[soon?] Soon Source Engine under Unix????

[deanjo]

We know some for a steam client exists ( due to attempts to run it)
We know SOURCE has been ported to OGL (OSX version released)
We know there are still plans for SOURCE to come to linux (due to Postal3)

It was suggested that SOURCE/STEAM/... would be released for linux at the end of the summer from TheIndependant news article (non-confirmed by Valve, but it isn't the end of summer yet)

Now it is known that the ATi drivers are crap (better then they were but still crap), likewise it is known that OSX recently pushed out a performance boost to improve their drivers.

Likewise there have been some recent improvements to the catalyst drivers.



Maybe Valve holding back and giving ati some time to improve their drivers

Or like WoW for linux client it will never see the light of day.

[Naib]

We know some for a steam client exists ( due to attempts to run it)
We know SOURCE has been ported to OGL (OSX version released)
We know there are still plans for SOURCE to come to linux (due to Postal3)

It was suggested that SOURCE/STEAM/... would be released for linux at the end of the summer from TheIndependant news article (non-confirmed by Valve, but it isn't the end of summer yet)

Now it is known that the ATi drivers are crap (better then they were but still crap), likewise it is known that OSX recently pushed out a performance boost to improve their drivers.

Likewise there have been some recent improvements to the catalyst drivers.



Maybe Valve holding back and giving ati some time to improve their drivers

[Svartalf]

Even saying "We will never support linux." is not a guarantee that plans won't change. The only thing you can say for sure is going by past or current situations. Valves answer gives a definitive picture of the situation at this time.

I guess I'll just have to ask Mike to find out (not that I could say anything to anyone publicly...)- just so I can at least know for positive. If they've got plans for it that they're not sharing with the public, I'm going to be asked to package the game up for Steamworks at some point since Caster's available via that means as well as a few other portal frameworks.

[nanonyme]

"There?s no Linux version that we?re working on right now." and ""No, we're not working on it and have no plans in the forseeable future either," are all present tense. Even saying "We will never support linux." is not a guarantee that plans won't change. The only thing you can say for sure is going by past or current situations. Valves answer gives a definitive picture of the situation at this time.

Yeah, it's quite possible that they put the matter on the table every now and then, even remotely possible that they have it takes the form of a vague plan, maybe even some not-really-working code if some individual happens to have interest and too much time (getting more and more unlikely here; I doubt Valve developers have that much slack on work time). But you can read into the comment that whether or not they plan to some day produce a Linux client, it's not being worked on now.

[deanjo]

If you want definitive, you'd have to say "No, we're not working on it and have no plans in the forseeable future either," or something like it for the negative and "Yes, we're working on it and plan on shipping it soon," for the positive.

"No, we're not working on it and have no plans in the forseeable future either," and "There?s no Linux version that we?re working on right now." are saying the exact same thing. Neither one rules out the possibility of a version in the future since nobody can see the future. "No comment" is exactly not commenting on a subject. If anything more is read into it then that is done from pure speculation of the audience with no substance of fact. It neither confirms nor denies anything on the subject. Reading anything else into the phrase "There?s no Linux version that we?re working on right now." is again nothing but pure speculation based on no fact given from the statement. No means no.

"What truth is there to rumours that you?re also working on a Linux version of Steam?"
"There?s no Linux version that we?re working on right now." and ""No, we're not working on it and have no plans in the forseeable future either," are all present tense. Even saying "We will never support linux." is not a guarantee that plans won't change. The only thing you can say for sure is going by past or current situations. Valves answer gives a definitive picture of the situation at this time.

[Svartalf]

"No comment" is a refusal to talk about the subject. It reveals nothing. As my friend pointed out when I showed him the question and reply, the question was asked in the present tense and answered back in the present tense. This is an definitive answer of the current state.

Really...

"No comment" is what you'd use if you didn't want to quash rumors running rampant, whether or not they were remotely true or not. It should be noted that people will leap right to the conclusion you ARE doing something of what you're being asked if you come back with "no comment". It's not like you're pleading the Fifth when you do that- inferences can and will be made and you've inadvertently leaked information after a fashion. No, you didn't directly say anything, but you did still give out something all the same.

"Not working on it at this time" is what you'd use if you had been doing something or had it in the plans, but wanted to quash the rumors running about without promising anything. It's int he present tense, yes, but it's NOTHING definitive like you're making it out to be. It could be that they've got something but aren't working on it right now. It could be that they've got just prototype stuff (based on what we DO know right at the moment...) and they're holding off on working on it. And the list goes on and on. Nothing at all definitive about the statement other than they're not working on it right now.

If you want definitive, you'd have to say "No, we're not working on it and have no plans in the forseeable future either," or something like it for the negative and "Yes, we're working on it and plan on shipping it soon," for the positive.

[deanjo]

Heh... Fair enough. However, it's done all the time as it's not really doing any real disclosure- it's legal wrangling at best to call it a breach of the NDA. Saying "no comment" can actually disclose more than the lawyers will own up to- and is as much a breach as the denial we got.

"No comment" is a refusal to talk about the subject. It reveals nothing. As my friend pointed out when I showed him the question and reply, the question was asked in the present tense and answered back in the present tense. This is an definitive answer of the current state.

Now being that it comes from the VP of marketing he most likely has very little to worry about disclosing anything as he is the head dude of the dept that would handle any such queries. As far if there is anything in the future, there is no absolute way to say (unless you believe in psychics) as the future can never been proven absolute.

Who's to say that valve didn't create some purposely "leaked" code out there just to see what the response would be? It can also be another case where Micheal was told something only to have it killed before it bared any fruit like in the case of UT3 and the screen shots.

[Svartalf]

To say someone is correct now because they were correct about something unrelated in the past is very weak logic.

You'll note that I didn't say he was right- I was willing to give the benefit of doubt to him over this stuff because of past performance. Big difference. I don't know if he's right or not, but...

Better logic would be: If Valve had no plans to release a Linux client, why would they do the work to put these Linux clauses in their scripts when they didn't intend to use them? Why would they use SH style scripts at all rather than some OSX binary launcher to get the job done? Why are LSB style binaries and libraries present in some of their newer games?

Combine that with what Michael's been saying and his past track record, I'm willing to wait and see. Denials from the VP are more of the typical soft one that actually denies little and sounds like they denied everything- typically told just to sidestep bad PR if it doesn't actually come together for whatever reasons. Something Epic probably should've learned a bit earlier...

[Svartalf]

There was a Linux client made in house awhile ago and it was canned... They didn't want to provide support.

Got it in one- and it was less the studio/publisher and more the parent company that nixed it on those grounds.

[Svartalf]

Well I just had lunch with a friend of mine that does corporate law and I brought up the phrase. In Canada and US that would be considered disclosure.

Heh... Fair enough. However, it's done all the time as it's not really doing any real disclosure- it's legal wrangling at best to call it a breach of the NDA. Saying "no comment" can actually disclose more than the lawyers will own up to- and is as much a breach as the denial we got.

Keep in mind, people CAN connect the dots. Better to not even get placed into that position. What he said is probably the best way out of the mess he placed himself in. I know if I were a CEO, I'd not fault him for it, and I'd gnaw on his backside some if he did a "no comment" in that context.