Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Valve Confirms Linux Steam Box Will Be Open Platform

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by entropy View Post
    Are they allowed to ship the box with the proprietary drivers?
    Sure, why not?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
      Its AMD APU inside, so its either catalyst or opensource.
      Where did yoy see it?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Apopas View Post
        Where did yoy see it?
        Technical Documents talk about an Trinity APU. Currently is the xi3 website down so i cant link the informations:/

        Comment


        • #34
          disappointed

          I've been getting more and more disappointed with this. At first I thought it was a Console, only to find out it's just a PC. And there was so much Linux talk, but now they say you can just install Windows. At first glance it looks like people are throwing a $400 price around to which I say: If it's going to compete with other Consoles, it has to be under $200 or it's DOA.

          This whole thing has been a scam it seems. I really thought Linux was going to get a boost, what a let down.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
            Most people don't know shit about linux and wouldn't know to install the proprietary drivers. That would be a huge disservice to valve.
            Are you seriously suggesting that most gamers don't know how to install vendor supplied graphics drivers?

            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
            The last category is the one that creates problems. Why do I have to install the proprietary drivers manually after installing Ubuntu? Why don't I get them by default? The fact is that open source is hardly a match for an army of true professional programmers. As long as the open source drivers suck they should not be promoted. They should be marginalized and hidden out of sight for it's one of the weaknesses of linux and people coming to linux will be disappointed int the current state of affairs. As long as proprietary are better they should be the default. It is only pragmatic. Anything else is bullshit.
            But people have stated plenty of pragmatic reasons for shipping and supporting FOSS drivers (not that "pragmatic" arguments are necessarily better than moral ones), such as proper system and kernel integration, maintainability, sometimes better 2D support, sometimes stability, sometimes better card support, etc.

            And why should people see this as a Linux weakness, when a default Windows install does not ship with full fledged vendor drivers either? By the way, I am not entirely sure how it works, but I thought Ubuntu had Jockey?

            Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
            But wait! The open source idiots using arguments like 'linux is evolution not intelligent design' by God Almighty keep changing X.org so that the proprietary drivers need to be updated every month or so. So basically, AMD and Nvidia who don't owe linux shit but still provide us with drivers even when they don't need to, have to change their drivers to accommodate the changes in X.org.
            They are not doing it for charity, and they are not doing it for you. They are doing it for 3D Workstations - so yes, the enterprise. We do not owe them anything either - and since they do in fact make money of the Linux market, they can actually be said to owe us. Not usually the desktop market, but still.

            Originally posted by Larian View Post
            Straw man, Hamish. My point was to caution against blind adherence to advocate positions because it's cool to do so. Is the point of advocacy, at least in part, not to upset the status quo in an attempt to work toward becoming the majority position? And once this is obtained, then do you not run the risk of the tyranny of that majority? One could argue that is precisely the position we are in now, but trading one foaming-at-the-mouth dictator for another with slightly differently colored spittle is not an improvement.
            Yes, but saying advocacy is tyranny is still a tyrannical position in of itself, and a position which has promoted tyranny a lot more often than these "blind advocates" (speaking of strawmen...) that you make mention of. The main thing that keeps tyranny going is apathy, which is what a lot of people who state they are on the side of "pragmatism" often accept and promote. You can complain about someones actions, you can even criticize another's words, but please don't tell me someone can not promote a position for fear of tyranny. Because really, is that not the censor's argument, that we need it to prevent the spread of dangerous ideas in society?

            Originally posted by Larian View Post
            Some of the noise being made here on this subject (and their numbers are, thankfully, few) sounds remarkably like that of a dictator without a sufficiently large fan club. In common parlance they are oftentimes referred to as "wackos and nut jobs". I fear them with power, because they haven't demonstrated temperance with the "you're either with us or you're against us" stand on using proprietary drivers. Such hard-line stances are rarely appropriate.
            And then there are people calling out FOSS users and developers saying they are idiots or tyrants, and that they are actively conspiring against these hardworking innocent hardware vendors. Seriously, have you not read a Phoronix thread before?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
              Why do I have to install the proprietary drivers manually after installing Ubuntu? Why don't I get them by default?
              Because both the GPL and the blobs' licenses (EULA) prohibit it.

