For those curious, Proton is included with Steam, but GE's Proton includes many tweaks, improvements, and yes, rebasing on the latest upstream versions of many packages. For many games running in Linux GE Proton tends to be better than Valve's default Proton. GE Proton also includes features earlier than Valve, like FSR3 -> FSR4 upgrading, etc.
CachyOS makes also makes a Proton that's similar but different from GE's. There's also Valve's Proton betas, Proton Experimental (which is often updated within days of major releases).
ProtonDB.com is a great resource for finding out which "Proton" works best for a given game.
Saying "many" games work better with GE is misleading I think, though perhaps technically true. The vast majority work out of the box with regular Proton. Reaching for GE is definitely the exception rather than the rule in my experience.
It's interesting to read that an entire video streaming rework was done with AI, but likely won't be upstreamed because of the upstream policy on AI gen code. I wonder if that will ever be re-done using the plan GE outlined in the release notes.
Also really excited about this because there are several games that get kind of borked because they get stuck on an intro video before you get to the game menu without doing any winetricks.
> With all of that work done, I am happy to say all of the games listed above now have functional video playback with NO winetricks needed and NO dll overrides needed. No quartz,no dshow, no amstream, no lavfilters, no klite, no rsx3d, no wmp9, no wmp11, etc. -- All the functionality previously needed from those overrides is now patched directly into wine for the listed games that needed them, and the protonfixes that were previously added have now been removed since they are no longer needed.
It might come to be that maintainers have to begin accepting llm-authored or llm-assisted contributions just to maintain control of the project. Otherwise users will gravitate towards forks that offer the functionality they want.
They very specifically do not accept AI contributions because there is no way to tell if it's just regurgitating parts of the various Windows source code leaks from over the years ad-hoc, which would be a very costly mistake to make if Microsoft were feeling litigious.
The remedy for unintentional infringement is generally to remove the infringing code and cease distribution. That used to be a serious issue when rewriting the offending code might take years. But these days? Rewriting any offending code is a matter of specifying the interfaces and setting Claude / Codex to work. Risk of incorporating derived code might go up with accepting LLM submissions, but cost of recovering from them seems to have dropped accordingly, at least on the technical side.
That would be something Microsoft would have to prove in court and not that the AI came up with a similar approach on its own. ReactOS never got sued despite its similarity to Window's code.
Also not all Wine code is related to reverse engineering.
Or it might come to be that rejecting LLM-authored or LLM-assisted contributions becomes a badge of quality, and users gravitate to them to avoid buggy, inconsistent, or non-performant versions of the same software.
There's no need to guess, the reasoning is clearly laid out:
“Don't use an LLM tool to generate code. There's no guarantee
that the training material of that LLM respects our Clean Room
Guidelines, or that its output is compatible with the LGPL.”
Doesn't wine have various rules to remain a white-room implementation?
Not sure using LLMs which have possibly been trained on leaked Windows sources would be compatible with that. But that's just speculation, I wonder if LLMs possibly using leaked sources for training has been looked into. (probably legally difficult as the investigator would have to access the leaked sources too...)
This guy works for red hat and his code is already constantly merged to upstream. His version is simply more bleeding edge. Also he's already somewhat famous in Linux gaming circles.
I have not needed any of these features to use proton on the games I own so I’m still none the wiser as to who the target is for this or what the context of this fork/its possible merging is
> I have not needed any of these features to use proton on the games I own so I’m still none the wiser as to who the target is for this...
...it's people who need these features and fixes? If you don't need them, then you don't need them, and you don't care about this.
With the addition of this comment, it seems like your commentary here boils down to "Why would I need this fork of this project that solves a specific set of problems that I neither have nor have bothered to understand?".
I do agree that it's reasonable to not waste time learning about problems you don't have, aren't really important if you don't have them, and that you're not interested in learning about, so don't make the mistake of believing that I'm throwing scorn your way.
The "program produces this trace, reproduce it after changing xyz" loop is imo -- a kind of programming primitive for the current agent capabilities ... I've found technique like that really effective as well.
It's interesting because there's a part of me that sometimes thinks "hey look this pattern is pretty effective -- I wonder if this a nascent abstraction on the path toward reasoning about how to use these tools in effective ways" -- while another part of me thinks "six months from now, you won't ever have to do this or if this is a useful technique the agent will just apply it on its own when relevant" ...
CachyOS makes also makes a Proton that's similar but different from GE's. There's also Valve's Proton betas, Proton Experimental (which is often updated within days of major releases).
ProtonDB.com is a great resource for finding out which "Proton" works best for a given game.
> With all of that work done, I am happy to say all of the games listed above now have functional video playback with NO winetricks needed and NO dll overrides needed. No quartz,no dshow, no amstream, no lavfilters, no klite, no rsx3d, no wmp9, no wmp11, etc. -- All the functionality previously needed from those overrides is now patched directly into wine for the listed games that needed them, and the protonfixes that were previously added have now been removed since they are no longer needed.
Also not all Wine code is related to reverse engineering.
“Don't use an LLM tool to generate code. There's no guarantee that the training material of that LLM respects our Clean Room Guidelines, or that its output is compatible with the LGPL.”
--https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/wikis/Clean-Room-Guide...
Not sure using LLMs which have possibly been trained on leaked Windows sources would be compatible with that. But that's just speculation, I wonder if LLMs possibly using leaked sources for training has been looked into. (probably legally difficult as the investigator would have to access the leaked sources too...)
...it's people who need these features and fixes? If you don't need them, then you don't need them, and you don't care about this.
With the addition of this comment, it seems like your commentary here boils down to "Why would I need this fork of this project that solves a specific set of problems that I neither have nor have bothered to understand?".
I do agree that it's reasonable to not waste time learning about problems you don't have, aren't really important if you don't have them, and that you're not interested in learning about, so don't make the mistake of believing that I'm throwing scorn your way.
It's interesting because there's a part of me that sometimes thinks "hey look this pattern is pretty effective -- I wonder if this a nascent abstraction on the path toward reasoning about how to use these tools in effective ways" -- while another part of me thinks "six months from now, you won't ever have to do this or if this is a useful technique the agent will just apply it on its own when relevant" ...