Steam and Linux Are Now an Item

[Yuri Albuquerque]

Other than the aforementioned better usage of resources of Linux, I will never understand why people prefer it. I ran it on my laptop for a while, Unbuntu, it was pretty crappy frankly. And my PC is powerful to handle anything I throw it, without windows holding it back.. As are most people's gaming PCs..

I just.. Fail to see any upside of using it rather than windows.

Development, mostly.

Developing applications in Linux is much more comfortable than on Windows, EVEN if it's a Windows application (except if you use .NET, obviously).

But there are other reasons to use Linux:

1 - The package manager (it's an overkill feature. Seriously)
2 - The power of an UNIX console (type "find . -name *~ -delete" to delete a bunch of useless files every now and then is just great)
3 - The flexibility (with Windows you can personalize your desktop environment. With Linux you can choose which desktop environment you like most).
4 - Compatibility with some kinds of software (since Linux is POSIX and Windows is one of the only OS's that isn't a POSIX, there are a number of applications that runs better on Linux - that's why Linux dominates on servers).
5 - Ubuntu One (like Dropbox, but comes preinstalled)
6 - The possibility of loading old kernel versions if a newer version breaks
7 - It's free
8 - You're not subject to any stupid EULA.
9 - You can install other OS's if you want on the same computer and Linux won't have a problem (Windows 8 will have)

I could remain listing a lot of time.

-snip-

Yeah see, that's the thing, I buy an OS, because I don't want to piss around with its configs, sure you can flaunt being able to do that, but that doesn't make it in anyway superior, just a hell of a lot less user friendly. That's kinda like giving someone a half baked game, and saying "Well it runs amazingly once you configure it yourself." Well, I'm sure it does Mr Game Developer, but I'm not a programmer.

I do not understand peoples qualms with Windows, it runs exactly how I want it to, looks how I want it to, and generally just works like a charm. I've been using it for as long as I can remember, and if there's ever been an issue that I didn't like, I've been able to change it.

Free isn't an excuse, I would rather pay for Windows and not have to spent weeks setting the damn thing up so it works perfectly, and for someone with no experience using Linux, it does take weeks, it took 2 days to get my wireless adapter working on the damn thing.. (part in due to the fact that I didn't have a constant connection, so no instructions at all, or beloved documentation) So sure, saying you can set it up in 45 minutes is fine, once you've learned how, which can be said with pretty much anything in life. "Open heart surgery? Can do it with my eyes closed" After 7+ years at med school.

In overall useability, user friendliness, and general every day usage, I'm sorry but Linux falls flat on it's face. It's an elitists OS, nothing more, for people to claim other people have inferior knowledge of computers because they don't want to dick around behind the hood of their OS, and would rather it just work, and are willing to pay for that convenience.

-snip-

See above regarding free.

Now now, dont go insulting linux. it is a magnificent piece of engineering, its just been labeled wrong.

Linux was never meant to be used by the wide general public, and i really hate the people who advertise it as a alternative to windows. its not. its not MEANT to be. Linux is an experiment people. always was, always will be. it is there so that people who like programming, and experimenting in OS and with total access to everything, can do it without restrictions. It is not meant to be better than Windows, because it isnt the same type of product, besides the idea of experimentation and research. Linux is a laboratory. Windows is a home or a business. Mac is....an art gallery.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Very wrong. Linus himself told more than once that Linux IS NOT an experiment. That's why it's not a micro kernel, it's a monolithic kernel (micro kernels are better in theory, but nobody managed to implement a micro kernel for large scale use).

Linux is just a kernel. You can bundle any OS on top of it. Look at Android, it is completely independent from the GNU/Linux idea (GNU/Linux is actually the name of the OS, Linux is just the kernel).

If somebody really WANTED to, he could create an friendly OS on top of Linux and sell it. Actually, that happened. It's called Android. Chrome OS, too. And Firefox OS.

 

[Lukeje]

Whoop! A Linux client! Wait... Ubuntu only? Surely further ports would move a lot faster if they open source their client and game-engines (presuming they're native too). Here's hoping that that's what they do...

