Slashdot Mirror


Valve's Steam License Causes Linux Packaging Concerns

New submitter skade88 writes "With the Linux Steam beta giving Ubuntu and its large userbase all the love, other Linux gamers understandably want to be let in on the fun. For the beta, Valve has provided Steam as a Debian package. Many hungry Linux gamers have reported that they have Steam running on their favorite distro, but that still leaves the legal debate. What is the legal threshold needed to get Steam in the repos of your preferred flavor of Linux? Will Valve's one-size-fits-every-OS license be flexible to work on Linux or will it delay the dream of a viable gaming world for Linux? We are so close to bridging the last major hurdle in finally realizing the year of the Linux desktop: Gaming. Lets hope the FOSS community and Valve can play together so we all win."

163 comments

  1. Not required to use every package manager by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

    The packaging is not the issue here.

    Any competent distro can install Debian packages via various foreign package tools.

    The issue is that some of these Distros are going out of their way to accommodate a non GPL package, and a beta one at that.

    Its a binary blob.

    Any time a Distro starts messing with those, its on very thin ice. Most don't. They just write scripts that will fetch the original and
    do what ever is necessary to install it if the user chooses. Or they seek official permission to re-package. This is very common with Video drivers, etc.

    The proper way is to fetch the binary from what ever legal source Valve provides, and install it using what ever foreign package utilities they have.
    That way they live within valve's license. Its the only reasonable way. Why take on a packaging headache for a binary blob?

    Part of what was troubling from Valve's Steam license comes down to "You may not, in whole or in part: copy, hotocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse engineer (with the exception of specific circumstances where such act is permitted by law), derive source code, modify, disassemble, decompile, or create derivative works based on the Program; remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Program; or attempt in any manner to circumvent any security measures designed to control access to the Program."

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Not required to use every package manager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Isn't this exactly what stuff like Debian's 'non-free' repo are for? If each distro has an equivalent (like for binary blob video drivers), it goes there, prompt the user to agree to the non-free license, and then fetch as normal.

      Question is, does 'may not copy the Program' mean you can't mirror their packages for them with your own distro mirrors, untouched?

    2. Re:Not required to use every package manager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The packaging is not the issue here.

      Any competent distro can install Debian packages via various foreign package tools.

      The issue is that some of these Distros are going out of their way to accommodate a non GPL package, and a beta one at that.

      Its a binary blob.

      Any time a Distro starts messing with those, its on very thin ice. Most don't. They just write scripts that will fetch the original and
      do what ever is necessary to install it if the user chooses. Or they seek official permission to re-package. This is very common with Video drivers, etc.

      The proper way is to fetch the binary from what ever legal source Valve provides, and install it using what ever foreign package utilities they have.
      That way they live within valve's license. Its the only reasonable way. Why take on a packaging headache for a binary blob?

      Part of what was troubling from Valve's Steam license comes down to "You may not, in whole or in part: copy, hotocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse engineer (with the exception of specific circumstances where such act is permitted by law), derive source code, modify, disassemble, decompile, or create derivative works based on the Program; remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Program; or attempt in any manner to circumvent any security measures designed to control access to the Program."

      Or put the package in non-free....

    3. Re:Not required to use every package manager by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Think 'debian-multimedia' or Adobe's yum repo for flash. Total non-issue.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:Not required to use every package manager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The packaging is not the issue here.

      Any competent distro can install Debian packages via various foreign package tools.

      The issue is that some of these Distros are going out of their way to accommodate a non GPL package, and a beta one at that.

      Its a binary blob.

      Any time a Distro starts messing with those, its on very thin ice. Most don't. They just write scripts that will fetch the original and
      do what ever is necessary to install it if the user chooses. Or they seek official permission to re-package. This is very common with Video drivers, etc.

      The proper way is to fetch the binary from what ever legal source Valve provides, and install it using what ever foreign package utilities they have.
      That way they live within valve's license. Its the only reasonable way. Why take on a packaging headache for a binary blob?

      Part of what was troubling from Valve's Steam license comes down to "You may not, in whole or in part: copy, hotocopy, reproduce, translate, reverse engineer (with the exception of specific circumstances where such act is permitted by law), derive source code, modify, disassemble, decompile, or create derivative works based on the Program; remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Program; or attempt in any manner to circumvent any security measures designed to control access to the Program."

      Darned, I was planning on hotocopying Steam.