              And don't you think that you're whining too hard about what amounts to installing a package? I mean, how long are you going to whine about it? Just install the package and be done with it, FFS. Then don't upgrade the kernel or X and you'll never need to worry about ABI any more.

              If you keep installing new versions of kernel and X, you obviously like what the developers are doing.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
                Are you seriously suggesting that most gamers don't know how to install vendor supplied graphics drivers?
                In the context of an off-the-shelf console it would certainly not be ordinary to expect the customer to install drivers before use.

                Obviously a "Steam Box" would have to have proprietary drivers pre-installed or it's DOA as a consumer product.

                Comment


                • #38
                  even windows i think breaks API and ABI when releasing service packs. for exp i know for sure that XP with sp3 wont work with original cd-driver that was made lets say for sp1 they will tell u need to update to lastest service pack bla bla to be able to install driver.But in linux land its true things get broken more often and i think must be nightmare for delopers of graphic driver to keep up to date on linux. But my hopes are Intel will make more and more powerfull integrated GPUs so in the future i plan to use only intel hardware at least i wont have to worry about kernel and xorg updates. Even with this shortcomings i still prefer linux over anything just when playing games i use windoze.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
                    And why should people see this as a Linux weakness, when a default Windows install does not ship with full fledged vendor drivers either? By the way, I am not entirely sure how it works, but I thought Ubuntu had Jockey?
                    Nowadays, Windows just automatically downloads/installs the drivers once it sees the hardware for the first time, without user intervention. (Sometimes, this is a BAD thing, like when you want to remove a driver to install a newer version, and Windows re-downloads the old driver because its database isn't updated yet.) But still, seamless to the user. Since I built my Win 7 x64 PC, I can't remember having to manually install a single driver (aside from occasional GPU driver updates, of course).

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                      Because both the GPL and the blobs' licenses (EULA) prohibit it.
                      Wrong on both counts, actually. Nvidia's licence specifically says:

                      2.1.2 Linux/FreeBSD Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux or FreeBSD operating systems, or other operating systems derived from the source code to these operating systems, may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files).
                      And nowhere in the GPL does it state that you are not allowed to include a closed kernel module when shipping to a user/users. Although if you can actually find this clause in the GPL please correct me, I will admit I haven't painstakingly combed through all of it.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by johnc View Post
                        In the context of an off-the-shelf console it would certainly not be ordinary to expect the customer to install drivers before use.

                        Obviously a "Steam Box" would have to have proprietary drivers pre-installed or it's DOA as a consumer product.
                        I was referring to the case of normal PC usage here, yes. Obviously a Steambox would be pre-configured for the prospective end user, and as I previously said they may as well use blob drivers as Steam itself is not free and they are not going to be supporting a moving target with it. I would advise anyone who would get upset with the notion of the Steambox using blobs to consider the wider picture here, and I am very satisfied R600g user who supports FOSS initiatives (which I why I am not going to get the Steambox, but anyway...)

                        Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                        hardworking innocent hardware vendors. I am sensing irony here. What makes these vendors guilty until proven innocent? Cause I always read in these threads the idea that the FOSS guys are good and somehow AMD and Nvidia are evil. Why this assumption? Why every time I challenge this assumption I am told that FOSS good hardware vendors bad? Is this some kind of cult here?
                        No, you are sensing satire here based on the expressions used by both extremes. Actually, my main point with this is to say that all of these conspiracy arguments are black and white, and that they always seem to put one camp in glowing terms against some unnameable evil. So in a way I am agreeing with you, in an offhanded way. Still, there is the fact that when one buys a vendor's product it puts the onus on them to support it for the consumer's work case, which at least puts the onus of action on the vendor if nothing else. So the assumption that the vendors should step up support is at least somewhat validated in this way.

                        Also, I selectively buy AMD hardware, so I can not think of them to be that evil.

