration, and you don't mind spending more money you go with windows.

wrong, wrong, and wrong.

You don't get to own servers if the companies that make the games don't issue patches for your OS in a timely manner. You also don't own servers that have inferior RAM and CPU usage, due to the OS, and not the game.

The situation has changed, and the hippies no longer run the host companies.

Nothing has changed. There have always been games better hosted on EITHER Windows or linux. That had absolutely nothing to do with my point that you quoted either. I did say that if you're willing to(or have to) put in some time and frustration and want to(or need to) save money then linux is a viable option. Waiting a bit more time for a patch to a game qualifies under that. I run my own CS source server on linux just to keep up to date on it really. I've never noticed a time where there was an update for my windows client (and thus also server) that wasn't immediately available on linux as well. I know this is the case for some games though, and I didn't say it wasn't. I've noticed several times where a windows patch is available before the linux version, AND vice versa.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

Originally Posted by a weakling spaz

I can verify the ridiculous memory leakage of CS:S on linux. I don't accept that the issue cannot be fixed with some tweaking, because I have done it before.

Then by all means, you need to go read up in the steam linux forum, and explain to those people they are all lazy and stupid, and you could figure it out in time.

of course....they've been doing it for 3 years now....still no change.

the problem isn't linux. The problem is the way source is coded, and how it doesn't work out on linux, either by Valve's choice, or by whatever other reason.

I said I was able to correct it in MY case, and I've read of many other people doing the same. If I was actively running a server I'd spend a fair amount of time on the Source DS Linux forum. Also, you obviously haven't been there yourself, or not in a very long time. There's a sticky topic where everything necessary is all in one organized post now. http://forums.steampowered.com/forum...d.php?t=486424

**DOGPISS** · 10-18-07, 11:16 PM

yeah so anyways.... my vista trial ran out on my laptop and in 25 minutes i had ubuntu installed, updated, and steam was downloading counterstrike, tf2, and portal.

they all play fine btw (with wine).

to each his own... i run windows and linux servers at work and at home. i like each for different reasons and needs.

**MotoZ** · 10-18-07, 11:29 PM

Originally Posted by Cecil900

Isnt one of the problems with linux is because games are built around EXE, which is a windows file so you have a third party program in the middle that is taking up even more resources, and time tso you can run an EXE on linux.

Correct me if im wrong.

Cecil,

That is correct. Windows provides function calls, which are called Application Program Interfaces (APIs), that programs use to access PC resources. Those resources include things such as disk drives, network communication, video, keyboard input, and so forth. Programs that are written for Windows expect to reach those resources through the Windows APIs.

When the program tries to run in a Linux environment then all of those APIs are different. The program then gets lost and crashes. Therefore, an interpreter of some sort is needed to run the program in Linux. The interpreter takes all of the API calls from the program and converts them to Linux API calls. The interpretation process takes time and memory space, so the Windows program will run slower in Linux. Also, if the Windows program is written such that it skips some APIs and accesses hardware directly, then the interpreter will not work and the program will likely crash anyway. Older games were notorious for skipping APIs and accessing the video card directly. Newer games are generally more well behaved and use the DirectX APIs to access the video and sound cards.

The interpreters come in various types. One type is called a virtual machine, such as VMWare. Another type is called an emulator, such as Wine.

Again, yes, you are correct that an interpreter takes time and resources.

**nmeboat** · 10-19-07, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by ebaconjr

Originally Posted by Cecil900

Isnt one of the problems with linux is because games are built around EXE, which is a windows file so you have a third party program in the middle that is taking up even more resources, and time tso you can run an EXE on linux.

Correct me if im wrong.

Cecil,

That is correct. Windows provides a function calls, which are called Application Program Interfaces (APIs), that programs use to access PC resources. Those resources include things such as disk drives, network communication, video, keyboard input, and so forth. Programs that are written for Windows expect to reach those resources through the Windows APIs.

When the program tries to run in a Linux environment then all of those APIs are different. The program then gets lost and crashes. Therefore, an interpreter of some sort is needed to run the program in Linux. The interpreter takes all of the API calls from the program and converts them to Linux API calls. The interpretation process takes time and memory space, so the Windows program will run slower in Linux. Also, if the Windows program is written such that it skips some APIs and accesses hardware directly, then the interpreter will not work and the program will likely crash anyway. Older games were notorious for skipping APIs and accessing the video card directly. Newer games are generally more well behaved and use the DirectX APIs to access the video and sound cards.