*snip*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

That rant had nothing to do with a straw man. You might think it was obnoxious and stupid, but it never attempted to discredit or rebuke anything by setting up a false observation and then knocking it down. It certainly made a silly argument and one that is entirely false, but it was simply an opinion piece.

You seem to be confusing the concept of a straw man and the concept of attacking a straw man.

A straw man is designed as a form of attack. It's exact definition is an argument or idea based on fallacy. You cannot have a straw man without arguing, as it cannot exist outside of false and negative creation. To falsely represent an opposing perspective *is* an attack.

This is getting away from the point, but a straw man is not necessarily designed; the straw man may actually result from a misunderstanding of the opponents position.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Whoop! A Linux client! Wait... Ubuntu only? Surely further ports would move a lot faster if they open source their client and game-engines (presuming they're native too). Here's hoping that that's what they do...

*snip*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

That rant had nothing to do with a straw man. You might think it was obnoxious and stupid, but it never attempted to discredit or rebuke anything by setting up a false observation and then knocking it down. It certainly made a silly argument and one that is entirely false, but it was simply an opinion piece.

You seem to be confusing the concept of a straw man and the concept of attacking a straw man.

A straw man is designed as a form of attack. It's exact definition is an argument or idea based on fallacy. You cannot have a straw man without arguing, as it cannot exist outside of false and negative creation. To falsely represent an opposing perspective *is* an attack.

This is getting off the point, but a straw man is not necessarily designed; the straw man may actually result from a misunderstanding of the opponents position.

Well your source says a straw man is "A type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

That it's an informal fallacy and a misrepresentation mean it cannot be accidental or the result of a misunderstanding. A straw man is an intentional tactic to present an opposing argument as something it isn't.

EDIT: Well there you go; "An insubstantial concept, idea, endeavor or argument, particularly one deliberately set up to be weakly supported, so that it can be easily knocked down; especially to impugn the strength of any related thing or idea." - Wiktionary

A misunderstanding is just that - a misunderstanding.

 

[Lukeje]

Whoop! A Linux client! Wait... Ubuntu only? Surely further ports would move a lot faster if they open source their client and game-engines (presuming they're native too). Here's hoping that that's what they do...

*snip*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

That rant had nothing to do with a straw man. You might think it was obnoxious and stupid, but it never attempted to discredit or rebuke anything by setting up a false observation and then knocking it down. It certainly made a silly argument and one that is entirely false, but it was simply an opinion piece.

You seem to be confusing the concept of a straw man and the concept of attacking a straw man.

A straw man is designed as a form of attack. It's exact definition is an argument or idea based on fallacy. You cannot have a straw man without arguing, as it cannot exist outside of false and negative creation. To falsely represent an opposing perspective *is* an attack.

This is getting off the point, but a straw man is not necessarily designed; the straw man may actually result from a misunderstanding of the opponents position.

Well your source says a straw man is "A type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

That it's an informal fallacy and a misrepresentation mean it cannot be accidental or the result of a misunderstanding. A straw man is an intentional tactic to present an opposing argument as something it isn't.

I'm still not seeing the need for malice in there. Neither misrepresntation nor informal fallacies require any bad-faith.

Edit: also, with respect to your edit, `particularly' does not mean `specifically'.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Whoop! A Linux client! Wait... Ubuntu only? Surely further ports would move a lot faster if they open source their client and game-engines (presuming they're native too). Here's hoping that that's what they do...

*snip*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

That rant had nothing to do with a straw man. You might think it was obnoxious and stupid, but it never attempted to discredit or rebuke anything by setting up a false observation and then knocking it down. It certainly made a silly argument and one that is entirely false, but it was simply an opinion piece.

You seem to be confusing the concept of a straw man and the concept of attacking a straw man.

A straw man is designed as a form of attack. It's exact definition is an argument or idea based on fallacy. You cannot have a straw man without arguing, as it cannot exist outside of false and negative creation. To falsely represent an opposing perspective *is* an attack.

This is getting off the point, but a straw man is not necessarily designed; the straw man may actually result from a misunderstanding of the opponents position.

