Steam and Linux Are Now an Item

[FEichinger]

Games require graphics and the graphics support on linux is terrible for all except a select few cards (NVidia using the proprietary drivers are considered good).

Valve are basically going to have to write half the drivers themselves to make this work, and add a ton more tech support infrastructure.

Could work in the long run (microsoft seem to want to alienate the desktop PC market with windows 8), but at the moment it's early days.

Uhh, wrong. "Graphics" is a wide field. I assume you're referring to DirectX generated graphics - mostly 3D (given that GL runs pretty darn well under Linux). And the reason for that is quite simple: Microsoft is responsible for DirectX - hence why you don't see it running natively on Linux.
The proprietary drivers are usually perfectly fine under Linux, as they actually work with the harware provided, rather than putting a layer in-between to "upgrade" the capabilities - most of which is useless screen clutter anyways.
It is very well possible to get "proper" graphics for games running in Linux, without "having to write drivers from scratch".

And, another point... Please, for the love of god, stop the bullshit about eye candy. Millions of people play bloody Minecraft, which only consumes due to the massive amount of objects in view.

 

[teqrevisited]

It's nice that they're getting some support. They've been pretty vocal about it for long enough. For me it isn't worth the hassle of using Linux though. Maybe getting it to work properly is half the attraction but I just don't have the patience.

 

[wizzy555]

Games require graphics and the graphics support on linux is terrible for all except a select few cards (NVidia using the proprietary drivers are considered good).

Valve are basically going to have to write half the drivers themselves to make this work, and add a ton more tech support infrastructure.

Could work in the long run (microsoft seem to want to alienate the desktop PC market with windows 8), but at the moment it's early days.

Uhh, wrong. "Graphics" is a wide field. I assume you're referring to DirectX generated graphics - mostly 3D (given that GL runs pretty darn well under Linux). And the reason for that is quite simple: Microsoft is responsible for DirectX - hence why you don't see it running natively on Linux.
The proprietary drivers are usually perfectly fine under Linux, as they actually work with the harware provided, rather than putting a layer in-between to "upgrade" the capabilities - most of which is useless screen clutter anyways.
It is very well possible to get "proper" graphics for games running in Linux, without "having to write drivers from scratch".

And, another point... Please, for the love of god, stop the bullshit about eye candy. Millions of people play bloody Minecraft, which only consumes due to the massive amount of objects in view.

I didn't mention directX I was talking about the hardware drivers. It's not about eye candy, it's about getting basic sprites or polygons drawn without crashing compiz or metacity. I tried to install bastion from the humble bundle on ubuntu and couldn't get to the menu without a freeze and I was running with proprietary ATI drivers, (may not have been the graphics hardware but it neatly illustrates the uphill battle).

 

[Matthi205]

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

1)If it ran "pretty crappy" YOU were the one responsible for it . There is a ton of documentation on linux configuration . If something doesn't work properly - disable it .

2)To actually use Linux in its full capability , one must understand how it works ... and that is a pretty easy thing to do . Windows , however , ----- let's just say that knowledge of how Windows is built is limited to a few people , if not lacking completely .

3)Linux is , as was already said , FREE .

4)On the subject of OS installation : You have to be very very lacking in competence with computers (if you don't know how to make a new folder , you belong to this group of people) to get ANYTHING really wrong when installing almost any Linux distribution . Windows on the other side doesn't let you choose to do a lot of things - like installing your OS to ,say , 6 different partitions and having it run alongside another OS .

I get Windows 7 installed on my system (with all the applications I need and stuff) in 2 hours . I can have Kubuntu up and running within 45 Minutes , including the installation of applications I need and everything else .

5)Graphics : The proprietary ATi/AMD/nVidia drivers aren't really the best thing there could be (as is Linux' support for new Hardware...) , but one must understand that their teams are a lot smaller than the teams for the "regular" Windows drivers . Let's just be grateful that these drivers even exist . For everyone having problems with them - use the "standard" drivers that come with your Linux distro , they work OK on most systems .

