Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Valve Starts Publishing Packages For Its Own Linux Distribution

timothy posted about a year ago | from the ready-for-the-console-at-least dept.

Debian 310

An anonymous reader writes "In preparation for the "Steam Box" game console that will make necessary their own Linux-based software platform, Valve developers have started publishing Debian packages for their platform which looks like their first-generation operating system will be derived from Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS. So far the packages being published include a new "Plymouth" boot splash screen as the operating system loads, a Steam desktop wallpaper, auto-updating system scripts, and experimental NVIDIA Linux graphics drivers."

cancel ×

310 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Foamy Urination (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43337231)

Frist Poast!

Debian? EWWWWW... (-1, Flamebait)

luckymae (2691983) | about a year ago | (#43337245)

Debian? ewwww...

Re:Debian? EWWWWW... (4, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about a year ago | (#43337279)

Steam for Linux only formerly supports Ubuntu 12.04 IIRC. So it makes sense they would base their own distro off of that.

Re:Debian? EWWWWW... (3, Informative)

JonJ (907502) | about a year ago | (#43337295)

I think you might mean formally...

Year of the Linux Desktop? (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#43337289)

It looks like this might finally be the year. With Windows 8 throwing a lot of users away with a bad interface and a marketplace lock-in, The timing is pretty good. A lot of people always claimed that games were the only reason they were still on Windows.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (5, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | about a year ago | (#43337425)

Maybe not the year of the Linux desktop, but instead the year of the Linux set-top-box.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (4, Interesting)

telchine (719345) | about a year ago | (#43337599)

Maybe not the year of the Linux desktop, but instead the year of the Linux set-top-box.

As long as Valve (and ideally other developers as well) make big-name games availale, then I think a lot of gamers would switch to Linux on their existing computer rather than buy a set-top box.

Plenty of people only use their computers for basic web/email/word processing and games and the only thing that ties them to Windows is games. I'm sure plenty would welcome the opportunity to not have to pay for Windows (or have the hassle of pirating it) so long as the games they want to play are available on Linux.

Unfortunately, right now, the choice is lacking. I see Counter-Strike:Source and Team Fortress 2 being the only big-name games. This is disappointing as they were allegedly beta testing with Left 4 Dead 2 which still isn't available on Linux.

Once the other main Source games become available and new games are written with Linux in mind then I can see adoption of Linux for gaming picking up.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

nine-times (778537) | about a year ago | (#43337769)

Yeah, my point was not about the desktop/set-top-box format itself, but about the roles people use computers for. If Valve can get a substantial portion of their games to run on their distribution, then they may very well succeed in bringing Linux to people who use their computers primarily for gaming. And that's no small accomplishment.

However, when it comes to computers used for business/productivity, this probably won't have a big impact. If you could bring Outlook and Adobe CS to Linux, then you might really see something. And no, Thunderbird and GIMP don't count.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year ago | (#43338367)

A pirate (yar) version of Adobe CS. The underage no money types have to learn how to use your stuff. Investment in future users isn't a lost sale.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#43337951)

...only thing that ties them to Windows is games.

That, and the demands of employers. I'm a contractor so I need to keep a Windows machine around to work on their stuff. I do more Windows development than Linux, but its really starting to tip the other way.

I'm sure plenty would welcome the opportunity to not have to pay for Windows (or have the hassle of pirating it)

Its not much of a hassle. Er, so I'm told.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (2)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | about a year ago | (#43338861)

Started Using Ubuntu when Steam rolled out - I can definitely assure the Linux developers the easiest way to proportionally reduce my use of windows is to increase the proportion of linux gaming.

Please save me from Windows 8 and the trainwreck that follows!

signed - ex microsoft shill

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (2)

Kardos (1348077) | about a year ago | (#43337847)

Well we've got linux on server and on mobile, if we get consoles this year, I'll settle for desktop in 2014.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | about a year ago | (#43338033)

By 2014 the desktop will be a special-purpose device only, with a market consisting mostly of development and server machines (which linux already has a health share of now). No victory there.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | about a year ago | (#43338057)

Except server machines are a class of their own, not desktops. Oops. Okay, I'm going to go have some more coffee.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about a year ago | (#43338777)

Except 2007 was the year of the "set you could not put a box on top of".