      It's certainly useful to point out these license issues to Valve to get them sorted. In Windows the sort of issue doesn't arise because there are no alternative packaging methods. I seem to recall NVIDIA having a similar problem with their early driver releases and licenses.

    5. Re:Not required to use every package manager by icebike · · Score: 1

      Or put the package in non-free....

      Except Valve says:

            "You may not, in whole or in part: copy, hotocopy, reproduce,"

      That seems overly broad, and maybe the place to start is to grab Valve by the wattles and slap them till they spit.
      What the hell were they thinking when they wrote that mess?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:Not required to use every package manager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing they are packaging is just a script that downloads the real steam binary. You know, exactly like with flashplugin-installer, which has a similar license. This is a non-issue. Put it in non-free.

    7. Re:Not required to use every package manager by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't classification, it's that the people behind the distribution may not have the right to distribute the package in the first place.

      For two examples, look at how most distributions dealt with Java prior to the GPL, and how they currently work with Flash. Those with long memories can also recall the issues with Netscape (3 & 4, not Mozilla) which had similar problems, albeit at a time when package repos were still a relatively new concept.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:Not required to use every package manager by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Why is why you do not distribute it, you do like flashplugin-installer. Your package just goes and fetches the actual software and runs the install.

    9. Re:Not required to use every package manager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What the hell were they thinking when they wrote that mess?

      I think it was just a typo, pretty sure they meant photocopy.

    10. Re:Not required to use every package manager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So anyone who packages OpenSSL is screwed then, or did you just mean 'GPL-compatible'?

      The main thing any packager would need would be at the minimum a redistribution clause or license, like distros that package a flashplugin binary (including Arch) have ...

    11. Re:Not required to use every package manager by egr · · Score: 1

      The packaging is not the issue here.

      I disagree. I've had enough bad experience with closed-source auto-updating debian packages! (I look at you, Guitar Pro!)

      The ideal case would be a tarball (almost all linux gaming publishers do that). Why would they limit themselves to the crapbuntu is unknown to me, but my guess to spare time on user support. Oh well.

    12. Re:Not required to use every package manager by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      This is pretty retarded of them. They should have ZERO problem with the redistribution of their client. It is NOT the product. It is the thing that downloads the product.

      There is really nothing for them to lose here.

      The community can do the packaging work for them if they are allowed.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    13. Re:Not required to use every package manager by EvanED · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well shucks. So much for my plans.

    14. Re:Not required to use every package manager by marcosdumay · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, non-free and all that... Or maybe, the best way for Debian to handle it is to put a package at non-free that adds Valve's repository into apt.conf.d. That way they avoid any problem that may appear by redistributing Valve's software when their license changes, as it keeps doing. (Maybe Debian could create a few of those packages, including the keyring and sources.list of other repository - multimedia and backports, for example, could use that.)

      Anyway, the main reason I cared to replay was to say: PLEASE STOP SAYING "BINARY BLOB". A BLOB IS BINARY, IF IT WERE TEXT IT WOULD BE A CLOB.

    15. Re:Not required to use every package manager by EvanED · · Score: 2

      Why would they limit themselves to the crapbuntu is unknown to me, but my guess to spare time on user support. Oh well.

      From what Valve has said, that's not intended as a long-term thing. They are going with Ubuntu first because ... surprise surprise ... that's what the vast majority of their survey respondents said.

    16. Re:Not required to use every package manager by icebike · · Score: 0

      Seriously, you just posted that to YELL at me about a trifling disagreement about terminology?

      Where are my mod point....?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    17. Re:Not required to use every package manager by egr · · Score: 1

      From what Valve has said, that's not intended as a long-term thing. They are going with Ubuntu first because ... surprise surprise ... that's what the vast majority of their survey respondents said.

      I really wish so. And I really hope that they will keep up the work and not abandon the project like some others did with other Linux ports.

    18. Re:Not required to use every package manager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong on so many levels.

    19. Re:Not required to use every package manager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait what? Jesus christ, shut up. Some of their engineers tried to give the go ahead, on that mailing list you can tell they're waiting for a lawyer. Why not wait until we know what VALVe has to say before shitting our pants over boilerplate text from a license that was written before Linux support for their games was even considered ?

