Steam's Hardware Survey Shows Not Much For Linux

[mitcoes]

preinstallations and one click dual boot install

As i do think - and Linus recently said too - preinstallations are the key.

A Steam Linux console with the same AMD APU than PS4 - BSD - and Xbox - NT - will increase a lot this numbers

Also a one click dual boot install - AT STEAM - perhaps using yumi.exe and a simple script resizing the MS WOS hard disk in MS WOS and asking for a USB pendrive letting choose between Ubuntu and Manajro - Steam runs better at my Manjaro and it comes preinstalled - will make Steam users to at least have dual boot, a video showing how easy and fast it is to install Linux and, anarticle explaining that is good to have another OS if the first one fails, even 2 Linux distros if you only use Linux - as I do -

And changing the options at the Live ISOs to ask only once installed for keyboard monitor and language settings or even better detect them at MS and apply it at Linux.

And a MOTIVE to dual boot install as an exclusive DEMO or FREE chapter or MOD at any important game ONLY FOR LINUX making the gamers choose it if they want to play.

Using Manjaro or even Ubuntu a little bit will make a lot of steam users to switch at least for general computing - no virus faster experience a lot of free software conky etc - and for some games that may be faster at Linux

[Alderon]

From experience with such a rollout.. no.
Tablets that pretend to be desktops are one of the area the market just never accepted. Users who _create_ content want multiple high-resolutions displays, keyboards, mice, and computing power far beyond what a mobile package can offer. Users who just want to _consume_ content want a highly simplified experience without all the complexities of Windows or a typical Linux distro; they want iOS or Android or something along those lines.

It really depends, look how many "content" is created nowadays with smartphones (videos, pictures, etc...). My fiancee for example never cared about creating any content, nowadays she's posting videos, twitters, etc...
Don't get me wrong, I for once need Matlab, Maple, Eclipse and the like where mice and keyboards are still king but I had to acknowledge - finally - that creating content is not anymore a task of few but nearly every person does it nowadays.

Where I do agree with you is everything that goes into programming, scientific computing and the like. But most people can create the content they want via iOS/Android and others.
Webapps do add to that and will cater the needs of many, many people and only the most enthusiast (like us) will still need to have a powerful computer in their house.

So, personally I believe that even for content creators the need to own a desktop computer decreases.

[DDF420]

Not much improvement over 1% for Linux, and that's how it's gonna stay until Valve REQUIRES all new titles be OS agnostic, Win/Mac/Linux installs required at launch for ALL new titles including AAA ones. Bottom line, they have to be willing to tell EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc. to go to hell in the short term until those companies decide that the money they are losing by not having the games on Steam outweighs the cost of making their titles work on all three major OSes.

Or do they simply do as they are doing and lead by example.

They bring a native steam client ................... maybe encouraging others to do the same (origin).
Then they start porting Valve made games............ this also encourages others using the steam network to port their games
They talk about their future linux based steam console............. this will eventually bring even more AAA games to gnu/linux gamers
They will eventually bring out a new opengl source engine 2 and tools .............Not only making it even easier for game/mod developers to create games but making any and all porting a non issue using that engine
whilst doing the above they have no intention of making any of these changes a disadvantage to their current major user base which are windows users.

Valve are in the business of making and selling others games i highly doubt they will tell others to go to hell

[LinuxGamer]

There is no "Linux the OS". Linux is a kernel. There is GNU/Linux, Android/Linux and a whole bunch of variants of thereof. And that's the greatest strength of Linux, because it runs practically everywhere and can be customized to suit any needs imaginable. There are some really crazy things running Linux - from wristwatches to 8-legged hydraulic walking robot vehicles. Some Linux OS's are succesful, some not, depends on how you define "success".

go tell Linus "There is no "Linux the OS" and he will tell you the Kernel is the OS

[jarhead]

Not much improvement over 1% for Linux, and that's how it's gonna stay until Valve REQUIRES all new titles be OS agnostic, Win/Mac/Linux installs required at launch for ALL new titles including AAA ones. Bottom line, they have to be willing to tell EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc. to go to hell in the short term until those companies decide that the money they are losing by not having the games on Steam outweighs the cost of making their titles work on all three major OSes.

[dee.]

From experience with such a rollout.. no.

This is yet another variation of the 80/20 rule. Yes, 80% of it is as easy or easier than with Windows. It's that other 20% that kills you.

Ok, tell me what exactly is difficult to do in a typical Linux distro. I can almost guarantee that 99% of anything that is hard is something that a typical, average user almost never has to worry about - and even when they do, they usually call for their more technologically-savvy friends or family members (or tech support) for help.

As for the people who are more technologically-savvy themselves, they have no problems with Linux anyway.