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43337435)

Games on Windows.
Proper CAD software on Windows.
Proper Audio and Video tools on Windows.
Countless proprietary tools that only work on Windows (or even just certain versions of Windows) (especially hw related like firmware updates, bios updates, mcu programmers) ... the list actually goes on and on and on.

Yes i run linux at home, i love it.
Yes i have run some of the stuff above in wine when needed (but the user experience isn't really the same).
No - windows will stay here for a while, it takes more than Windows 8 to get rid of it (especially as ubuntu is also making mistakes on the way).

Btw. if you like valve on linux, use steam like i do.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (3, Informative)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43337503)

Unless you are really willing to spend $1000 on a software tool, most of what you posted is nonsense.

Games are an interesting problem but that's being addressed by Valve.

Obscure vertical market apps are interesting of course but only for small subsets of the total market of Windows users. For people that don't need to run some sort of office of some particular type, those vertical apps might as well not exist.

That's why you can't name drop any of them, in stark contrast to perhaps to a single video,audio, or CAD tool that costs more than you are willing to spend.

Small business may remain Microsoft's saving grace as end users defect to tablets and larger corporations migrate to platform independent solutions.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | about a year ago | (#43338245)

Depending on what you get, that "CAD" software it can cost even more (~6k for Synchro, which is a 4D BIM/VDC application). What's left unmentioned are the DCC programs used to create content for games. The big companies behind these are slow to port their software to Linux.

That said, I work at a small-medium sized construction company. I know a couple coworkers who have been given Surface Pros (I bought one for myself the day it came out). These tablets are faster than their old computer, and when they get used to using them, just might replace it entirely. As for me, I use CAD/BIM/VDC software on a daily basis, so I work with a Xeon powered Dell Precision T5600. The Surface Pro doesn't replace my computer yet, but maybe one day something like it (but with a docking station) will.

At home I use whatever I use at work. Until Autodesk-and-friends port the software (especially Revit and Navisworks), it will probably continue to be Windows. If it's Windows being used at work, it'll be Windows being used at home for many of us, and Windows at school for students studying ahead of entering the work force. That's just my opinion though. Things can change. I don't really care so long as it doesn't stink.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

xaxa (988988) | about a year ago | (#43338595)

Back in the 1990s AutoDesk released software for other platforms -- I own AutoSketch for the Acorn Archimedes, and Wikipedia suggests that was released on Atari too. It probably won't be fast, and we probably won't hear about it until it's ready, but there's no technical reason AutoDesk must stick to Windows.

(My dad taught engineering drawing in secondary schools in the 1980s and early 1990s (before the subject was abandoned). He also taught bitmap computer graphics. Most of my childhood art is computer printouts, including lots of people drawn from hexagons on an isometric grid.)

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

xaxa (988988) | about a year ago | (#43338717)

I've just read the Wikipedia page -- apparently there's AutoCAD for Mac OS already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoCAD#Mac_OS [wikipedia.org]

I'm amazed they sell the light version through the App store -- don't Apple take a hefty cut of those sales?

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#43338651)

Small business may remain Microsoft's saving grace as end users defect to tablets and larger corporations migrate to platform independent solutions.

Don't you mean web applications and Java 1.0? Oh right it's not 1995 anymore, but if history doesn't repeat itself I do feel it rhyme. I predict that in another 10 years Slashdot will still be predicting the imminent doom of Microsoft....

also windows drivers and windows wrapped drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43337567)

also windows drivers and windows wrapped drivers. Linux is hit or miss on laptops.

Also wine is very hit or miss as well.

Re:also windows drivers and windows wrapped driver (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year ago | (#43338417)

If valve start to make a fortune in the venture, or one company can demonstrate that cash can be made, I'm sure (hope) that will start to get better.