    20. Re:Not required to use every package manager by gmack · · Score: 1

      Or better yet, Valve can add a package or script on their website that adds the valve repo and then the distro makers don't need to care at all. It's a fix that works for both DEB and RPM and allows Valve to be in full control of their updates.

      There are many good reasons why Valve wouldn't want to be dependent on distro update schedules.

    21. Re:Not required to use every package manager by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      The questions you're asking are really for a corporate entity. Ok, I cant install steam at work... I wasn't going to anyway. But do we really give a shit about this at home? I certainly don't.

    22. Re:Not required to use every package manager by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not exactly. Debian packages stuff like this as a wrapper. Examples are the Microsoft fonts and Flash. The wrapper knows where to download the actual package from, and may perform some extra work after extraction to make the installation more compatible with Debian, but the package itself does not contain the proprietary files.

      It would be a little different here, given that the proprietary data is already packaged, but in principle it's the same.

    23. Re:Not required to use every package manager by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 2

      It is a sin to say "debian-multimedia" and Stefano Zacchiroli will come and strangle your children if you do it again. http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2012-May/thread.html#26678

    24. Re:Not required to use every package manager by GNious · · Score: 1

      Question of quality / user-experience - by having 3rd parties redistribute the package Valve has less control of the distribution and updating, and they risk getting connected to poor experiences caused by the 3rd parties.
      Also pretty sure Valve's Legal Team would want it that way, simply due to paranoia.

      May be largely a non-issue, but as a corporation with legalities and images to uphold, this is how it will be pretty much 100% of the time.

    25. Re:Not required to use every package manager by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      They should have ZERO problem with the redistribution of their client.

      Yeah, because people downloading old versions of their client is exactly what they want.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    26. Re:Not required to use every package manager by Stupendoussteve · · Score: 1

      This is the only solution that really makes sense, also the only one that will really work with a drm system included that may demand immediate updates at times. It's the same process used by Google for things like Chrome and Earth. One for deb, one for rpm, with internal logic to add the repos in apt/yum/zypper. Third parties such as Arch or Gentoo can write their processes to pull in that package, open it up and install the files where they need to go, as they do already.

      Essentially, it's a non-issue for the distros. They don't really even have to support it.

    27. Re:Not required to use every package manager by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Question is, does 'may not copy the Program' mean you can't mirror their packages for them with your own distro mirrors, untouched?

      I've seen similar licenses before.
      Generally, a steam-installer package is made. When you run steam-installer, it'll download steam from the original source (ie: valve's site), and install it into the system, performing any additional that may be necessary.

  2. a non-issue by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, this is not an issue.

    Valve wants to make it easy? Run a repo, and provide instructions for using it.

    Valve wants to make it only moderately difficult for newbies? Provide package files and leave it at that.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:a non-issue by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Valve wants to make it easy? Run a repo, and provide instructions for using it.

      Repos only work for one distro. Or a closely related family (e.g. debian/ubuntu/mint) at best. The right thing to do is provide a tarball under as permissive a license as possible, and let the distros do their own packaging.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:a non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or put a blob out there for as many distros as they want (.deb, .rpm, etc...) and have the user install it manually. Steam is self-updating, why would they need to rely on a package manager?

    3. Re:a non-issue by bbelt16ag · · Score: 1

      ofcourse they could always provide a .bin that would work too.or the source code....

      --
      NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
    4. Re:a non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Opera does this, Google do this with Chome, as do other sane companies. Once Valve get into the groove, they'll do the same.

    5. Re:a non-issue by icebike · · Score: 1

      Steam is self-updating, why would they need to rely on a package manager?

      That in itself is something of a problem if you ask me. Unfortunately, it seems to be the way a lot of packages want to go these days.
      We've seen it on some platforms with various things like Google Chrome, FireFox, Google Earth, Thunderbird, etc.

      The opportunity for unintentional mass-breakage is wide open. The potential for some intentional skuldegerous subversion of the update servers is less wide open, but would be far more devastating if someone pulled it off.

      You still need a package manager (or some installation method) for new/first time users. You can't update what you don't have.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    6. Re:a non-issue by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      No reason they can't provide several repos, in addition to a sharutils-style self-installer. Seen plenty of third-parties do that.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:a non-issue by LoRdTAW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This.

      I don't see Microsoft or Apple worrying how they will distribute Steam, because they don't*. I don't see why browsing to steampowered.com and downloading the client for your OS of choice should be any different than on Windows or Mac OS. The belief that everything should be in the repos is silly.

