Renzatic on 9/3/2010 at 16:43
Quote Posted by Enchantermon
Seconded. I want to get a Mac (probably will go for an iMac, though) in order to learn the system just so I have the knowledge, but they're
way too expensive.
psst....hackintosh. boot-132. spread the word
Actually, I'm surprised Steam hasn't come out for Linux yet, considering Valve had a tentative announcement for it going over there a year or so back.
Volitions Advocate on 9/3/2010 at 16:43
Quote Posted by Enchantermon
Vi is just...wrong. I never could get the hang of it; it was so freaking confusing (though that might be because I'm used to DOS's edit).
I wasn't being serious. My computer science lecture prof uses VI on her macbook. and my lab prof uses emacs on linux. and i've recently been exposed to this battle of the compilers which I think is a little silly. Mostly I was just trying to make light of Ulukai's point that most linux users are severe geeks... not that being a geek is always a bad thing.
Sulphur on 9/3/2010 at 17:10
Quote Posted by Enchantermon
Vi is just...wrong. I never could get the hang of it; it was so freaking confusing (though that might be because I'm used to DOS's edit).
vi ain't confusing. For pete's sake, you only have to type :wq to save and quit. :p
Ulukai on 9/3/2010 at 17:12
Quote Posted by mothra
that's the beauty of linux
It's also the problem - the old Linux mantra of 'I can do it better' which is why there's several hundred variants of it, and who are we kidding - many of them driven by egotistical rather than benevolent concerns.
Yes, you can support common libraries to get your software to run on just about anything, but I'm also talking about the realities of end-user support. The trouble starts when something doesn't work and you can't even guarantee what GUI someone is using, let alone more technical issues.
For this reason, Linux will remain predominantly the preserve of server farms and highly technical users and ironically, freedom of choice will continue to hamper the willingness of companies to support the platform because it's also freedom to create a massive clusterfuck. A misguided perception of
entitlement then fuels the Angry Linux Mens syndrome who go off and create more software that few outside the Circle of Angry Mens will ever see anyway.
If I were in the business of selling software, I wouldn't spare tuppence to support Linux, the investment is just not worth the hassle.
That is why Steam will not support Linux.
lost_soul on 9/3/2010 at 21:42
Holy crap batman! I can't honestly blame Valve for not wanting to touch this mess.
(
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10495)
Some people are trying to push PulseAudio support into WINE, but it increases latency. They claim it will be "good enough for everyone but professionals". The professionals, (or hardcore gamers) will then have the responsibillity of tweaking things to get low-latency sound.
Enchantermon on 9/3/2010 at 23:24
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
I wasn't being serious.
Ah. Well, despite that, I was.
baeuchlein on 10/3/2010 at 17:00
Quote Posted by Enchantermon
Vi is just...wrong. I never could get the hang of it; it was so freaking confusing (though that might be because I'm used to DOS's edit).
I use vi a lot with Linux, but the main reasons for this are not related to quality or usability.
When I started to use Linux, I needed some editor which was available for my distribution (I think it was SuSE at that time, but I'm not sure), and which would work from the console already, since I had troubles getting the "GUI" (the X Window System) up and running.
The main choices offered to me were Emacs and vi. There was some trouble I had with Emacs, but I don't remember anymore what exactly was the problem. Furthermore, I got a comparatively easy-to-understand introduction to the basics of vi, including many of the functions I use everyday - deleting whole lines, reading a text file and including it into the text I'm just writing, and such stuff. And I had to use someone else's machine for some months which only had vi installed, and installing other stuff was not an option.
And I was very lucky indeed that they used a comparatively
modern version of vi, not the shit one gets when installing something called "vi" (instead of "vi
m") or even "nvi" with Debian, for example... the latter doesn't even properly tell you whether you're typing your text or some kind of command, or whether you just pressed a key that has no meaning in the current context.:nono:
So I became a believer in vi instead of this emacs heresy.:cheeky: However, I also have much experience with several DOS editors as well as one or two Windows ones. The standard editor since about MS-DOS 5, "edit", is not one of my favourites, however, as I prefer programs which don't force you to endure endless sets of menus in which you have to find your way around with the cursor keys instead of having a few keyboard shortcuts for the most common things, like saving your text or opening another file to edit. Therefore, I prefer an older editor from an ancient and mainly forgotten DOS (Digital Research's DR-DOS) which even works with Windows XP (in a "DOS window", however).