Well your source says a straw man is "A type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

That it's an informal fallacy and a misrepresentation mean it cannot be accidental or the result of a misunderstanding. A straw man is an intentional tactic to present an opposing argument as something it isn't.

I'm still not seeing the need for malice in there. Neither misrepresntation nor informal fallacies require any bad-faith.

That a straw man is an attack means it cannot be accidental.

EDIT: Well there you go; "An insubstantial concept, idea, endeavor or argument, particularly one deliberately set up to be weakly supported, so that it can be easily knocked down; especially to impugn the strength of any related thing or idea." - Wiktionary

The examples given by Wikipedia:

Person A: We should liberalize the laws on beer.
Person B: No, any society with unrestricted access to intoxicants loses its work ethic and goes only for immediate gratification.

The proposal was to relax laws on beer. Person B has exaggerated this to a position harder to defend, i.e., "unrestricted access to intoxicants". It is a logical fallacy because Person A never made that claim. This example is also a slippery slope fallacy.

Another example:

Person A: Our society should spend more money helping the poor.
Person B: Studies show that handouts don't work; they just create more poverty and humiliate the recipients. That money could be better spent.

In this case, Person B has transformed Person A's position from "more money" to "more handouts", which is easier for Person B to defeat. Furthermore, Person B fails to mention what the money could be "better spent" on.

Person A: Sunny days are good.
Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death.

In this case B has falsely framed A's claim to imply that A says that only sunny days are good, and has argued against that assertion instead of the assertion A has made.

 

[Tjebbe]

I use Linux-based systems daily, and only go back to windows for the occasional game.

It will be very interesting to see how this works out.

It will be even more interesting to see what the next step will be; if you have steam running on a free OS, you can also make 'steam-on-the-go' sticks, which could 'just run' on other machines without changing anything there.

 

[PingoBlack]

So ... While EA is comparing Origin to Steam years ago, Valve are invading the realm of geek OS with force ...

Making them the only developer now covering gaming on ALL desktop platforms in the world nearly.

Hats off to them, especially for choice of game to intro the new platform. A very popular and critically acclaimed multiplayer shooter, on Mac they started with a fun solo puzzle platformer.

Valve are sure no amateurs, those intro game choices seem perfect considering average user of those platforms.

 

[Lukeje]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

 

[Clearing the Eye]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

 

[Lukeje]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

 

[MorganL4]

Interested gamer here

<----------------


I have been waiting for this announcement for years!!!

 

[Clearing the Eye]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

 

[Lukeje]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Are you saying that logic is not part of philosophy? (Why yes, that is a straw man... > )

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

So after three, maybe four (I can't be bothered to count) definitions you finally found one that supports your position. Well done you.

 

[Twilight_guy]

That's interesting. I honestly don't see Unbuntu as having the user base of gamers to support this but if Valve can port games on the cheap then it might still be profitable. It'd be interesting to see how gaming changes if PC gaming wasn't limited to apples and windows.

Also, both sides of the OS argument need to stop being pretentious douches and realize that everyone is old enough to choose there own OS and don't need you argue why there decision is wrong.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Are you saying that logic is not part of philosophy? (Why yes, that is a straw man... > )

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

So after three, maybe four (I can't be bothered to count) definitions you finally found one that supports your position. Well done you.

Actually, I quoted one definition. Nice straw man.

"A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

"An argument, claim or opponent which is invented in order to defeat or create an argument" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/straw-man_2

"A sham argument set up to be defeated" -
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/straw+man

 

[Lukeje]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Are you saying that logic is not part of philosophy? (Why yes, that is a straw man... > )

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

So after three, maybe four (I can't be bothered to count) definitions you finally found one that supports your position. Well done you.

Actually, I quoted one definition. Nice straw man.

Two. You referenced wikipedia as well. My apologies, I apparently misremembered one of the definitions you presumed as actually being sourced. (And thus by your definition is not a straw man).

"A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

"An argument, claim or opponent which is invented in order to defeat or create an argument" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/straw-man_2

"A sham argument set up to be defeated" -
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/straw+man

Fine; I'll agree that the straw man usually has malice behind it.

So shall we go back to the original argument then? You agree that the straw man is separate from the attack? This is evident in all your quotations.