Maybe (-1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about a year ago | (#43337465)

Maybe yes, maybe not. As desktop, Linux still sucks (however, note that it is excellent as a server). Windows have serious security problems, etc etc but it does not break the existing applications on each relevant update and have behavior/interface consistence (well, ok, not exact true on the new Windows 8), something that desktop Linux has not yet learned and I wonder if one day they will learn.

Re:Maybe (1)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#43337507)

it does not break the existing applications on each relevant update

Can you explain how this is expressed in the Linux world? I know unsubstantiated claims made to attack Linux are acceptable (unlike every other platform) but I insist that you expand upon this.

Re:Maybe (1)

Soluzar (1957050) | about a year ago | (#43337577)

I never found that older applications were broken under Linux. They usually just required (at worst) for you to install an older version of a shared library, which you can do side-by-side with the current version. Sometimes it was necessary to compile afresh, that was fine though. A good makefile renders this automatic. My Linux knowledge is ancient though. The Kernel still had a major version starting with 2 when I last used it. My knowledge may be outdated or otherwise faulty.

Re:Maybe (1)

MuH4hA (1579647) | about a year ago | (#43337891)

I can assure you: that's still how it is. You install the appropriate version of the library - et voilà, it works!

Re:Maybe (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year ago | (#43338455)

If you can get that to read - "I can assure you: it works!" no matter the user skill level. You're onto a winner.

Re:Maybe (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about a year ago | (#43338431)

Well ... I consider a problem the need of having to rebuild the desktop (if it does work, since usually compiling something big is a hell) to get things back up and running. You do not see the problem because you're used to doing so, but ask the same thing for the average user to see what happens.

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43337605)

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43337637)

FTFY:
 

I know unsubstantiated claims made to attack Apple are acceptable (unlike every other platform)

Re:Maybe (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about a year ago | (#43338435)

I do not feed trolls, sorry :-)

Re:Maybe (0)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#43338541)

So you refuse to back up your claims? Good to know.

Re:Maybe (0)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about a year ago | (#43338563)

For someone else, yes. For you? Nope :-)

Re:Maybe (0)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#43338745)

Ok, so you won't back up your point when asked, and when asked you claim "oh you're a troll and I don't feed the troll!"

I suspect this is because you can't do more than come up with a contrived example, and because you don't like my opinions you avoid my request.

Re:Maybe (5, Informative)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year ago | (#43337653)

As desktop, Linux still sucks

...for you. Which is fine. I love it and use it every day.

Windows have serious security problems, etc etc but it does not break the existing applications on each relevant update and have behavior/interface consistence

There's an argument to made that this has happened in the Windows world a few times, but I digress. Gnome fucked up badly with Gnome 3. We get that. A lot of us still hold a grudge against them for that. That sort of update is in the minority. Most (as in 99.9%) updates I install work without any sort of configuration changes needed, and as an additional nice point, don't require a reboot (usually only kernel updates need a reboot in Linux).

I'm not trying to sell you, I'm just pointing out that what you've heard doesn't mesh with my experience.

Re:Maybe (2)

Kjella (173770) | about a year ago | (#43338231)

Most (as in 99.9%) updates I install work without any sort of configuration changes needed, and as an additional nice point, don't require a reboot (usually only kernel updates need a reboot in Linux).

I've never had the kernel go down, but I've been forced to kill the X server quite a few times and early KDE4 made unrecoverable barfs on top of X a few times too. So as a server sure it can have years of uptime, but as a desktop it doesn't really live up to its reputation. That it doesn't go down for planned updates is nice but the unplanned are the worst anyway and the difference between a reboot and and X reset is minimal to a desktop.

Re:Maybe (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about a year ago | (#43338543)

Try to install a new X server from source, or try to update some relevant library (to be able to use shiny new application with obscure or alpha dependencies), and you will see the problem that I are talking about. The kernel Linux is stable, but the software needed to make the desktop work are incomplete, inconsistent or simply broken.

Re:Maybe (4, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#43338793)

Try to install a new X server from source, or try to update some relevant library (to be able to use shiny new application with obscure or alpha dependencies), and you will see the problem that I are talking about.