      *Even if they were to make Steam available through their app stores its still the publishers responsibility to submit the app for distribution.

    8. Re:a non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously, this is not an issue.

      Valve wants to make it easy? Run a repo, and provide instructions for using it.

      Valve wants to make it only moderately difficult for newbies? Provide package files and leave it at that.

      Since when is downloading an installer and double clicking it HARD?

      Oh it's hard on Linux because the installer would have to account for dozens of different common configurations or thousands of less common ones?

      You did that to yourselves...

    9. Re:a non-issue by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      This is the situation on ANY OS.

      When you let game installers run willy nilly through the system files, every single PC can have it's own unique configuration. Windows solves this through brute force but it's still the same problem.

      Linux is far from unique here.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:a non-issue by gbjbaanb · · Score: 2

      the reason for this is Windows - because these programs need to roll their own updaters, they tend to write the code to be as cross-platform as the program is. So there's no incentive for them to scrap code they know and replace it with a different updater.

      It might make sense for the end-user, and I'd hope the manufacturers of these programs would start to support more default package managers now they're getting more into Linux, but they're still really Windows programs for the most part.

    11. Re:a non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This a trillion times again.

      Holy hell, I hate all this stupid package crap.
      Why do you people have to have your hands held for you by distro-creators?
      Weren't Linux geeks supposed to be smart?
      Not everything needs to be packaged all neatly, hell, isn't that the damn reason most people use Linux to be free of crap infested OSes by others?

      Valve are adults, they can put that crap on their own site like any other group.
      Package-mentality needs to beat it already. Sick of it.
      All this stupid bitching is a MAJOR turn-off, I hope you all realize this. This crap confuses the hell out of people, rather than helps them.
      Stop being so retardedly anal over this crap and scaring even more people away from Linux.

    12. Re:a non-issue by devman · · Score: 2

      Not everything in a linux distro needs to be installed with a package repo. I mean you could just download the tarball from their website and run it. For what its worth, the update method is similar to how Half-Life Dedicated Server and Source Dedicated Server are updated and it works well.

    13. Re:a non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely does not happen on Windows. Windows provides stable, standard APIs and ABIs that are easy to recognize, and stretch for years. There's no "brute force" needed. Linux, has nothing similar to this. Android and Gentoo? Really? You need some more shill cash I see.

    14. Re:a non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, a "package" is not any different functionally than a InstallShield, InnoSetup or .MSI installer, specific to a version of Windows (big example, 64-bit vs 32-bit windows, or desktop vs server vs datacenter, or WinXP vs Win7, etc).

      The "package" incorporates all the "isms" of the particular flavor of Linux you're using, and is a remarkable upgrade from the Bad Old Days, even the
      "make config; make install" days.

      In both cases, the distro tools and the windows installer apps expect the builder of the installer to be quite anal (yet generic enough) to deploy the app to the intended target systems and expected configurations, including checking dependencies, verifying version requirements, etc.

      You're an adult, too. Stop shrilling like a no-perspective wanker who seems to have never built an application installer package or one who is still butthurt after trying to install some random .deb app on a Redhat system, and has never forgiven either system's idiosyncracies or dependencies.

    15. Re:a non-issue by grumpy_old_grandpa · · Score: 1

      Debian has had package management for 19 years, and I believe the repositories were not far behind. The whole process of 1) browse to some site, 2) search for the download link, 3) wait to download, 4) execute locally, 5) click through some "install wizard", and 6) watch a useless progress bar seems very old school. Add to that a 2b) part: pay $25 for a random utility which the rest of the world uses for free as in gratis and as in freedom.

      This tedious process is in part why there are software "markets" everywhere you look know. They cover all the steps above. However, when all software on the market is free software, you don't need a transactional based market, you just select a package, and let the package and repository manager do the rest. Which also includes the resolving of dependencies; none of the commercial markets have got that covered, AFAIK.

      Why anybody would stick to the old-school ineffective way, boggles the mind.

    16. Re:a non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a guy that writes software, I _wish_ software worked like that; as it is, though, the whole Linux system (kernel + libraries + ...) moves too fast and in too many directions. It's extremely difficult to package a binary blob and get it to work on different distros; Valve will need to deal with the fun that is audio, too. WIndows and OSX ships, what, once every year or two, and usually comes with enough libraries to run older software. The fact that nobody wants to be using IE6 anymore doesn't automatically mean stuff that embedded its rendering engine is now broken.

