My thought about SteamOS
I am just sharing my personal thoughts about SteamOS.
Please don't flame me.
At 1st I was very excited about SteamOS, but after few days my thoughts begin to change.
- SteamOS = optimized for Living room UI.
So it might not be able to replace a Desktop Linux.
- Updates !!
Linux distribution gets updated almost every month.
Can Valve/Steam run with all the updates?
I have a bad example. See the Steam Android App.
Last time it was updated on March 1, 2012
What I think, there will be some derivative of SteamOS (like Xubuntu, Lubuntu etc) which will utilize the performance of SteamOS implemented by nVIDIA, AMD, Intel (open or closed) and make it a main stream Linux distribution.
What do you think?
1. Why should it replace Desktop Linux? If its for living room box - then why not - it is Linux; if anything else - use other Linux - or anything else. Matter is - you like it and it works together. Why should Mediacenter Edition combat Desktop Edition (ie non-Valve Linux)?
2. Valve part may be proprietary - then its upon Valve to update it. Steam binaries, own modified kernel (thats it?). Does not touch other updates in Linux ecosystem, they will happen anyway.
If they do the right thing (TM) and open kernel/driver enhancements, then you may be able to use steam (not SteamOS) on any Desktop Linux in your house with exactly same efficiency as on dedicated SteamOS.
SteamOS is nothing but a layer on top of some distro.
Debian, or Ubuntu LTS, whatever.
They will put a skin/UI over it, and include Steam.
Upgrades? Of course. Just like Ubuntu sucks out Debian's work.
They can simply use the same scumbag way to update everything.
I'm not saying duplicate work achieves anything, but I thoroughly dislike Canonical's way of doing things.
So, how does Mint fit into same schema? Like,.. do you also "dislike their Canonical's way of doing things" within same context?
Originally Posted by Ruse
Or anybody who patches Kernel (like Debian, f.e.)..
Note, I am not Ubuntu-lover.
I think its a good thing. No one is obligated to use the modification, so why bother?
Well I disagree with Mint to be honest, too.
It tries to monetize an already "trying-to-make-money" OS, and on top of that it collects a sh*tload of donations.
Donations for what?
Adding a new wallpaper?
The silly Mint tools like the install manager which is worse than Synaptic was in the old Ubuntu versions?
Yeah I know they "made" (ehm, cough) Cinnamon, but the donations are not going there.
Not to mention the team basically ripped off Ubuntu (rip-ception) and just milk out money. Why? Why do even people donate? That's a good Q.
And Canonical, yes. The contribution is what bothers me. They do have enough money, yet they don't even bother making patches. Let alone submitting them to upstream.
Now, I don't want to seem like I hate everything. Quite the contrary. Imagine if no one would do double work. We would have perfectly solid, stable, fresh software, with all the features. But such is life in the FOSS world. (see the xkcd comic.)
Last edited by Ruse; 10-24-2013 at 02:40 AM.
The same applies to Canonical and the efforts to monetize off of Debian's work without contributing back. Actually they might do upstream but it would probably be selective.
Originally Posted by Ruse
If anyone ever tracked bugs at Canonical, he/she knows what they are doing.
There are two cases.
A 1) User reports bug
A 2) Canonical gives it some cool looking tag, etc.
A 3) Users cry, Canonical waits FOR UPSTREAM TO FIX IT.
A 4) They steal the patch, users praise Canonical and sacrifice their first born child.
B 1) Users report bug.
B 2) Canonical acts like they care for a few days.
B 3) Bug gets to rot in the tracker for years to come, and finally gets "too old."