Wait, when is a user of Ubuntu, particularly a non-technical user, ever going to do that?

The kernel Linux is stable, but the software needed to make the desktop work are incomplete, inconsistent or simply broken.

Your arguments are more incomplete, inconsistent, or simply broken than the platform you're trying to attack is.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

Krneki (1192201) | about a year ago | (#43337595)

Even bigger contributor to Linux gaming is Unity3D.

A lot of new games are developed using this relatively cheap/easy tool to create games, where the community shares free or for a small charge scripts/pre build packages and the game can be compiled for almost every platform.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | about a year ago | (#43338097)

Which only just recently is getting a Linux port.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43338515)

Unity3D has had a Linux engine for quite a while, and that is what the parent comment was talking about: games made using Unity3D get a Linux port "for free".

Wish I had a mod point for you. (4, Interesting)

doug141 (863552) | about a year ago | (#43337675)

When XP was introduced, I switched to windows for the games. I have happily paid for newer versions of Windows since because they are very usable and I don't want to learn linux. Now, there's no good new version of windows to switch to, based on what I'm reading about windows 8. Apparently valve and steam are making gaming on linux easier than ever. I'm at risk of trying it and finding I like it. The real threat to Microsoft may be their own vision with Windows 8.

Re:Wish I had a mod point for you. (4, Insightful)

TrancePhreak (576593) | about a year ago | (#43338113)

based on what I'm reading about windows 8.

Which is the real problem. Most people I've seen who say it's bad haven't even used it. In the future, it should become the de-facto Windows gaming iteration, as they cleaned up and refined the graphics systems.

Re:Wish I had a mod point for you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43338139)

You could just use Windows 7 for longer, like all the people using XP who skipped Vista when people were claiming that would finally kill Windows.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (4, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#43337813)

It looks like this might finally be the year.

That's almost comical because we've been asking ourselves that question for so many years. Valve has got a good thing going, but until we start seeing mainstream games on Steam being released with Linux binaries, all Valve is doing is prolonging another inevitable Fail.

Don't get me wrong, I applaud Valve for what they are doing. It takes a lot of balls to take on the Console/Windows gaming behemoth and I think it takes keen insight to recognize the death of your product coming down the road because your main support platform went full-retard. BUT it doesn't feel good to sit at a Linux Steam console staring at all the cool games for Windows, and 90% of Linux selections are stuff repackaged from the Humble Bundles. When a new game comes out, the people on Linux Steam want to be able to play it too. When the industry gets to that point, the everyday Linux desktop headaches may offset the Windows ones enough to make make "YotLD" viable.

Also I am not sure it will work so well (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year ago | (#43338847)

We'll actually get to see a bit in a year or so, as there are some bigger games coming to Linux. A few Kickstarter titles have pledged Linux support as there were some vocal calls for it from backers.

I think though that Linux users are going to be a little disappointed with the results. The graphics driver situation with regards to hardware OpenGL support is pretty bad in Linux. The only driver that seems to support current features, in hardware, without blowing up is the binary nVidia driver.

So the games may well came to Linux, but only run if you have an nVidia card and if you load the binary driver. That is not likely to please the Linux community at large, but there may be no real other option. It is one thing to do a game with fairly simplistic graphics (rendering wise) that just uses SDL or something, it is quite another to make a game that uses current 3D hardware features.

Now a dedicated set of hardware/software like a defined "Steam Box" could solve that of course... But then that's not really gaming for Linux, that's a videogame console that happens to run Linux.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | about a year ago | (#43337873)

I can't help but remain skeptical. So far, the frothing at the mouth against Windows 8 is pretty much just a computer-enthusiast thing and of that group not all are united.

Throwing out ideals such as good and evil, open-source and closed, and good or bad design - it all comes down to: 1) Which OS comes with Average Joe's PC. 2) Which OS runs the apps Average Joe has already. 3)Which interface is less of a pain in the butt to learn for Average Joe.

In that order.