    17. Re:a non-issue by kasperd · · Score: 1

      Steam is self-updating

      The hacks needed in order to pull that off will put the security of the entire system at risk. This is something Linux distributions should fix. But the proper fix is not what those people behind self updating packages may have in mind. It needs to be fixed by not putting the same level of trust in every repository. The fix would break all the self-updating packages by removing their privileges to update themselves.

      Only packages from repositories trusted by root, should be able to install files in directories from where they can be executed by root. Packages from other repositories shouldn't be able to install files in those directories, neither should they have any ability to install device inodes or files that are suid or sgid to root. And an update for a package mustn't come from a less trusted repository. Finally when a user logs in, the path should be set up to include only directories from those repositories that user trusts.

      To give software distributors the right incentives, there should be tools making it easier to build packages and repositories. If it was easier to do things the right way and harder to do self-updating hacks, then we may see more software distributors do it right.

      Remember most of those software distributors come with experience from Windows, where there is no right way of managing software. They take what they have learned on Windows and try to apply it to Linux. Though every Linux distribution actually has a right way of managing software, even a small learning curve may put off distributors and make them choose the hacks instead.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    18. Re:a non-issue by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      You left out another step - buy utility after utility to de-cruft your system, and do a complete reinstall every year or two to get it to work right again.

      Oh, and don't forget about having 47 processes running night and day, each of which only exists to update some particular program.

      When the package manager does all the work, then getting rid of cruft is just a matter of asking it to remove it for you. No collision problems, no orphan files, and so on.

      Some package managers do make it easier to package up the output of manual installers, but this usually requires at least somewhat cooperative installers to begin with.

    19. Re:a non-issue by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      How about the fact that I'd like to actually be able to cleanly undo all the stuff that the installer did, and vendor who made that installer has no incentive to allow that.

      Why do you think people have to reinstall their windows systems every few years just to keep them working normally?

    20. Re:a non-issue by devman · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how a self updating program that the user installs in $HOME compromises security. I mean the the user can read and write there $HOME and the program has permission to open network sockets. It doesn't really need anything else, and thousands of other programs have this same permission. For what its worth this is the same update mechanism that Valve has been using for HLDS and SRCDS for almost a decade and it works great on a wide variety of distros and it certainly doesn't compromise security (not anymore than any self updating package your trusting a maintainer with). They push out updates for the DS code and it is immediately available to all users on all platforms without waiting for package maintainers.

    21. Re:a non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The belief that everything should be in the repos is silly."
      Disagree -- it's great!
      It took Apple at least a decade to catch up and put walls around that patch of paradise.

      Just the idea "you need software, well, here is the one interface you need to get it." is already great, but the way this seamlessly integrates into updating mechanisms is just pure gold.

      Sure you can ensure system-wide updates differently, and don't care about distribution... but in case you haven't noticed, this is one idea that Linux (and *BSD) had working correctly, and that the Apples and Microsofts and Googles are copying.

      Side note: *last hurdle* for YotLD? Naah, we just jumped back over the "decent GUI" hurdle.

    22. Re:a non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your points are not valid, troll. packaging and package managers are awesome. they makle sure the third party softwarre installs how it supposed to based on the distro/package and when you update the system, everything on the system that was installed with the package manager gets updated effortlessly. much better than running around trying to update everything individually. and using and storing individual installers for every single program on ther system. and that's all i have to say about that...

    23. Re:a non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFL! Someone's never compiled from source, and has never used proprietary software on Linux. You freetards are so blind, it hurts. Compile from source, garbages up your filesystem, placing files in random, non-standard folders. Remove source, and go to upgrade later down the line from source. New makefile is completely different, and doesn't clean up system etc.

      The people who re-install the MOST out of everyone are freetards. By far.

    24. Re:a non-issue by kasperd · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how a self updating program that the user installs in $HOME compromises security.

      That is not exactly the situation I was referring to.

      Any program a user installs for himself under his home directory should of course not be a thread to the overall security of the system. If it does, it is not the program that is to blame, but rather the OS. So it really should only put that user at risk. Some people are so paranoid about security, that they do not want non-administrator users to be able to write and run an executable. Any file system those users have write access to, should be mounted noexec. I think that is going too far, but a program should still be designed such that it can work in such an environment.

