The smallest footprint for an actual scripting probably will be posix sh - since you already have it ready.

A slightly bigger footprint would be Python or Lua.

If you can drop your requirement for actual scripting and are willing to add a compile step, Go and it’s ecosystem is pretty dang powerful and it’s really easy to learn for small automation tasks.

Personally, with the requirement of not adding too much space for runtimes, I’d write it in go. You don’t need a runtime, you can compile it to a really small zero dependency lib and you have clean and readable code that you can extend, test and maintain easily.

Or you can just use vscodium.

If you use a dockerized environment, that will only work better on Linux. .NET8 is AFAIK natively supported on Linux, so there shouldn’t be too much of an issue apart from the usual clunkyness. Visual Studio will probably be more of a problem. The “easiest” way would probably be to switch to jet brains or vscode. If you are hardstuck on VS for whatever reasons, you probably should be able to do some voodoo with running it in docker and using the container as a remote desktop, but this will be PITA to setup and maintain.

Again, you may quote the FSF, but there are too many users of open source, as well as developers, who got into it for the reasons I stated. I can assure you that they are not doing it so that corporations can profit off their software without giving back.

If you are developing open source, you are not necessarily developing FOSS. If you are developing FOSS, you are also developing open source.

FOSS is well defined by the FSF, and it has been for ages, and to be frank, therefore no one cares for anyone’s personal definition of it.

What I am against is having the cake and eating it, as it’s being proposed with this licensing. Either you do FOSS, or you don’t. Either you do open source, or you don’t. Either you do proprietary software, or you don’t. It’s really that simple, because depending on your project, you take the terms that you see fitting and live with the consequences. The whole goal of this proposal was to be taken more serious as open source developers and projects, and to ensure funding for further development. Cherry picking the best parts of every model, and making irrational demands does not achieve that.

As I said, I’m absolutely on board that open source licensing and open source development being taken for profit by corpos absolutely sucks, and the usual licensing models have not aged well with the much wider adoption and usage of open source, and there is a need for change - as it’s being done e.g. by elastic, redis and others with their dual licensing.

It doesn’t matter how hard you want to call it FOSS, but with this licensing terms you describe it is not FOSS, period. And to be honest, you calling out various people for not getting what FOSS is, while you fully ignore the agreed on definition by people who are actually doing FOSS is you discrediting yourself.

You haven’t found a license like this, because your model is flawed: A licensing like this will disqualify you from any kind of usage in an actual FOSS licensed environment. Personal users, which will not be providing revenue, will not be really affected by this, and are irrelevant for your point. Corporate users, which you will mostly target by this new license probably won’t be able to use your funky new license because they will need to check with legal, and your software will need to have a lot of USPs for someone to bother with that. A 1% corpo-richness-tax will not be approved by any kind of bigger company, because it’s a ridiculous amount from the perspective of your potential customers.

You’re taking yourself way to important. Open source software is not replaceable as a whole, but individual projects are. If you want to earn money with your project, that’s good on you, license it accordingly, but do not try to upsell it as FOSS.

And I fully get your point, and I’m currently working on the same problem in my in-development project, and I’m not sure yet whether to dual-license it, for similar reasons you stated, and live with the consequences of providing OSS, but non-FOSS software, or do FOSS and provide it for actually free.

Edit: Also, the xz backdoor has nothing to do with funding. Any long time maintainer (as in not just a random person contributing pull requests) going rogue can happen in funded scenarios as well.

I don’t think that the current tools will be using it internally, since this would require the tools actually supporting the CLI launcher, and in the best case we would have something like the proton config in steam in every tool separately again.

I think that you will need to have your launcher installed, but you will have this new launcher as your entry point, from which you will start your games using proton from the linked project.

But - it’s a PoC right now, maybe both ways will be possible.

From a wishful perspective, it would be super neat if this new launcher would hook into the installed regular tools, and automagically make those use the preconfigured proton runtime it brings. Shouldn’t this be possible using LD_PRELOAD?

Right now it’s a PoC (proof of concept, a rough implementation of an idea), to emulate launching games from other stores as if they were launched from steam using proton.

What this could be used for is to create a new Linux launcher, where you setup proton once, and launch all games using this launcher.

This simplifies usage for you as the end user, since you would only need to install the launcher, and it sets up ProtonGE, and you’re done. It also enables simple Proton usage for other games (Epic, Lutris, whatever).

Additionally it helps unifying development. Windows games under Linux have a lot of moving parts: there’s Proton as a compatibility layer. There’s integration between steam, proton and your system (sniper/vessel). There’s protonfixes which is game specific changes in proton. Each of which itself consists of components and stuff I’ve missed. In short, it’s complicated. Unifying all this components with one tool, with one battle tested installation and compatibility and with a single source of truth in development could be another big step in Linux gaming.

TLDR - potentially a new launcher for games under the Linux, enabling any game to be played using proton, when supported, not only steam games.

Neat, thank you for the hint - only recently got a ccwgtv, and I’m still not used to the fact that you’re able to install apps like this 😂

Same for me on Chromecast, it’s pretty much unwatchable overnight, started probably about a week ago. I’m to lazy to set up adblocking for my full network, and I was fine watching the skippable 15s ads, and the occasional longer ones, but currently I mostly get at least a full minute of ads on my TV.

You’re right, containers are not VMs, and I’ve never claimed that. For the matter of basic unix access control for a beginner they are similar enough to treat them as such. It’s enough of a baseline for basic security for a beginners workload imo. For advanced use cases - absolutely do not treat containers as you would VMs.

Imagine your containers as very lightweight mini-VMs. Would you run everything as root in your virtual machines? Containers aren’t really that different to classical VMs from an operations point of view. You have a different attack surface, but it is still there, and running as a non-root user inside the container reduces this attack surface, and should IMHO be the default. Privileged containers and users may be required for specific purposes, but should not be the norm, if possible.