That said, if PC usage continues to decline, the fate of whatever remains of the desktop could be left entirely up to the enthusiast.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (4, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#43337993)

Valve is heading towards Linux because they see where Microsoft is heading. Microsoft is pulling an Apple style lock - in with the new interface and will slowly remove support for the old one. They don't want to pay the cut of all sales that Microsoft will demand. I'm quite surprised more people haven't realised this ... But perhaps I'm just paranoid.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43338725)

Actually, they've said this is the exact reason they're jumping ship. Microsoft doesn't want a cut of Steam's sales. Microsoft fully intends to replace Steam and other digital distribution channels with the Windows Store. Simple as that.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

theurge14 (820596) | about a year ago | (#43337949)

This is a target-specific device (gaming console), not a traditional desktop. It doesn't bring Linux any closer to the desktop than the explosion of Android phones did.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#43338633)

Actually it does, because along the console, the same Steam is provided to all x86 Ubuntu desktop systems.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about a year ago | (#43337991)

Actually this is probably the year Valve invested in a giant failure that sinks their company.

Valve drank the linux coolaid and its going to come back in full diabetic foot chopping off bad times.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

Omestes (471991) | about a year ago | (#43338005)

marketplace lock-in

Huh? What lock-in? Last I checked I could still install software from any source I wanted to, unless this has changed in the last half hour.

. A lot of people always claimed that games were the only reason they were still on Windows.

For me this is still part of the reason I stick with it (the other being some profession software, with no fully comparable Linux peers yet), but sadly even with Steam, Linux isn't there yet. Perhaps we're closer to the day when it is possible for a gamer to switch, which is progress, but we're still probably years off.

What we need is the major publishers to jump on the bandwagon, and not just Valve. We also need some soft of transparent, uber-Wine, so people can run everything else without any fuss or worry.

Right now the Steambox concept is going to make Linux more of a console OS, than the new ascendant desktop. Which is also pretty good progress.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#43338263)

I'm fairly sure that you can only install applications in the new Interface through the Microsoft market. I'm also fairly sure that the old interface will disappear. Valve is just a little quicker than most in picking of this up.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (2)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about a year ago | (#43338401)

I think this is the difference between Windows 8 RT and Windows 8 Pro. Ultimately I think MS will make it so only applications bought through their app store will be installable on windows systems, but to my knowledge they've only done this on Windows 8 RT at the moment. I think they purposely made the naming of Win RT and Win Pro obscure to make it confusing about what people are complaining about when they say, "I couldn't install X on my new windows (RT/PRO) device". That way MS can always come back with, "oh you didn't read the system requirements. That price of software clearly states it's not for (RT/PRO) device".

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about a year ago | (#43338041)

It looks like this might finally be the year. With Windows 8 throwing a lot of users away with a bad interface and a marketplace lock-in, The timing is pretty good. A lot of people always claimed that games were the only reason they were still on Windows.

Games and Office. As good as the linux alternatives are to MS Office, they fall short on the business desktop.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43338371)

It's been "the Year of Linux on the Desktop" since 2002 if you ask me (on multiple machines, mostly laptops!).

Haven't used Windows at all since about 2005 although I still have a dusty grey box that I should finally go over one last time to verify the backups before wiping and thrashing it (too easy to put it off when you never use it).

<3 GNU/Linux

P.S. more interesting than cleaning out the old Windows 2000 box is to install Linux on my recently acquired Rikomagic MK802III (works nicely but Android is merely a washed out shadow of a real GNU/Linux system), but they flash it using Windows!!!! No way lol XP So I'm not doing that until I've found a Linux way :)

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (4, Interesting)

smi.james.th (1706780) | about a year ago | (#43338457)

I've been sort of forced to use Win8 for the last few weeks on my new laptop (yeah I guess I could probably get it to work with 7 instead, but I'm too lazy...) and to be honest it's really not bad. Once you get used to the different interface it's really no problem.

Also, as far as marketplace lock-in, that's complete rubbish. I've installed all my own applications, haven't had to use a single one from the Windows / Metro thingy, most of the time I don't even realise I'm on a new OS. It's somewhat faster than Win7, though that difference isn't huge.