      Even if it only threatens the user, who installed the program, there is however still some security issues. First of all you don't have as strong guarantees about timely updates. If the program is updated through a package manager, it will notice an update is available. If the program updates itself, it will only notice next time you start the program. So it takes longer time before you get the update. And that may be the time it takes for an exploit to be developed, which could hit the program in the time window from you start it until it realizes, that it needs updating.

      However the main issue with this approach isn't the security threat, but rather that a program isn't supposed to contain code unrelated to the purpose of the program. If the purpose of the program isn't to install software updates, then it shouldn't contain code to install software updates. If every single program you install had its own code for installing software updates, you'd have loads of duplicated functionality, and with that many pieces of code intended to do the same thing, some of them are bound to be broken in some way.

      The actual situation I was referring to was that of a program installed by root through a package file. That package file could be an rpm or deb file, which you downloaded from a website, or it could be found through a repository. When such a program is run by another user, it should not have any permissions to write to the package's files.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    25. Re:a non-issue by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Uh, I run Gentoo. I think I know a thing or two about compiling from source. :)

      If I want to use something that isn't packaged, I just package it myself. I don't go running random installers are root and dealing with the aftermath.

    26. Re:a non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know about text flowing across your screen. Grow up an use Arch.

    27. Re:a non-issue by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      You know about text flowing across your screen. Grow up an use Arch.

      About the only time I watch text flowing up my screen is when I'm building a kernel. The Gentoo package manger no longer directs compiler output to the screen unless that is what you want - and it isn't even supported if you install multiple packages in parallel.

      In any case, I was using make and MASM more than 20 years ago, so I'm pretty confident I know what a compiler is.

    28. Re:a non-issue by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      The right thing is to provide the source, so that distros can package it properly.

      Providing a tarball with the binaries is merely a compromise which in generally, gets accepted.

    29. Re:a non-issue by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Repositories:
      1) Mean stuff is more likely to work on your systems, on your OS version.
      2) Are ultra-newbie friendly.
      3) Keep malware/toolbars/spyware/"downloaderes" away.
      4) Are generally designed in the best interest of the user, not the developer.
      5) Provide a unique mean for everything to be installed/updated, instead of every software developer having to program/install a different updater - This is turn means there aren't 20 "updater" services running on background.
      6) Packages are sometimes tweaked to integrate better with the OS, either on an aesthetical level, or technical leve.

  3. A tempest in a teapot .. by dgharmon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nothing to see here , moving on ...

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:A tempest in a teapot .. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      A light buffet of wind in a shotglass, more like.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:A tempest in a teapot .. by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      But it's a phoronix article!! It must be promoted!!

  4. "Gaming" is not the answer for Linux desktops. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We are so close to bridging the last major hurdle in finally realizing the year of the Linux desktop: Gaming."

    If you think "Gaming" is the last hurdle to finally realizing the year of the Linux desktop, you're missing the point entirely.

    1. Re:"Gaming" is not the answer for Linux desktops. by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Games and video editing are the only reasons I keep a Windows PC around. And a lot of my Steam games already run under Wine.

    2. Re:"Gaming" is not the answer for Linux desktops. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Games and video editing are the only reasons I keep a Windows PC around. And a lot of my Steam games already run under Wine.

      Audio stuff too.

      My kingdom for a good Linux ASIO driver...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:"Gaming" is not the answer for Linux desktops. by Sir_Sri · · Score: 2

      Steam isn't gaming anyway. Steam is a game distribution service, in linux world it's basically a gaming specialized repository, that takes money. Every developer under the sun still needs to package their games, although the point of steam is probably that valve will handle that for you I imagine a lot of teething pains.

      Valve is only going this route to hedge their bets against windows 8, justifiably so, and that's the big opportunity for linux and always has been: waiting for a serious break in microsofts armour. If windows 8 is the trainwreck it seems like it could be, well we might have 2013 as the actual year of the linux desktop and game companies coming along for the ride.

      The Source engine from steam, which is used for some games, being on linux matters a bit, but one game engine does not an industry make. I'll be very interested to see if the big guys in the business add in linux support while they're at it (PS4, Xbox3, Windows PC already, why not add Mac and Linux for the same reason valve is?). With kickstarter funding a few engines in the direction of linux there might be some future hope for games, rather than just a store that can be run as a webpage.

