Valve Reveals More Steam Linux Distribution Details

[nightmarex]

That's what I thought, too. I thought that at least 1/4 of it might be Wine on Mac/Linux, but it's really only Linux Distros.

To bad Arch Linux now only reports itself as Linux (64 Bit) since there is no /etc/lsb-release on fresh installations. I reinstalled to do a UEFI install now I'm not an Arch User anymore in the eyes of Steam....

Running Steam in Wine counts as a Windows OS even though Steam can tell if Wine is used (registry keys). I am also Linux (64 Bit) with Steam... Kinda Like the way "generic Linux installation" sounds =).

[blackout23]

Am I the only one that noticed how now that all the single distro names are written out,
the "Other" category dropped to 0.03% (down 0.73%)?
This is amazing, it basically confirms what we've suspected all along ("Other" being
primarily made up of Linux platforms), and should give Linux an overall boost of almost 1% usage.

That's what I thought, too. I thought that at least 1/4 of it might be Wine on Mac/Linux, but it's really only Linux Distros.

To bad Arch Linux now only reports itself as Linux (64 Bit) since there is no /etc/lsb-release on fresh installations. I reinstalled to do a UEFI install now I'm not an Arch User anymore in the eyes of Steam....

[Bucic]

Posting the results relative to the 2% was really stupid.

On a side note - I see comments here and there on problems with steam on Fedora. I have seen none on my f18 64.

[Ancurio]

Am I the only one that noticed how now that all the single distro names are written out,
the "Other" category dropped to 0.03% (down 0.73%)?
This is amazing, it basically confirms what we've suspected all along ("Other" being
primarily made up of Linux platforms), and should give Linux an overall boost of almost 1% usage.

[benmoran]

Chill out man.

I don't think anyone really wants to "kill" 32-bit support. Rather, it's high time that distributions stop recommending it as default. Leave the 32-bit ISOs there for those who do need/want them, just like the PPC builds.

[Pallidus]

It's somewhat annoying to me that the major distros even keep making 32-bit x86 releases. I was likewise annoyed that Windows didn't go 64-bit only by Win8, or even as far ago as Vista. OSX is the only major OS that only ships a 64-bit only OS these days; a facet of their control of the hardware. Still, I can't imagine a sizable portion of users are upgrading to the latest Fedora/Ubuntu or Windows on ancient hardware; I'm sure it happens (someone here will claim they do it, surely), but happens enough to be worth caring about? Especially on Linux where specialist "you suck and need new hardware" distros exist and more will arise if necessary. There's no strong reason to develop, test, and distribute x86-32 builds of Fedora or Ubuntu anymore. Likewise on Windows; users on old hardware and upgrading to the latest OS are statistical anomalies. The markets where ancient hardware is common are just pirating XP anyways; fuck 'em. Hopefully there's some market research somewhere to prove me wrong and make the situation less ridiculous.

how about: fuck you.

you do realize that the entire point of shit like lubuntu, lxde fedora, bodhi, puppy etc is to keep old hardware alive right


cut 32bit support and half the linux distros will be gone

[smitty3268]

And the last time I tried 64bit I had severe compatibility problems.

Compatibility problems with what, if i may ask?

[Mike Frett]

Sum of things.

Let's sum up the thread:

Why Ubuntu? Because of ease of use, Big community and a Company that is pushing Linux to the masses, which no one else has bothered to do in all these years. Apparently, ease of use and a large user base is scary to the old hats it seems.

Why 32bit? I don't know about others but I chose 32bit because Xubuntu recommended that I use 32bit. And the last time I tried 64bit I had severe compatibility problems.

That's about it, in a nut shell.

[randomizer]

Yeah, that is true. Atom sucks pretty hard. So for those folks putting linux on it they will need to deal with its limitations. Then there is the whole PowerVR fiasco to boot. But I can't think of many games that will run on Atom anyway so I don't think it'll be very useful for Steam.

I ran Portal on an Atom netbook from about 2008. I managed around 15FPS on average at 1024x600 on low graphics. Gaming monster!!

[duby229]

Yeah, that is true. Atom sucks pretty hard. So for those folks putting linux on it they will need to deal with its limitations. Then there is the whole PowerVR fiasco to boot. But I can't think of many games that will run on Atom anyway so I don't think it'll be very useful for Steam.