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!
Don't like it, don't use it simple as that. What is more important is that you do have a choice vs no choice at all.
Exactly, the point is it will help to make Linux a more popular platform by offering more choice. Is that going to destroy open source projects? On the contrary, it will bring more interest to open source projects by exposing more users to open source. Users will be using an OS which is 99% open source now instead of 1%. The popularity of Linux going up is only a good thing.
Ok so Phoronix linked back to its own article... Still Michael claims to have a resource, the binary is up for download and it is being worked on. Valve has been using Wine hacks before Crossover came to the Mac...
That's not Michaels fsck up and a Linux binary is comming.
So it will come.
It probably will it seems, but there are also politics and many other things to worry about, so you cannot say that it will for certain come, and you are not an official Valve source.
I hope not. Autopackage is crap. Unneeded, superfluos crap. A solution without a problem.
There's very much a problem, which is that there still currently is no cross-distro system in use for tying into a cross-distro add/remove programs interface standard. No standards are a big problem. The only standards right now which apply to this situation to some degree are the POSIX standards for running binaries and the freedesktop.org standards.
Please explain to me why you feel that users should be happy with no desktop integration whatsoever with straight-up compressed archives with binaries in, or with a fragmentation of packaging systems which don't have a common format standard which is compatible with them all as it should be?
Standards = freedom. Linux needs more freedom. Everyone parties about pushing other standards, but when it comes to standards for being able to easily share installable programs which integrate and are easy to use, i.e. not distro or distro version dependent, the solution is to go eff yourself? Great progress.
Yes, Autopackage or other real cross-distro standards should be used for Steam and for all programs which developers feel should reach all Linux users.
Or do you only care about Ubuntu and Debian users, and everyone else is irrelevant?
Meh, simple .sh install script would be enough. And Valve likes simple. as it is more simple to create and troubleshoot. Plus, it can be run anywhere.
Yes, but how is a user supposed to then remove the program easily? Without a standardized tie-in with the package/program management system, somehow, that will never be easy, and I don't want to see two icons, one for running and one for removing, either, as that would just be cluttered and lame.
Linux needs proper standards in this department to get developers from point A to Z easily for all distros. Linux needs to cater better to developers and thus users in their ability to easily get the software they want.
Don't even get me started on the freedom to upgrade to newer versions of programs easily due to them not being in the repositories, like the simple job of upgrading from Firefox 3 to Firefox 3.5, or from 3.5 to 3.6, lol, you either unpack and click on the binary from a compressed archive, and manually make the menu links, or you have to wait for the next distro update which is currently in beta. That of course is one reason some Linux users choose rolling releases like apparently Arch and others like Gentoo are, but I would like both choice, ease of use, and stability, yeah, all three, I'm a greedy one. Would be very easy to do though if there was this thing called packaging standards.
Why is it that Phoronix seems to be on a crusade on this topic? Every time it is mentioned, they do everything to say that it is coming. We had no real evidence that Valve intended to release software for Linux until today, yet we have a plethora of links in the article about it that basically say "we covered it first!". Until today's announcement, the only evidence that existed showed that Valve's developers were developing Stream on Linux, but none of it could definitely show that Valve intended to release Stream for Linux. While this is certainly exciting, it does not seem to merit the crusade mentality that Phoronix seems to have.
See Phoronix on ATi a couple of years back. They were going to take over the world with their open source graphics drivers and run nVidia out of business. They were BEYOND AWESOME!
. . . fast forward to now and ATi still lags quite a ways behind nVidia in the linux drivers usability department.
Phoronix is sort of a tabloid for linux enthusiasts. I have to give Michael props this time though, it seems he was actually right about Steam.
No trolling intended, but does Crysis and Battlefield have a Linux client then?
Face the sober facts
No they don't, but do you know what's more a problem? Neither do mods! It doesn't matter much if source gets a Linux client since mods are still compiled "against windows". As long as mods don't have Linux clients we gain exactly "nothing". In contrary to this is for example my engine where this entire cross-compile and multi-binary doesn't exist to begin with. A source engine client is not going to improve open source projects or interest therein. In contrary. People have now to deal with dual booting into Windows for playing windows only HL2 mods (which will be the majority). So it makes a bad problem already worse. Result? People stay away from Linux as it's easier to use Windows source where all your mods run.
There are no plans to create a native Linux Steam Client at this time.
Lol, so here's the REAL official Valve statement, saying they have "no plans", while there's active Linux client development? Those two are completely opposing statements.
Here Mike, let me fix that for you:
"Officially Valve States No Plans, But Contradictorily Hosts Linux Client Binaries"
Wherein you mention Valve's statement, along with the evidence of the Linux client, then ask why and give your speculations.
So why would they be hiding it? Companies are very good at making it known when they're doing something which can get them positive attention, they're very good at creating hype, and they are also very good at covering up mistakes, as companies usually have no honor. So why would they "leak" Linux Steam client binaries, be secretive about it but allow it to be known? The only reasons I can think of are:
they don't feel the timing is right due to the Mac client hype
they don't really care all that much about Linux
they just forgot to update that page
they're trying to use it to threaten Apple, Microsoft, or other companies to get better deals without directly attacking, just using fear to get better pricing on certain things