    4. Re:"Gaming" is not the answer for Linux desktops. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i hope we are all donating what we can to some of these projects. if people would donate a small percentage of what gets spent on proprietary crapware, the gnu/linux, OSS projects would explode in progress.

    5. Re:"Gaming" is not the answer for Linux desktops. by Talderas · · Score: 1

      If windows 8 is the trainwreck it seems like it could be, well we might have 2013 as the actual year of the linux desktop and game companies coming along for the ride.

      I doubt this. 2013 will not be the year of the Linux desktop. The only reason for gamers to update their OS to a new release is if the current version will not support the hardware they're putting in their machine. Gaming companies aren't going piss off their customers and require them to move to a Linux OS just to play their game so developer support is going to continue for Windows 7 for quite some time. I'd say that reasonably one could assume 2015 or 2016 for the year of the Linux desktop assuming Windows 8 flops very badly. Even then, Windows 7 enjoys extended support until 2020.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  5. Year of Linux on the desktop again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'll be the year of Linux on the desktop when the desktop has about 5% of it's peak marketshare. I'm guessing 2020 for that. Just give it up already.

  6. You don't need it in your repo. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. You don't need it in your repo. Commit patches to Valve so they can make pages for other distros and let them host it in *their* repo. That's the way we (the linux community) should have been doing things from the start. Let the vendor host a repo for their product rather than each distribution make a copy in a distro controlled repo.

    VirtualBox is a great example of doing this the right way. They have their own repos. You add it to your package manager's sources list and install the package. Now you get the official package from the vendor rather than something from your Linux distro's repo (who knows what they've changed or broken).

    1. Re:You don't need it in your repo. by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, because I definitely want to be giving every random software company root access to my system.

    2. Re:You don't need it in your repo. by marcosdumay · · Score: 2

      Ok, you prefer that the spyware comes in an unverifiable binary proxied by your distro's servers. I just don't understand what is the difference (except for who pays the bandwidth bill).

      If you don't want Valve to have access to your system, don't install Steam. Or that is too simple?

    3. Re:You don't need it in your repo. by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Fine then either don't run it or put it in a Linux container.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  7. Re:Really? by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 0

    I give you a 2/5 - reasonable trolling attempt, but a bit too harsh. Try again.

    Sent from my Linux desktop.

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

  8. *in* distri: OSI approved. Else: Any licence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The answer is easy, and I think it applies to all distributions:

    To be in the distribution, the licence of your project must fit the , currently version 1.9 or later. This means that the licence most likely also has OSI approval and can be found on the SPDX list. Beyond that, you also need to make sure that your package is compatible licence wide with the licences of all your dependencies.

    To be available for a distribution, you only need to take care of the latter bit, and you can choose any licence, including non-FLOSS commercial ones. I, however, will not look at, review, debug or build that package without being paid for it outside of the scope of my work on the distribution.

    I am a packager for a major GNU/Linux distribution.

    1. Re:*in* distri: OSI approved. Else: Any licence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad to know you're a self entitled bitch and that others are more lenient. Requiring pay? lol.

    2. Re:*in* distri: OSI approved. Else: Any licence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad to know you're a self entitled bitch and that others are more lenient. Requiring pay? lol.

      Yes, as in "actual job". You will know some day.

    3. Re:*in* distri: OSI approved. Else: Any licence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry if you don't have a job, but I do, so I don't have to wait "some day". Now shut up.

    4. Re:*in* distri: OSI approved. Else: Any licence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Valve publishes FLOSS, it will be packaged by anyone who cares enough to download the source and invest the time. If it is a non-FLOSS licence, Valve will have to take care of it themselves. This will then be done by people on staff or contracted who have access to the source for this purpose, and are being paid for it. I hope that goes into your gamer brain.

    5. Re:*in* distri: OSI approved. Else: Any licence by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Not a bad suggestion, but really, I wouldn't blame Valve for packaging Steam only in Debian. Indeed, the bulk of distros out there are now based on Ubuntu or Debian, and only some are based on Fedora, Arch, Gentoo and Slackware. There is no reason to support that many packages. Sure, in Linux, the idea is open source and open choices, but a point comes where you want a standard way of packaging software. Given how good apt is, there is hardly a good reason why they should support yum/rpm, pac, txz or whatever else is out there. If the other distros want to be a part of the action, .deb is open - they can easily support that, in addition to their pet packaging schemes.