Take the movement to Web apps which removes the need to be picky about OS. Sure, a large percentage of all our computing time is on the Web. An over-enthusiastic estimate might even say 99%. The mistake is assuming that means that 99% of people only use the Web. While there certainly are people who only use the Web, it's more accurate to say that every individual does 99% of their work on the Web. If you assume only 1% of users need special stuff that limits them to Windows, it's easy to think Linux is ready to take over.

But now you're talking about something entirely different. We were talking about how easy it is to use Linux. You're talking about software support, which is entirely different issue.

Sure, there are some niche things you can only do in windows, because of market conspiracies and such. However the number of such things is decreasing at an increasing rate, and not everyone has to do those kinds of things - otherwise, no one would use Linux at all.

Once you realize that every person has some small portion of things they do that require Windows, it's easy to see why Linux never has taken over outside of its niches (servers) and Linux-kernel-based custom OSes (Android) that have almost nothing in common with your beloved distro of choice.

Um, no, not every person, because if every person absolutely needed windows, no one would use Linux AT ALL. The popularity of Linux on the desktop is rising constantly by any metric, yes it's still relatively small but there are reasons for that. To keep this brief, it's mostly because of microsoft's decades-long market abuses and anti-competitive strategies, downright criminal activity, blackmail, lobbying, bribery, exploiting the patent system... the fact is that ever since the 90s, microsoft has had such a heavy influence on desktop/laptop OEM's AND retail that they could dictate their terms for them - look into the history of BeOS for example, it gives some good perspective there. This influence is only now starting to fall away, but even today we have retail stores who refuse to sell any desktop/laptop computers without windows preinstalled because of their partnership contracts with microsoft forbid it.

Which would go about as well as the Surface RTs/Pros, except probably worse.

And why do you think that?

I like to (almost) joke that everything Microsoft does with Windows, Linux desktops did first. Windows 8 is largely based around a highly more polished and functional concept originated in GNOME 3. Compiz beat Vista to the punch on composited desktops. Windows service minimalism followed Linux distro's service minimalism. etc. There really is nothing that Tizen or any other Linux-based desktop OS does _better_ than Windows, they only do things _before_ Windows. Consumers will generally want the more polished and functional iterations from Microsoft assuming they want the idea at all.

What exactly makes you think microsoft has anything more "functional" or even more "polished"? The only thing microsoft has is a) better hardware support (not as much as they used to, but still quite a bit in some cases) and b) vendor lock-in. Then they have their proprietary API's like DirectX, etc. proprietary things that have to be reverse-engineered if anyone wants to support them on other platforms.

Other than that, the reason people feel more comfortable on windows is largely just baby duck syndrome - it's something they're used to, so they don't want to try anything different.

Tablets that pretend to be desktops are one of the area the market just never accepted. Users who _create_ content want multiple high-resolutions displays, keyboards, mice, and computing power far beyond what a mobile package can offer. Users who just want to _consume_ content want a highly simplified experience without all the complexities of Windows or a typical Linux distro; they want iOS or Android or something along those lines.

Agreed.

Tizen is a product in search of a market that has never existed. So is Windows 8. So is Chromium OS. Mozilla OS. etc. The idea of one unifying OS to rule everything has not panned out. Even in the Linux world, Ubuntu or the like is not used by any real cross section of the market for anything but hobbyist desktop OSes. HPC uses specialized Linux distributions. Large-scale server farms use RHEL. Mobile devices use Android.

Tizen already has a market in IVI systems. In the future it'll be used in phones, tablets and ultrabooks. The ultrabook/desktop version is the one using modified GNOME shell, the phone/tablet version has an entirely different UI more suited for small touch devices, so I don't really see why you'd group it in with the abomination that is windows 8. Furthermore, it has some heavy backing - Intel and Samsung are investing heavily on it, so it's pretty safe to assume that it will gain at least some market share, as long as they don't totally fuck it up.

Chrome OS also isn't technically a bad idea. It's a perfect OS for someone whose only use for a computer is to browse the web - it's a niche product maybe, but it has its market.

There is no such thing as "Mozilla OS", only Firefox OS and I don't really know what you have against it, it's simply a phone OS for low-end phones.

Linux-the-kernel is highly successful; Linux-the-OS is a mess.

There is no "Linux the OS". Linux is a kernel. There is GNU/Linux, Android/Linux and a whole bunch of variants of thereof. And that's the greatest strength of Linux, because it runs practically everywhere and can be customized to suit any needs imaginable. There are some really crazy things running Linux - from wristwatches to 8-legged hydraulic walking robot vehicles. Some Linux OS's are succesful, some not, depends on how you define "success".

[Gps4l]

Do you really take seriously an OS that doesn't have basic things like good hardware acceleration in 2013? If that is not amateurism I don't know what it is? The fact that is used by Google doesn't change anything. It could be used by jesus christ himself and it wouldn't matter. It's still a hack disguised as an OS. And Google probably customized the hell out of it in order to bring it closer to a real OS. The same with supercomputers and all other examples that you will try to bring. Windows remains at least 10 years ahead of Linux. People who choose linux don't choose it because it's better but either because they are poor or they just hate Microsoft.

