If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
No announcement yet.
It's Official: Valve Releasing Steam, Source Engine For Linux!
Half-Life 2: Episode 3 cancels out Half-Life 3, so that's one.
Portal 2 has been shown, so probably a pack a-la Orange box will hit the store.
The third game in that box... what can that be? Ricochet? That one has been missing a Source version so far.
So probably those are the three suprises, I think. Although Valve could do Ep3+Portal2+some other game. OR it's going to be Steam.
Everything else is just wild speculation, but I seriously doubt that they are going to show Half-Life 3; it almost can't be :/
PS: Not to mention there won't be 3 surprises but just 2, 1 or none, knowing Valve a little bit ^^,
There are those that "need" steam in order to use linux.
Linux can live without them.
What does a native steam client in linux mean if there is no desire to use linux otherwise?
"need" probably not the best word
A deciding fact is probably a better word.
These people are going to be predominantly gamers and thus what OS they use is more of the deciding factor as opose to what the OS can do that the others can't
What use is a Ferrari to a farmer if all he is going todo is plow the fields?
I know quite a few people who really like linux BUT were still dual booting for gaming. Once they realised they were spending more time in windows they just left the linux partition to go out of date. Think about it... you are in linux doing shit and decide you want to frag something... reboot and choose windows
hour or so later after fragging you then quit and decide to browse the web, listen to music... Do you reboot to linux for this? no you stay in windows because windows can do it and you might want another game.
THUS if you are into a game at a particular moment your linux partition doesn't get booted.
I get like that when I test the HoN beta client. my linux partition might not get booted for a week until the beta goes to the retail client then back to linux. Likewise if I want to play l4d2 I boot to windows and stay there ( yes WINE exist but come on it aint all that!)
mat69, maybe Michael does know something - and 'officials' like to deny things that are just happening in the background. So just do what everybody else should do:
lean back, relax and don't think about it until there is a release. If there is never one, you did not waste any energy.
Or maybe Michael should learn to phrase his articles that are based on hearsay in a manner that reflects that they are based on hearsay.
See, there is a massive difference between saying "a reliable source has told Phoronix Steam is being ported to Linux" and "Steam is coming to Linux, it has been confirmed."
One is an accurate statement of fact, one destroys a "brand"...
I do find that article laughable. It transpires fanboism from each and everyone of its lines. Pretty cocky of her calling it a "debunking" piece too. So initially we are are basically thrown some figures supposedly coming from a market research company. Following the links, though, we end up in another article from yet another technology website, where the words of an "analyst" working in said company are quoted. The original report and methodology is not present. Same story with the Dell figures. Yet another article in yet another tech site (can't these people offer something original?) where a Dell spokesperson is quoted as saying something. Again, we are asked to trust what we are told and left without the possibility to check the original sources, for there are none. The next piece of "evidence" already goes beyond fuzzy arguments to engage in outright missinterpretations: sorry? are you telling me that because what a bunch of people shouted about Dell proved to be wrong, this says anything about the demand for Linux systems? For maximum hilarity, I'll quote next the last paragraph from the article the original author provided to make this point, a paragraph which apparently she failed to read:
No, I think what we have here is yet another example of a mountain being made out of a molehill. If you want to be upset about something, get ticked off that other big-time computer vendors like HP and Lenovo make it almost impossible to buy any of their systems with Linux pre-installed on them. Dell doesn't do a great job of supporting Linux for consumers, but they do a lot better than any of the other major PC manufacturers.
So not only the author of the source linked to does interpret what can only be read as an anecdote under a completely different light than what we were told, but it also makes assertions highlighting the reality of the situation meant to be debunked. I note that the guy writing this also cited the very same article from a blog where the Dell representative is said to claim that 1/3 of
one of their netbook models (Inspiron Mini 9) is Ubuntu. Leaving aside for a moment that these are no primary sources, that we lack a context and that the reliability and trustworthiness of these sites is, at best, shaky: doesn't this pretty much sound like the snow ball effect we are familiar with from the very topic of this thread? Somebody says somebody said something, people jump to conclusions, other sites pick it up, and before you know it there's a guy in Singapore claiming he bought Crysis for Linux in the corner shop.
At this point I want to note that indiscriminate use of links is a well-known trolling practice. I'm not saying the author is a troll, god forbid, only that in an article where she apparently set out to debunk something, it's in her best interests to appear as a respectable and authoritative figure as possible. And links help to accomplish this. To the cynical, though, it has the opposite effect. So I can't help but think she surely must be desperate and in total lack of arguments when she links to the Ubuntu website. Really, why do I need to be taken there? Or two paragraphs later, where she offers two links which present exactly the same information. Because she apparently uses the second link to quote something Ballmer said. But that same piece of information was already in the first link, right below the SAME CHART both web sites display.
Anyway, back to what is argued in the article, another link to another secondary source with no hints as to how to get to the original information and methodology says that netbook sales in 2009 represented 18% of the total US consumer PC sales. Okay. Now, since we apparently have established that ONE THIRD, no less, of the total netbooks sold [where?] are shipped with a Linux operative system, based on reliable second hand information about the approximate sales figures of a particular Dell model, you just have to do the math idiots. 18/3=6%. Irrefutable. I'll ignore all the arguments that can be made about this critical step but one: the supposed words of the Dell guy the 1/3 figure was taken from:
Originally posted by Dell dude
A third of our Mini 9 mix is Linux, which is well above the standard attach rate for other systems that offer Linux.
So...is the Mini 9 basically an outlier? How much is "well above"? What are we talking about here? It would be interesting to know what other systems that offer Linux he was referring to, but we can't possibly know because we are not given enough information, and by now one would be crazy to trust in the interpretations advanced by these "journalists".
Then we get the Ballmer pie chart (in duplicate), about which we know nothing, and we learn that Microsoft regards both Apple and Linux as competitors. "Does anyone believe that Microsoft would see Linux as a serious competitor is Linux had captured just 1% of the market?" Well, I don't know, maybe the question is a bit more complex than what she is trying to present? Maybe it's not the current market share what worries Microsoft but the future adoption? Maybe for a company that not only sells desktop oriented products but also operates on the server market it makes a lot of sense to consider Linux as a competitor? Maybe you just tried to distract me from the fact that you have no actual, reliable data by hand waving? Maybe?
Finally, we are explained where the 1% figure comes from: very old data and web statistics. Ignoring entirely the first of the two (I suspect it's just made up), she goes on with a ridiculous explanation about why web statistics are unreliable. And again, her linked source proves exactly the opposite she is trying to argue. Basically this is an article about browsers market share, where the original ars technica source is Netmarketshare, one of those companies that offer this kind of service. Towards the end of the ars technica article, they present how things look like out of their own browser statistics, with this words precisely: "As always, things at Ars are very different." The very fact that ars technica uses a recognised source which gathers data from a multitude of web sites to write their main article, and present their own data as mere anecdotical information, defeats the idiotic conclusions about web usage statistics raised by Ms Martyn.
As a gift, we get a magnificient Ass Pull from the author when she claims that "So what is Linux real market share on the desktop? The best estimate for present sales is around 8%, which puts Linux just a little behind or perhaps just about even with MacOS.[...]If we talk about actual usage there really is no way to get an accurate measure. Educated guesswork probably puts Linux at close to 10%, just about even with MacOS."