As you see, I was able to adapt to vi, but there are countless things I don't know about with vi. Several of them are confusing for me, and since I hardly need them, my brain chooses not to memorize them, aided by the fact that reading vi's help files in vi is pretty confusing for me as well. Somehow, I find several Linux programs and help systems less intuitive than their makers do.:tsktsk:
And now back to the original "why no Steam for Linux" debate.
I think another reason for not having Steam ready for Linux yet might be related to the ideas behind
free software. These are very prominent among several individuals who are important for Linux. One of the most well-known one might be Richard M. Stallman. Debian Linux even includes a program called "Virtual Richard M. Stallman", which looks for programs among your Linux installation which are not considered "free software". This might give those who have not bothered much with this "free software" idea a hint on how important this idea is for Linux.
"Free software" means (among other things) that you can obtain the source code for this software and change it according to your needs and preferences. Now image what might happen if one got the source code for Steam.
He or she might be able to change Steam in a way that it does not only download content from the web, but saves it to a computer's hard disk as well. It would be possible to create a Steam-free version of a Steam game then, and after that it would be possible to copy this version easily and give copies to everyone else in the world. Regarding this, Steam might be just some kind of copy protection (among other things).
If the companies using Steam (or other systems which force on-line playing upon the player, like what UbiSoft announced about a week ago) want to use it as a form of copy protection, they can hardly afford giving away the source code, thus making things easy for people wishing to do some software piracy. I believe that this is one major reason for not having Steam available for Linux.
On the other hand, one might argue that Steam could be introduced as "closed software" (being "non-free software", then) into Linux. The details could be worked out. This is not a new idea. There has already been some integration of pieces of "non-free software" (e.g., some drivers for graphics cards) into Linux distributions, but for some people this is already some kind of sacrilege. This means there are even some people from the Linux world who might not want "Steam inside".
Maybe there are too many people from
both sides who do not like to see Steam in Linux, and thus there's no one really pursuing this issue.
Jason Moyer on 10/3/2010 at 17:54
There's plenty of common software that runs on Linux (and BSD, Solaris, OSX, whatever) that doesn't fall under the GNU GPL. The only thing that license means, in terms of linux, is that any product that uses code from the linux kernel has to also be distributed openly. Beyond that, anything goes.
WingedKagouti on 10/3/2010 at 18:23
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
There's plenty of common software that runs on Linux (and BSD, Solaris, OSX, whatever) that doesn't fall under the GNU GPL. The only thing that license means, in terms of linux, is that any product that uses code from the linux kernel has to also be distributed openly. Beyond that, anything goes.
I believe what bauch was getting at is that there are certain people in the Linux community, who think everything should have its source available to everyone. But as you say, those people do not dictate what is available for Linux, though some act like they do.
Besides, Linux gaming was attempted, but it ultimately proved to be unprofitable (tiny market) and thus you likely won't see it happening soon.
lost_soul on 10/3/2010 at 19:14
Regarding the GPL issues:
Yes, there are people who refuse to use anything that isn't free/open source. People like me though, use what *works*. I love my NVIDIA graphics chip and the proprietary drivers, because they completely smoke everything else available for the platform in terms of performance. I've also purchased the Penumbra games for Linux, and they run great! I have only played them on 2 distros thus far, and they aren't that old, so we'll see what happens six+ years from now. Hopefully they will still "just work". Doom 3 does!
The reality is that 90% of us aren't going to mess with the source code anyway. I haven't the slightest clue how these closed (or open) drivers work, and I don't care as long as they do their job.
I have seen some fanboys attacking companies like NVIDIA in the past, and I do not agree with that.