                        Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
                        Nowadays, Windows just automatically downloads/installs the drivers once it sees the hardware for the first time, without user intervention. (Sometimes, this is a BAD thing, like when you want to remove a driver to install a newer version, and Windows re-downloads the old driver because its database isn't updated yet.) But still, seamless to the user. Since I built my Win 7 x64 PC, I can't remember having to manually install a single driver (aside from occasional GPU driver updates, of course).
                        I will admit to not having that much real Windows experience beyond XP, so I was going on the information given by others. That being said, I have seen even modern Windows systems bork on hardware changes while I have moved Linux installs from machine to machine with little to no problems due to the in-kernel driver model (which is one of my main pragmatic reasons for supporting free software drivers). That, and the fact that that drivers which make it into the Kernel tend to last longer and have better support times than many Windows or blob drivers do. So a properly tuned free driver should be expected to provide an even more seamless experience than that. I do recognize that I am not really touching on the main subject of your post there, though.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by BO$$ View Post
                          ... I always read in these threads the idea that the FOSS guys are good and somehow AMD and Nvidia are evil. ...
                          Geez, where does that leave the AMD FOSS guys ?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            In an ideal world, the FOSS drivers would get to a point where we would barely need to worry about using the blob drivers and then the Out of the Box functionality and stability in terms of graphic drivers would far surpass even Windows.

                            For the time being though, if it's possible, I would have thought they would have to use Catalyst (in SteamBox). Which is maybe a little surprising if it actually is going to be an AMD machine, but I can't say this is a bad thing. NVIDIA might be the easiest way, but going with AMD could not only help that company out, but improve one of the drivers (blob or FOSS driver depending on what is used by default).

                            It's all very early doors though, things could change.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Hamish Wilson View Post
                              Yes, but saying advocacy is tyranny is still a tyrannical position in of itself, and a position which has promoted tyranny a lot more often than these "blind advocates" (speaking of strawmen...) that you make mention of.
                              Wow. There are so many things wrong with this that I'm not sure where to start. Who are you arguing against? Certainly not me. I have labeled no one a "blind advocate" of anything. What I said was that blind advocacy and bandwagon group-think is ill-considered, and they should be avoided for that reason alone.

                              The main thing that keeps tyranny going is apathy, which is what a lot of people who state they are on the side of "pragmatism" often accept and promote.
                              Not necessarily.
                              You can complain about someones actions, you can even criticize another's words, but please don't tell me someone can not promote a position for fear of tyranny. Because really, is that not the censor's argument, that we need it to prevent the spread of dangerous ideas in society?
                              Bait and switch. Also, Missing the Point. I'm not saying that promoting a position should be curbed for fear of tyranny. I'm saying absolutist positions which demand everyone kowtow to their way of doing things, and then degrading and generally bashing anyone who resists ... well sir, that's the mark of an idiot. Those who behave thus are just a wee bit of power away from being tyrants.

                              Now let us be done with the "T" word and its derivatives.

                              And then there are people calling out FOSS users and developers saying they are idiots or tyrants, and that they are actively conspiring against these hardworking innocent hardware vendors. Seriously, have you not read a Phoronix thread before?
                              I suppose I have failed to make myself clear. I am suggesting caution. I am also formally requesting that when arguing with me, you actually stick to the arguments I make instead of projecting those of others on me. Most often I don't agree with them.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                To the best of my knowledge there is still no proof that Valve plan to use Xi3 for their own steam box, it is far more likely Xi3 are one of the many partners that Vavle are talking with to make Steam compatible devices. From what I have been reading Valve plan to design their own Steam box but are also allowing 3rd parties to design and distribute their own with a variety of hardware levels and price points. This article makes a lot of that more clear: http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/8/385...ture-of-gaming

                                So we really have no idea what they have in store harware wise for their own Steam box, other than what Gabe has alluded to with the fact that the "better" level they plan to focus on will have dedicated CPU and GPU, meaning an AMD APU is likely not even on the table for the official Valve Steam box. Nvidia seems to have a better working relationship with Valve and have the best driver options to date on Linux, my money would be on Valve going with Nvidia and the proprietary blob.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X