The interpreters come in various types. One type is called a virtual machine, such as VMWare. Another type is called an emulator, such as WineWine.

Again, yes, you are correct that an interpreter takes time and resources.

well in all fairness, the problem(s) with linux isn't necessarily that they're windows binaries, it's that there are typically only windows binaries, due to minimal/lack of linux support by developers and vendors

so therein lies the actual problem

**MotoZ** · 10-19-07, 09:35 AM

hehe. That's it. Why don't those silly developers just set the Linux switches on their compilers and build Linux binaries. It only takes a few minutes.

Your comment reminds me of my software days. Our department manager announced that when we soon switch to C all of our portability issues will be solved.

**BobTheSane** · 10-19-07, 09:57 AM

bigdog:

Doom III runs just fine on my Kubuntu box... Better than under Windows, truth be told. I haven't visited Id's forums in quite a while, are there issues of which I should be aware?

Granted I'm not running it in server mode, and have no desire to do so. Is this a problem with running a dedicated server? (asks he who is too lazy to go look for himself)

**...bigdog...** · 10-19-07, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by nmeboat

well in all fairness, the problem(s) with linux isn't necessarily that they're windows binaries, it's that there are typically only windows binaries, due to minimal/lack of linux support by developers and vendors

so therein lies the actual problem

exactly.

and regardless of the right and wrong of what's better.....

"better" should be defined as easier, faster, and more consistent. "Better" is all encompassing. This anecdotal "well I've seen patches come out for linux BEFORE windows".....is such bullshit.

I'm going to go ahead and lay my TTP credentials on the table now, and say, straight up, that linux is a failed platform for any gaming server that wishes to be up as much as possible, as patched as possible (and in the games that we play, if you aren't patched, you aren't playable...i.e. BF ranked servers, steam source games, arma as well, etc).

that failure can be attributed to whatever reason makes you sleep at night. But at the end of the day, the FAILURE exists. Games are not MADE to run on linux. They are made to run on windows. So are their server programs. They are PORTED to linux when the developers or opensource community has the time/will/money to do so. But they are ALWAYS available and patched on windows.

CSS, DoDS, TF2, 2142, BF2, Arma, INS....period. Anyone that wishes to call me a liar can feel free to do so....and then I'm going to require you to throw YOUR server management credentials on the table, including uptime stats, player usership, and duration of installation NOT REQUIRING a reinstallation/OS change.

Linux boys......get over it. I don't care why the OS is less popular. I don't even care if linux is better as an OS. Given that it's "free"....and still can't get a decent market share....common sense dicates it is NOT better, but that's up for the geeks to moan about.

As a server OWNER and OPERATOR......game after game is supported fully for windows, and less for linux. It's a fact. 5 years ago, this wasn't true. But today, that's how it is. Linux patches come out DAYS after windows patches. That means if you run a steam game, your server is down for DAYS before it can be updated to run with the rest of the world's widows gamers.

After we endured that enough times....we switched OS's, permanently.

Maybe you weren't there to experience it....or maybe you have a short memory.....but we left linux game servers long ago for good reasons.

And absolutely none of it has ANYTHING to do with us not "putting time and effort" into our servers. We fucking love our servers. We fucking love making them work correctly. And it's insulting to say we were lazy, or unskilled in such an arena, and imply that we switched to windows because we didn't want to put in "time and effort".

no offense.....but you are WAY out of your league lecturing people like me about how to run servers, and keep them running.

Quake II servers, UT servers, CS 1.1 servers, DoD 3.1 servers......that shit is over. Today, it's steam, and EA ranked, and windows. Fight the power, but accept the situation.

**a weakling spaz** · 10-19-07, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

And absolutely none of it has ANYTHING to do with us not "putting time and effort" into our servers. We fucking love our servers. We fucking love making them work correctly. And it's insulting to say we were lazy, or unskilled in such an arena, and imply that we switched to windows because we didn't want to put in "time and effort".

no offense.....but you are WAY out of your league lecturing people like me about how to run servers, and keep them running.

Way to take that completely out of context

**...bigdog...** · 10-19-07, 12:59 PM

but you keep saying it, over and over, as if it matters.

if it matters in this discussion, then you are implying that we are either incapable, or disinterested, in doing what's best for our servers.

And thats.....just silly.

It's in context, since your context is "if you put in the time and effort, linux works better".

And like I've had to say 10 times now.....we put in the time, and the effort.....and even then, you have to come to teh realization that some parts of the software and OS are out of your control. And then you have to make decisions on how to avoid problems out of your control.