Explain this then:

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/

After this work, Left 4 Dead 2 is running at 315 FPS on Linux. That the Linux version runs faster than the Windows version (270.6) seems a little counter-intuitive, given the greater amount of time we have spent on the Windows version. However, it does speak to the underlying efficiency of the kernel and OpenGL. Interestingly, in the process of working with hardware vendors we also sped up the OpenGL implementation on Windows. Left 4 Dead 2 is now running at 303.4 FPS with that configuration.
OpenGL versus Direct3D on Windows 7

This experience lead to the question: why does an OpenGL version of our game run faster than Direct3D on Windows 7? It appears that it’s not related to multitasking overhead. We have been doing some fairly close analysis and it comes down to a few additional microseconds overhead per batch in Direct3D which does not affect OpenGL on Windows. Now that we know the hardware is capable of more performance, we will go back and figure out how to mitigate this effect under Direct3D.

[Dukenukemx]

No support for CrossFire, SLI, Lucid
No support for userspace core / multiplier overclocking
No support for the standard benchmarking tools (SuperPi, Futuremark, Furmark, IOMeter, HDBurn, etc etc)
Too many cobbled-on parts to track when updating official drivers (driver depends on X version of kernel and an older version of xserver which depends Z version of some other package which, more often than not, is totally not present in the repositories) unlike OS X and Windows; install 1 x driver EXE regardless of Windows version and that's it. Look at Haswell for Windows; just 1 driver package needed vs new kernel + new Mesa + new xserver needed just for full Linux Haswell support.
...and so on and so forth.

Overclocking for me is done in the BIOS anyway.
Synthetic benchmarking tools aren't very useful for gamers, or for anything really. Best to use real applications.

As for all the stuff needed to get working, that's something I hope will get easier in the future. There really isn't an automated drive install by both Nvidia and AMD. The open source drivers are even worse to get updated and working.

[elanthis]

Learning to use Linux? Please, what learning does an average user need to do? Launching programs, using firefox and moving files around works just the same on an average Linux distro as it does on windows

From experience with such a rollout.. no.

This is yet another variation of the 80/20 rule. Yes, 80% of it is as easy or easier than with Windows. It's that other 20% that kills you.

Take the movement to Web apps which removes the need to be picky about OS. Sure, a large percentage of all our computing time is on the Web. An over-enthusiastic estimate might even say 99%. The mistake is assuming that means that 99% of people only use the Web. While there certainly are people who only use the Web, it's more accurate to say that every individual does 99% of their work on the Web. If you assume only 1% of users need special stuff that limits them to Windows, it's easy to think Linux is ready to take over. Once you realize that every person has some small portion of things they do that require Windows, it's easy to see why Linux never has taken over outside of its niches (servers) and Linux-kernel-based custom OSes (Android) that have almost nothing in common with your beloved distro of choice.

Or, Intel could bring to market ultrabooks that run Tizen OS. There was already a demo of a ultrabook running Tizen OS with modified gnome shell, running Steam. If this happens, it'll probably do considerably more to grow the Linux marketshare than Canonical ever did.

Which would go about as well as the Surface RTs/Pros, except probably worse.

I like to (almost) joke that everything Microsoft does with Windows, Linux desktops did first. Windows 8 is largely based around a highly more polished and functional concept originated in GNOME 3. Compiz beat Vista to the punch on composited desktops. Windows service minimalism followed Linux distro's service minimalism. etc. There really is nothing that Tizen or any other Linux-based desktop OS does _better_ than Windows, they only do things _before_ Windows. Consumers will generally want the more polished and functional iterations from Microsoft assuming they want the idea at all.

Tablets that pretend to be desktops are one of the area the market just never accepted. Users who _create_ content want multiple high-resolutions displays, keyboards, mice, and computing power far beyond what a mobile package can offer. Users who just want to _consume_ content want a highly simplified experience without all the complexities of Windows or a typical Linux distro; they want iOS or Android or something along those lines.

Tizen is a product in search of a market that has never existed. So is Windows 8. So is Chromium OS. Mozilla OS. etc. The idea of one unifying OS to rule everything has not panned out. Even in the Linux world, Ubuntu or the like is not used by any real cross section of the market for anything but hobbyist desktop OSes. HPC uses specialized Linux distributions. Large-scale server farms use RHEL. Mobile devices use Android.

Linux-the-kernel is highly successful; Linux-the-OS is a mess.

[AJenbo]

Thank you for making my smile.

Now tell me that you were serious and I laugh even harder.

And btw never again use google, because they use an os build by kids.
This same os is used for the supercomputers.

windows > Linux only on the desktop, and only in quantity.

He can stop watching moves as well. 90% of all Linux issues comes down to missing driver support from the vendors because they only cater to the giant already sitting on the market.