All that being said, I still prefer Linux, I'm one of those who have specific applications packages for work reasons which have to use Windows. But Win8 isn't the big loss for M$ that you make it out to be.

Re:Year of the Linux Desktop? (2)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#43338841)

Also, as far as marketplace lock-in, that's complete rubbish.

No, it's not. You just don't realize it because.

[I] haven't had to use a single one from the Windows / Metro thingy

Of course you don't have to. Yet. You also haven't used anything built on the WinRT APIs. You also aren't using Windows RT devices.

But make no mistake: Microsoft wants that aspect of Windows gone. And they'll keep marginalizing it and pushing the APIs that give them more control.

Ooooh, maybe I can run the distribution on my PS3! (3, Funny)

Ardeaem (625311) | about a year ago | (#43337351)

Oh, right. Never mind.

Re:Ooooh, maybe I can run the distribution on my P (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43337661)

Plus all of the Steam stuff will be binary only, and surely x86_64.

So this is the Steam Box (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43337353)

Standard OS, standard hardware, standard drivers.

I for one welcome our moneyed overlords. If anyone has the clout to push developers to include Linux drivers with their releases it will be Valve.

Grammar suggestion (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43337365)

a game console that will make necessary their own Linux-based software platform

Just a FYI, but this sounds like it was written by a non-native English speaker. While the grammar is technically correct, a more understandable choice (for native English speakers) would be "a game concole that will require...".

Re:Grammar suggestion (2)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43337587)

A game "concole"?

Re:Grammar suggestion (1)

psnyder (1326089) | about a year ago | (#43338285)

Actually the grammar in the summary is technically not correct.
An adverb should not be placed between the verb it is modifying, and the direct object [grammarly.com] .

The sentence could be corrected by moving "necessary" after the direct object:
"...a game console that will make their own Linux-based software platform necessary,"


(This assumes the term "correct grammar" is defined as a description of how most native speakers speak, rather than a prescription of rules to make oneself understood.)

please, whynot a simple debian base, *buntu fubar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43337439)

please, whynot a simple (clean) debian base, *buntu is fubar (many people would agree)...

it tries to be everything to everyone, and ends up in a worse overall 'state' than properly setup debian distros (or gentoo for that matter).

Both Deb and gentoo based derivatives I think will have less problems in the long run, with less 'gotchas'
Seriously, I'd like the /. feedback on this... haven't all real linux users abandoned *buntu since a year or 2 back?

Re:please, whynot a simple debian base, *buntu fub (4, Insightful)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year ago | (#43337957)

Seriously, I'd like the /. feedback on this... haven't all real linux users abandoned *buntu since a year or 2 back?

Well, first of all, they're going to derive their distro from Ubuntu. This is sort of like Mint which I, a former Ubuntu user, currently run. I would guess that much of what has frustrated Ubuntu users will be excluded and replaced with custom, in-house frustrations. Secondly, "all real linux users"? I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. A Linux user, by definition, is a person who uses Linux. Ubuntu is a Linux distribution. Therefore, a person who uses Ubuntu is also a Linux user. There is no place for "real" qualifiers to enter this any more than someone can be a "real bachelor" or a "true Scotsman". To count oneself a real Linux user and to deny that to others who happen to use a distro one doesn't like is just self-indulgent.

Re:please, whynot a simple debian base, *buntu fub (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43338587)

by 'real' I mean people who actually know what a kernel is vs those that don't...

*buntu has been pushed to *ma&pa* status, and thus enjoy a rather large share of new installations... but people who actually have used linux for years know the difference and have left the *buntu derivatives because of the problems, and usually end up on a debian based system, or gentoo, or fedora etc

I know mint is a great distro, but even they are trying to get out from under the *buntu dependencies, hence why they did : http://www.linuxmint.com/download_lmde.php

Re:please, whynot a simple debian base, *buntu fub (1)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#43338645)

Well, first of all, they're going to derive their distro from Ubuntu

Which means it's going to be even further from base Debian. Which emphasizes OP's point, wtf is wrong with Debian?

