Steam and Linux Are Now an Item

[Yuri Albuquerque]

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.

Yes, we do realize all that, but this is a start. A glimpse of hope for Linux users that only use Windows because of games.

 

[RicoADF]

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.

The better usage of resources is a big point, yes your PC can run games easily but think about how much smoother games would run and how much longer you PC would still run them top graphical setting if you didnt have all the bloatware.

For example, my netbook I have (Toshiba NB200) came with Win 7 Starter Edition, and frankly ran crap, just simple tasks felt painfully slow, but I left it for the year or so as I wanted to play gaming on the go. Well finally I had enough and installed Lubuntu on it, and boy is there a change in performance, it feels as smooth as my i7 8GB PC running Win 7 64bit. Sadly that means gaming on the go is limited, but the fact it now runs smoothly is worth it (and before u ask what gaming, Simcity 4, Dark Reign, C&C1-Tiberian Sun and other older games would run on it).

I'm not saying Windows is crap, but if Linux did get running for gaming as well, it'd give people choices, and competition is the best motivator for change and improvement. So it'd be good for windows users as well as those that like Linux.

Btw, it took me 45mins to get this thing running, 2mins to install chrome, and it was fully ready to use as is. Movies play out of the box (via USB DVD drive), flash etc all up and running perfectly. It took less effort and knowledge of IT than windows takes to get running. On a netbook. So anyone says that its complicated, either hasn't tried, has picked the wrong distro, or has chosen the wrong hardware/had some really bad luck. Frankly theres nothing wrong with Linux as a general purpose OS.

 

[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.

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

I meant exactly what I said; it was an opinion piece. They didn't create a fallacy to rebuke and they weren't in an argument. They used sardonic humor to suggest Linux users are hipsters. That has nothing at all to do with a 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' )

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?

I meant exactly what I said; it was an opinion piece. They didn't create a fallacy to rebuke and they weren't in an argument. They used sardonic humor to suggest Linux users are hipsters. That has nothing at all to do with a straw man.

So you agree that it was a misrepresentation?

 

[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.

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

I meant exactly what I said; it was an opinion piece. They didn't create a fallacy to rebuke and they weren't in an argument. They used sardonic humor to suggest Linux users are hipsters. That has nothing at all to do with a straw man.

So you agree that it was a misrepresentation?

No, I don't. No argument was made to misrepresent. They stated (through "humor") that Linux users are hipsters. That's an opinion.

 

[Lukeje]

So you agree that it was a misrepresentation?

No, I don't. No argument was made to misrepresent. They stated (through "humor") that Linux users are hipsters. That's an opinion.

Now I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

So you agree that it was a misrepresentation?

No, I don't. No argument was made to misrepresent. They stated (through "humor") that Linux users are hipsters. That's an opinion.

Now I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension.

If you've nothing save limp insults and insist on offering nothing at all to the argument besides aforementioned (limp) insults, I suggest you stop. Replying to dictionary definitions and a solid argument with a one line jab is trolling--that is, vacuous comments made solely for the sake of offense.

 

[Lukeje]

So you agree that it was a misrepresentation?

No, I don't. No argument was made to misrepresent. They stated (through "humor") that Linux users are hipsters. That's an opinion.

Now I'm starting to doubt your reading comprehension.

If you've nothing save limp insults and insist on offering nothing at all to the argument besides aforementioned (limp) insults, I suggest you stop. Replying to dictionary definitions and a solid argument with a one line jab is trolling--that is, vacuous comments made solely for the sake of offense.

Alright, I'll bite. What's your definition of argument then?

 

[dfphetteplace]

I hope other companies follow suit.

 

[dobahci]

Oh, its because Windows is too mainstreamed isn't it? And using an OS to limit yourself with will stick it to the man right? Never mind I got it now.

Facepalm.

Linux was created by computer scientists who wanted a system they could use, modify, and distribute freely because it was their belief that software is at its best when maintained in this fashion. It wasn't created by anti-corporate hipster luddites who wanted to "stick it to the man." Scientists are curious by nature; they're tinkerers. They want to know how a system works and be able to change or improve it as they see fit.

