A prediction is not a claim.

Predictions operate on events that will happen in the future.

Proofs typically operate on things that already exist.

What on earth do the Direct Rendering Manager api have to do with commercialization?

I think they meant Digital Rights Management, but it's only a guess.

I have worked in the industry for a little over 20 years, i wouldn't be surprised if I have written between one to two million loc.

I would be surprised if it's significantly above that.

And yet, without the software for Linux gaming, there is no Linux gaming.

Very hard to falsify such a statement.

Software written for Windows, running with a translation layer on GNU/Linux.

The translation layer doesn’t really matter though, does it? If a user installs a game and it runs the same, the user doesn’t care about the translation layer inbetween. If installing and running a game on Linux is the same as running it on windows, there’s no reason to prefer one over the other for gaming.

It certainly does, because it allows game studios to keep ignoring GNU/Linux, even when they happen to have Android/Linux games written with the NDK, it is a Valve's problem.

With better performance than on Windows

Maybe in rare cases with few compatible games.

In some cases.

is there a point somewhere in this statement?

Not the parent or grandparent poster and not a gamer.

The echo in my mind from the statement was along the following lines:

I can do everything at work remotely from my Linux laptop as they use Microsoft365/Sharepoint/Teams/Outlook and all. I can just log in via Chromium and noone knows any different with one exception: the finance portal. I have to be on an employer owned Windows PC to do that one thing as it is the last 'native program' needed. Moral: enterprise-ish stuff is happening via the Web browser.

Steam et al financing WINE/Proton and generally hammering all the sharp edges out of the compatibility layer for running Windows software on Linux. Moral: Complex Windows native software can be run under Linux.

So, at some point in the future, does Microsoft just phase out Windows? Replace it with a really well engineered Linux with compatibility environment for legacy software?

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish/Exterminate? They already begun the Embrace phase: WSL.

The smartest Extend phase they could do would probably be a "Windows" GUI on top of Linux kernel, possibly with some customized locked-down systemd, to replace the aging X and the mess Wayland created. If it gets to be at least as functional as Win11 is, it will instantly wipe out the other two alternatives - Exterminate.

Check how many Linux contributors are on Microsoft's paycheck, including systemd author and some Rust people also related to Rust on Linux kernel efforts.

Microsoft already has their own distro.

And they don't need to bother with anything else, Valve with Proton, makes Windows, Visual Studio and DirectX the way to go for the large majority of game studios.

WSL on Windows, alongside Virtualization framework on macOS, are the Year of Desktop Linux, regarding the latops I can actually buy on a random shopping mall computer store.

Games work just fine through Proton already, except when they require kernel level anticheat. I'm fairly certain OP is just one of the purists who think it's not done "proper" until it's a Linux native port, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

Why should Microsoft bother, when they have Visual Studio and Windows licenses that game studios gladly pay for?

So no point to make then, cool, I can get back to playing games then

Make sure to use MAME as well, those arcade games are also Linux, apparently.

1. Nobody said anything about Windows games being Linux games. We were talking about Linux gaming, which is gaming on Linux. Which - yeah - emulators also contribute to

2. Above being said, translation is not emulation and has much less overhead So many pointless semantics to dismiss something genuinely good and useful

Translation is one form of emulation, because GNU/Linux still isn't Windows, at the end of the day.

No, it is not. Right there in the name of WINE.

I agree, if people just had refrained from building things in c/c++ that operated on data from across a security boundary we wouldn't be in this mess.

> That is a fairly simple question. The answer to it should be simple too.

"Is P equal to NP" is also a simple question.

The answer should be simple, too -- either yes or no. OP did not imply proving it would be simple.

I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to claim your 1 million dollars from the Clay Mathematics Institute by just answering yes or no.

That's why I'm going to go with a friend. I'll say yes, he'll say no, and we'll split the winnings. Easy money.

OP did imply that the paper contained the simple answer, though.

It’s easy to say that the truth is simple if you ignore everything about exploring whether or not a paper is an accurate representation of the truth.

650 GB fits in ram: https://yourdatafitsinram.net

what a pointless website. It would be nice if it at least showed appropriately sized cloud instances of just the same list over and over again.

The reason the internet consists of 99% broken html is that all browsers accept that broken html.

If browsers had conformed to a rigid specification and only accepted valid input from the start, then people wouldn't have produced all that broken html and we wouldn't be in this mess that we are in now.

If "A billion dollar mistake" wasn't already taken by 'null', then this would be a good candidate.

Oh null is fine, but "everything is nullable" is the devil.

If that ecosystem have changed their values/opinions on that topic, the it wouldn't be an impossible task to dual-license it with a compatible license.

(Hard and tedious work, but not impossible).

The only entity that can change of ZFS license is Oracle and they obviously wouldnt do that.

They could rewrite all the code, and then change the license. Patents might still apply (but patents are short enough that I expect if any existed they have expired). However ZFS is a lot of code that is often tricky to get right. It will be really hard to rewrite in a way that the courts don't (reasonably/correctly) say wasn't a rewrite it was just moving some lines so you can claim ownership, but it is possible. By the time anyone knows enough about zfs that they could attempt this they are also too tainted by the existing code.

So of course they won't, but it isn't impossible.

I mean, bcachefs is basically the equivalent of rewriting all that code, without explicitly trying to be a clone. Same for btrfs

And how hard it is proves that zfs didn't make a bad choice in not trying the same. (though it would be interesting if either had a goal of a clone - that is same on disk data structures. Interesting but probably a bad decision as I have no doubt there is something about zfs that they regret today - just because the project is more than 10 years old)

It's supposedly the opinion of Oracle that the CDDL is GPL-compatible and that's the reason they won't do that.

I would not rely on the non-binding opinion of a company known for deploying its lawyers in aid of revenue generation

For context: https://sfconservancy.org/videos/2023-07-14_FOSSY-2023_RHEL-... (FF to 37:34)

That wasn't exactly the answer.

Yeah, I agree based in rewatching that I've either misrecalled the original material, or I got it from another source.

I agree that based on that source, it's more like "meh, we don't really care" (until they do)

Oracle didn't follow that with DTrace. They changed the license away from CDDL when they integrated it into Oracle Linux.