I would buy a Steam Box if... (4, Interesting)

Soluzar (1957050) | about a year ago | (#43337523)

1) The hardware is open so that you can (if you wish) put a different Linux distribution on it.

2) If the Steam Box software works on any distribution you so install.

3) The games are protected only by Steam's own DRM and not encumbered by anything more onerous.

4) All games use the controller. The keyboard and mouse can be an option, but it should not be the only option.

I know this makes it nothing more than a nice small form factor PC with a standard spec. I'm happy for it to be exactly that.

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (1)

gQuigs (913879) | about a year ago | (#43337677)

1/2) Install other distros
I belive they have said they want to make it open enough to potentially run Windows, so I think other distros should run fine (well, except if the distro doesn't provide enough up-to-date bits).

3) The games are protected only by Steam's own DRM and not encumbered by anything more onerous.
That's all games made by Valve. Other companies can include worse DRM, but I don't think they will be able to get root. So they are stuck with always online DRM; which means I won't consider those games anyway...

4) All games use the controller. The keyboard and mouse can be an option, but it should not be the only option.
I think that is Valve's vision. Have you tried Big Picture mode?

I would also consider buying one just if it's a nice small form factor PC, even if I can't upgrade anything besides the hard drive. (And it's at a comparable price point to consoles).

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43337705)

Inagine using a controller to attempt to play DotA 2, or any RTS.

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43337735)

Which would make the whole idea of the Steam Box irrelevant and pointless, and people would only be buying it for the brand rather than its functionality.

I'm guessing you are not the target audience for Valve on this one.

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43337745)

(3) What special kind of idiot are you ASKING for DRM?

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43337747)

2) If the Steam Box software works on any distribution you so install.

I'm sure Steam will relish the job of maintaining their software on, and providing support to the users of, every distribution. Lucky there's not many of them, then!

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#43337775)

I'm sure Steam

Valve. I meant Valve!

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (1)

subanark (937286) | about a year ago | (#43337807)

1. I think this is required as part of the GPL. And Valve hasn't tried to stop running their games on other distros.
2. Not possible. Some distributions will simply be incompatible by their design. It would be up to each distro to ensure compatibility.
3. Their DRM is their DRM. As per #1 and #2, I don't think they will do any hardware DRM integration.
4. I don't think they will include a keyboard and mouse, so a developer that requires one would face an uphill battle. I don't think Valve will completely ban those devices though.

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (1)

Microlith (54737) | about a year ago | (#43338869)

#1 is required only as a facet of the GPLv3.
#2 is where obscure distros leverage their userbase. Thus Steam for Linux is already running on many distros other than just Ubuntu, even if Valve doesn't officially support them.

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (1)

zzottt (629458) | about a year ago | (#43337901)

so basically you have built up a wall of ultimatums before the thing is even seen the light of day? If you dont want it just say so

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43338045)

His wording implies sufficiency rather than necessity, otherwise he should have said "only if".

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43338155)

An "ultimatum" implies an existing relationship between him and Steam (which he threatens to discontinue). What he is describing are his prerequisites for entering into a relationship with Steam (which he threatens to decline).

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43338383)

I wouldn't consider them ultimatums so much as "if you'd like me as a customer ..." requests which Valve can ignore if they want. There's no coercion here. It's a wishlist.

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43337999)

1 and 3 seem reasonable. 2 and 4 do not. You're basically saying you want them to do a lot of extra work for you, because you're a special snowflake, even though 90% of people wouldn't use them. Especially 4, since you're putting this onus on every game manufacturer, through steam.

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43338003)

Steam's own DRM is already pretty onerous. Valve's biggest feat was selling geeks on such DRM as being acceptable. Does it work if your internet goes away? Yea, usually. But only one computer playing *any* Steam purchase at a time (2 diff computers, 2 diff games, purchased under same account? no go). Wanna play those games in 20 years after Valve has retired Steam (not impossible), you'll need cracks. Joy!

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43338551)

Most of this is reasonable and obvious (i.e. I expect they will be the case). Except this:

2) If the Steam Box software works on any distribution you so install.