I suppose you think people who change their car's oil on their own are trying to stick it to the man too, right? Clearly if they had any sense, they'd never look under the hood and take their vehicle to the service center for every little thing that needed to be done on it.

 

[MorganL4]

Bit of a noob question I know but, what's a Linux?

I don't mean to sound rude, but I don't know if you are trolling or not....

I will assume not.

Linux is an open source Operating System originally developed as a college homework assignment by a man named Linus Torvalds. (By the way the professor did not say go make your own operating system)

At the time (1991) when this OS came into being the only real OS out there was (and is) known as UNIX

Linus decided to reverse engineer Unix and build his own OS. His friend started calling it Linux as a joke, but it stuck........

Makes your 5 page college essay about Maoism vs Confucianism seem pretty pathetic now doesn't it?



UBUNTU, the OS mentioned in the article is a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

But if you were looking for an animal to associate with Linux ( which is my guess) then here:

 

[SquidVicious]

Well I'm glad this is still happening, I was a little worried when I didn't hear anything on this. I'm not that bothered by what is most likely going to be a limited library, as Valve games are really the only AAA games that can actually run well on my desktop. It does kind of suck that they're only releasing this for Ubuntu right now, but the joys of using a Linux based distro is having a community hard at work to try and make things accessible to all distros. I can't imagine it will take that long until this shows up in the AUR (Arch User Repository) after release.

 

[wizzy555]

I feel it is important to note, that the Mac OS be it 1,2,3.....9 or OS X are all UNIX distributions.

Are you sure? I thought only X and above was unix. 1-9 didn't have an accessible command terminal, not to mention a primitive memory allocation system.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

I feel it is important to note, that the Mac OS be it 1,2,3.....9 or OS X are all UNIX distributions.

Are you sure? I thought only X and above was unix. 1-9 didn't have an accessible command terminal, not to mention a primitive memory allocation system.

Correct. Everything before OS X was completely unrelated. The only Apple hardware I can think of off the top of my head from that time period that officially ran anything Unix-based/Unix-like before OS X came out was a little bit of obscure PowerPC stuff in the 90s that they sold with a version of AIX.

 

[Auesis]

I didn't even need to look at the article to predict the OS faction shizzle-storm.

 

[wizzy555]

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.

Err, no that's not the point of linux. Although there is no terribly good reason an app shouldn't work on another distribution with some tweaking. Normally apps will come in at least two varieties, a debian install package or a yum install package.

They are supporting one distribution because it will be technically easier to get things working and they don't have to train support staff in different ways of clearing caches, installing drivers, etc. And Ubuntu is one of the more popular and user friendly distros.

 

[MorganL4]

I feel it is important to note, that the Mac OS be it 1,2,3.....9 or OS X are all UNIX distributions.

Are you sure? I thought only X and above was unix. 1-9 didn't have an accessible command terminal, not to mention a primitive memory allocation system.

Correct. Everything before OS X was completely unrelated. The only Apple hardware I can think of off the top of my head from that time period that officially ran anything Unix-based/Unix-like before OS X came out was a little bit of obscure PowerPC stuff in the 90s that they sold with a version of AIX.

Yeah, sry looks like I made a mistake there, the originals were based off of Lisa OS, which what what Wozniak developed for the Lisa back in 1983. They also took from xerox parc. My mistake.

 

[iniudan]

Of course being able to play games on Linux and having games to play on Linux are two different things. I'm willing to be Steams 'Linux' section will have the Source Games and nothing else.

You forgot everything that was sold in the Humble Indie Bundle, for those all have a Linux release already.

 

[Aeshi]

Of course being able to play games on Linux and having games to play on Linux are two different things. I'm willing to be Steams 'Linux' section will have the Source Games and nothing else.

You forgot everything that was sold in the Humble Indie Bundle, for those all have a Linux release already.

Not a guarantee, at least a couple of the Indie bundle games on Steam are still Windows-only despite having OSX versions.