(Edit: leaving aside the `appeal to authority' )

 

[Clearing the Eye]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Are you saying that logic is not part of philosophy? (Why yes, that is a straw man... > )

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

So after three, maybe four (I can't be bothered to count) definitions you finally found one that supports your position. Well done you.

Actually, I quoted one definition. Nice straw man.

Two. You referenced wikipedia as well. My apologies, I apparently misremembered one of the definitions you presumed as actually being sourced. (And thus by your definition is not a straw man).

"A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

"An argument, claim or opponent which is invented in order to defeat or create an argument" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/straw-man_2

"A sham argument set up to be defeated" -
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/straw+man

Fine; I'll agree that the straw man usually has malice behind it.

So shall we go back to the original argument then? You agree that the straw man is separate from the attack? This is evident in all your quotations.

(Edit: leaving aside the `appeal to authority' )

Actually, the only definition I quoted before you said that (besides Merriam, which you attempted to ignore) was Wikipedia.

No, I won't agree that a straw man usually has malice behind it, because it always has malice behind it.

No, I won't agree that a straw man is separate from an attack.

"A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

"An argument, claim or opponent which is invented in order to defeat or create an argument" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/straw-man_2

"A sham argument set up to be defeated" -
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/straw+man

"A weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted" -
Merriam Webster

They all clearly state a straw man is the creation of a fallacy to be refuted. You're either trolling or purposefully ignoring the facts at this point.

 

[Lukeje]

*snip*

Yes, those are all examples of a person attacking a straw man. What is your point?

My point is that a straw man is an argument based on misrepresentation, not one that may result from accidentally misunderstanding an argument. Attacking something you think your opponent means is not the same as warping what they mean to attack them and the latter is a straw man.

This is basic English.

That's what you're taking it to mean. You haven't actually shown me any evidence that that is what it means. I also fail to see why this distinction is `basic English.' Basic philosophy, maybe.

Philosophy... Philosophy? What on Earth does philosophy have to do with a fallacious argument tactic? Please tell me, because I'm studying philosophy and this hasn't come up.

Are you saying that logic is not part of philosophy? (Why yes, that is a straw man... > )

Anywho, Merriam Webster has this to say:

1: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

Please tell me what part of the relevant definition infers an accidental misunderstanding, namely the part about a straw man being "set up only to be easily confuted."

So after three, maybe four (I can't be bothered to count) definitions you finally found one that supports your position. Well done you.

Actually, I quoted one definition. Nice straw man.

Two. You referenced wikipedia as well. My apologies, I apparently misremembered one of the definitions you presumed as actually being sourced. (And thus by your definition is not a straw man).

"A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" -
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

"An argument, claim or opponent which is invented in order to defeat or create an argument" - http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/straw-man_2

"A sham argument set up to be defeated" -
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/straw+man

Fine; I'll agree that the straw man usually has malice behind it.

So shall we go back to the original argument then? You agree that the straw man is separate from the attack? This is evident in all your quotations.

(Edit: leaving aside the `appeal to authority' )

Actually, the only definition I quoted before you said that (besides Merriam, which you attempted to ignore) was Wikipedia.

No, I won't agree that a straw man usually has malice behind it, because it always has malice behind it.

No, I won't agree that a straw man is separate from an attack.

Then what was your original argument? That the straw man made by the poster wasn't an attack?

 

[Steve the Pocket]

I can't be bothered to directly quote everyone here, but to all those who said this would convince them to abandon Windows... you do realize that Steam isn't an emulator or a game engine, right? And games aren't like music or videos where all you need is a simple piece of software to make them work on any platform. If the way Steam for Mac worked out is any indication, 90% of the games will never be ported over, even some the ones that have (*cough* Doom and Quake series *cough*) won't actually get on Steam, and even Valve will be too lazy to port over their entire library. All you're getting is a glorified app store and half of one developer's library.

EDIT: Oh, and apparently they're only targeting one distribution even? How does that even work? I thought the whole point of Linux is that every app can run on any distro. Have they really become so fragmented that you can't do that anymore? Good lord.