I mean, come on, we're talking about a reliance on 3rd-party GPU drivers that don't work in *every* distribution. Never gonna happen. Nor do I see why you would really care that much. I expect it will support several distros eventually, but it's never going to support everything.

Re:I would buy a Steam Box if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43338679)

I find it interesting that you are advocating for open hardware in one breath and then mandating a certain controller with the next. Leave the controller choice up to the developer. Requiring every game out there to utilize a gimped form of control is asinine.

Finally (0)

invictusvoid (2882111) | about a year ago | (#43337619)

There's probably just one reason left for windows to exist .. Nobody makes games for linux . I just hope finally .. finally .. no more windoze ever ever again ...

Re:Finally (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about a year ago | (#43338043)

Nobody makes anything for linux :) Windows on the other hand offers everything, and the OS is pretty damn user friendly compared to linux.

Frankly if anyone had a chance at beating MS, it was Apple... but then Jobs died. MS has been doing very well with Windows 7 and Windows 8.

Re:Finally (1)

GigaBurglar (2465952) | about a year ago | (#43338833)

What planet do you live on mate?? You do realise that Linux is the number one server platform, it's the number one mobile platform, embedded platform, in all respects, except the desktop, it's the largest platform on the planet. That being said - Windows 8 is digging it's own grave. Windows has progressively gotten worse since Vista, 7 was okay, 8 is just.. meh.. Linux Mint or Ubuntu is actually EASIER to use than Windows - to give an example.. my brother, who has never used a computer in his life, has been happily using Ubuntu for about a year now - no problems.. he actually prefers it to Windows. It only tends to be technophobes that are scared of a headless platform like Ubuntu.

Hmmm ... (0)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43337679)

In preparation for the "Steam Box" game console that will make necessary their own Linux-based software platform

And how long will it take before people are suing Valve for the updates they'll have made for their distribution?

I find it unlikely they'll be putting a vanilla install of Livelink on it, and I'm skeptical they'd be willing to give back any changes they made.

Which means this is on a collision course with the GPL in all likelihood.

More info (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year ago | (#43337833)

This could, potentially, be a very big deal. But we need more info:
Price point?
Does it do media?
Can we modify the OS?
Will it come with a decent solution to the "Keyboards from the couch suck" problem?

I have a lot of hope here for Valve, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Re:More info (1)

GigaBurglar (2465952) | about a year ago | (#43338729)

It's Linux - you can do anything you want with it.. I would hazard a guess and put it in the same category as Android in contrast to a proprietary platform.

Indrema (1)

jlebrech (810586) | about a year ago | (#43338117)

Looks like Steam are finally building the Indrema.

Steam Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43338247)

Interesting how last month when steam Linux had some gains we had a front page post here trumpeting as much. This month, when Steam Linux saw drops in usage across *every* participating distribution, so such story describing this on the front page. Hmmm.... Meanwhile Windows 8 crossed 10% to become the second most popular gaming platform. Where's the story about that?

Re:Steam Linux (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year ago | (#43338865)

You can't buy a laptop in a chain store that isn't Windows 8 in the UK. Popular may not mean popular.

In theory... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#43338567)

which looks like their first-generation operating system will be derived from Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS

In theory, this means support for Radeon 2000 through 4000 GPU's if they stick with X.Org 1.12 (AMD refuses to support those GPU's - not all of which can be considered dated in the least - in 12.10/X.org 1.13).

Yeah but.. (1)

GigaBurglar (2465952) | about a year ago | (#43338695)

What use is the platform when there are literally no games to play on it? Team Fortress Two and Half Life - spoilt for choices..

Re:Yeah but.. (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year ago | (#43338851)

I'm not too sure but I think they'll be able to make some games for it. Half-life 4&5 only on Valve's new platform would work for most I think. the entry cost for a free OS isn't too hard to get around.

Autoupdate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43338825)

Autoupdate is really cool:
v+
#!/bin/bash
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade -y
apt-get autoclean
#v-

Check it out, I'm not kidding you...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>