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

cant remember the last time i paid for windows mate. its pretty standard that you get windows with anything you buy nowadays.

I understand that it is now no longer even possible to buy a Dell PC without Windows on it, whether for personal or business use.

But even if it is included or bundled in, you are paying for it, just not separately. The cost of the Windows license is included in the cost your hardware. The manufacturer pay MS for the license and pass this cost onto you transparently in the sale price.

And here at work, for each client we have, there are additional costs too. Each machine needs an Exchange license, an AD license, MS SQL costs a small fortune and so on.

We're upgrading about 250 of our 700 PCs next month, and all our server infrastructure. We're going with Dell, but they absolutely will not sell the machines without a Win7 license each. So, we have to pay for 250 of those, then buy a site license for the same OS (it is significantly cheaper for us as a school than for a business at least), and the server OSs and CALs alone are a buttload of money. MS SQL they now charge us per CORE and we're getting 2x quad cores for our DB server, so have to buy 8 bloody licenses for it. Office 2010 for each machine as well....it's a very expensive business.

And then the annoying part, with Windows 8 due out in about 3-5 months, give or take, we either stay a generation behind or pay for a further upgrade cost site wide/per machine.

 

[Elate]

-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.

 

[draythefingerless]

cant remember the last time i paid for windows mate. its pretty standard that you get windows with anything you buy nowadays.

I understand that it is now no longer even possible to buy a Dell PC without Windows on it, whether for personal or business use.

But even if it is included or bundled in, you are paying for it, just not separately. The cost of the Windows license is included in the cost your hardware. The manufacturer pay MS for the license and pass this cost onto you transparently in the sale price.

And here at work, for each client we have, there are additional costs too. Each machine needs an Exchange license, an AD license, MS SQL costs a small fortune and so on.

We're upgrading about 250 of our 700 PCs next month, and all our server infrastructure. We're going with Dell, but they absolutely will not sell the machines without a Win7 license each. So, we have to pay for 250 of those, then buy a site license for the same OS (it is significantly cheaper for us as a school than for a business at least), and the server OSs and CALs alone are a buttload of money. MS SQL they now charge us per CORE and we're getting 2x quad cores for our DB server, so have to buy 8 bloody licenses for it. Office 2010 for each machine as well....it's a very expensive business.

And then the annoying part, with Windows 8 due out in about 3-5 months, give or take, we either stay a generation behind or pay for a further upgrade cost site wide/per machine.

yeah but the license you pay for the dells is not nearly as much as a normal windows license(i dunno how things in america work, maybe MS fucks you guys in the ass there). also if youre a school, why dont you have MSDN and similar contracts? students and teachers get access to free Windows. the license here for a windows that comes with the pc is like....50 to 100 euros, wich in terms of software prices, is actually...cheap.

and another thing, forget about Windows 8. you have absolutely no necessity to upgrade from Win7 to 8. Win8 is Windows phone, wiht Windows 7 installed in it. i mean, its not changed. at all.

 

[draythefingerless]

-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.

 

[Matthi205]

Linux is a laboratory. Windows is a home or a business. Mac is....an art gallery.

I think sections of a company are better suited to this analogy :
Mac is PR & Marketing .
Windows is Management & dull office furniture .
Linux is engineering .

Other than that , you're right IMHO .

 

[blindthrall]

The March of the PC Gamers.
Tragically, this OS, will not survive.

You're saying Linux won't survive? Do you know how long Linux has been around for?

Now I can finally play PC games again, and not have to rely on an engineered-obsolescensce Xbox. Now I just have to hope they port Age of Wonders.

 

[blindthrall]

The March of the PC Gamers.
Tragically, this OS, will not survive.

You're saying Linux won't survive? Do you know how long Linux has been around for?

Actually, at the time everyone was going on about how they would be abandoning Windows.

Where's the tragedy in that?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.