[DEADMINCE]

> I call bullshit on you paying attention, you're saying too many things that are provably incorrect.

I'm not incorrect. I don't think you have experience with what you say. Have you actually tried to use Proton without steam? Yes, the changes eventually make their way back into WINE but Proton is basically unusable without Steam unless you want to do a lot of work.

Saying Linux has a DirectX equivalent via WINE is preposterous. WINE is offering compatibility with the WINDOWS solution because Linux DOESN'T have an equivalent. WINE might forward some to SDL and Vulkan, but neither of those are anywhere near to being a complete replacement for DirectX.

And I'm not 'getting my panties in a bunch', I was just pointing out a fact. If you want to turn it into semantics and throw insults, that's your choice.

[scheeseman486]

SDL and Vulkan are equivalents to DirectX, to state otherwise is itself preposterous. Is it a complete implementation with perfect compatibility? No, but that's not a realistic goal or expectation even on Windows. One of the first steps I take to get older D3D9 games to work on Windows is to use DXVK, Microsoft's own implementation of their APIs isn't perfect either, having atrophied over the years.

Outside of Steam I use Lutris, which works fine. Though it's rare that I actually need to use it, given I have Steam and the vast majority of my games library is on that platform (as is just about everyone elses). Saying that the reliance on Valve's store is a problem is I guess a valid one in a ideological sense, but practically? Steam dominates PC gaming, it's what matters, even more so than Microsoft's own store.

You're the one who tried to spin up a semantic argument over your overly broad application of the term DRM, I had no interest in getting into that.

[DEADMINCE]

> SDL and Vulkan are equivalents to DirectX, to state otherwise is itself preposterous.

SDL and Vulkan are no where close to being equivalent to DirectX. What they are is useful in some scenarios, and good alternatives to some parts of DirectX.

It's not preposterous at all, and I'm sorry to say you clearly have a lack of knowledge in this area to claim otherwise.

Since that's beyond clear to me with your last reply, I'm just going to bow out of this discussion at this point. Good luck.

[scheeseman486]

"equivalent" was the word used by one of the developers working on the Proton stack during a conference talk on the subject. Which is correct usage, since "equivalent" doesn't only mean exactly the same in every way but can also mean equivalent in purpose, which they are.

That is literally what your whole point is leaning on, taking a narrow definition of the word equivalent and spinning up a take that makes you feel right about yourself (meanwhile throwing an accusation at me re: abusing semantics). It's so desperate and stupid.

[DEADMINCE]

> "equivalent" was the word used by one of the developers working on the Proton stack during a conference talk on the subject.

Yeah? You got a source? Can you show it wasn't in a particular limited context and was used in the same sense you are using it now?

> Which is correct usage, since "equivalent" doesn't only mean exactly the same in every way but can also mean equivalent in purpose, which they are.

Nah. They are still not even close to being equivalent in purpose. SDL is a little closer, since it wants to be the API for all aspects of gaming and 3d development, but it isn't quite there. Before you double down on your point, maybe you should really look at everything DirectX offers, and everything the alternatives you claim to be equivalent offer.

> That is literally what your whole point is leaning on, taking a narrow definition of the word equivalent and spinning up a take that makes you feel right about yourself (meanwhile throwing an accusation at me re: abusing semantics). It's so desperate and stupid.

LOL! You've described yourself here and only yourself. I'm not the one arguing semantics. You claimed two things were equivalent, which are not. I simply pointed that out, and instead of just taking the L you, and only you, are arguing semantics. I absolutely agree, it is desperate and stupid.

How about just...actually supporting your claim, if you really believe you are correct? You know, instead of arguing semantics, or trying to deflect and falsely accuse me of doing so?