      Only thing - the BSDs are being left out here, but unless and until PC-BSD becomes more mainstream, there ain't a strong reason to support pbi, which is the only other package IMO that they should consider.

  9. No it isn't a dead dream, wrong target audience by osssmkatz · · Score: 0

    I am a freelance computer consultant like many of you. I had a client the other day that had a windows 2000 system she picked up as a donation. She had forgotten the administrator password. I backed up her data using Acronis (no encryption), installed Lbuntu (a special distro for older systems), gave her a wireless dongle, extracted her files on a windows box, and moved them over to her Linux system. As it turned out she was already using OpenOffice. She was of a certain socioeconomic status where this made sense, and now she no longer had to pay for her operating system either. More importantly, I'm not pro-Linux or a Linux expert. I installed Red hat so many years ago, it was ok, but not great. This time when I installed an Ubuntu derivative, there was technical support in terms of documentation, IRC, and forums and I used all three. The point is: Linux is great for older systems, great for people who can't afford Windows and Office, and is well-supported. --Sam

    1. Re:No it isn't a dead dream, wrong target audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes indeed I propose all the people that know about the offline password reset tools available round up all the people who don't and exterminate them somehow, that aught to show those useless twonks.

    2. Re:No it isn't a dead dream, wrong target audience by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      She was not getting any updates either. Which I bet is the problem he was trying to solve.

    3. Re:No it isn't a dead dream, wrong target audience by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      and now she no longer had to pay for her operating system either.

      Doesn't sound like she paid for her OS in the first place, now does it, having received it as a donation and all?

      A lot of things about this post seems very off. I wouldn't doubt if it was pure bullshit.

    4. Re:No it isn't a dead dream, wrong target audience by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Someone paid for it, how many windows licences do we all own that we didn't ask for?

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  10. Does it really need to be packaged at all? by Tr3vin · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Steam client auto-updates on Windows. I would imagine it would do the same on Linux. Now, I understand that Windows doesn't have a packaging system like Linux but I really don't see why Valve would need to use one. There are several pieces of software that I use that I get from a tar.gz over a rpm or a deb. Why wouldn't Steam do the same?

    1. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Hint: Linux actually has security built in by design. Random apps can't just update themselves, because they don't have root permission.

    2. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by Kardos · · Score: 1

      Steam would run as a user (not as root), and users don't have permission to change system binaries. So unless you're pondering installing Steam in your $HOME, no, Steam will not be updating itself.

    3. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by Tr3vin · · Score: 1

      They can if they aren't owned by root.

    4. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by mic0e · · Score: 5, Informative

      Counterhint: Steam circumvents this by providing only a tiny 'seed' package, which will then download the whole steam application and all games to the user's home folder. I also heard chrome does the same (on windows as well). However, the seed coul probably easily be re-written as or published as free software (e.g. a 100-line bash script) to circumvent all packaging license issues.

    5. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 2

      It auto-updates on Linux as well, however it does it in an interesting fashion. Essentially, the .deb package Valve put out (and distros are considering throwing in their repos) simply installs an installer. When one runs "steam" for the first time, it downloads and installs steam locally in his or her home folder. It can thus update as non-root.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    6. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 0

      The problem is that modifying files outside of /home/ requires root, and that includes auto-updating. You'd have to launch Steam with root access every once in a while. The ones you get from tar.gz, rpm, or deb generally don't update. The only exception I know of is the Google Talk plugin, which added a repo to my sources.list and now updates with aptitude just like everything else.

    7. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by Paradigm_Complex · · Score: 2

      Steam automatically installs itself into $HOME so it can self-update.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
    8. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      As others have said (but I'll reply here so you're more likely to see it), apparently Steam essentially installs to your $HOME.

    9. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I also heard chrome does the same (on windows as well).

      I can confirm that it does (or least, did) on Windows. It's one of a few reasons I don't use it.

      (And yeah, I know about some alternative thing you can download that's aimed at business that lets you choose installation location. I said "one of a few reasons" :-))

    10. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      If it does that, then why would it need packaged at all? Just provide the installer for download and let users run it. Since it's not installing anything at the system level, there's nothing that needs to be in the package management system. And since the installer won't need manual updating after you've got Steam itself installed (if it does need updated, presumably the auto-update function will handle that), there's nothing gained from having it under package management.

      K.I.S.S.: Learn this acronym and abide by it.

    11. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Unix users have been able to install stuff to their own $HOME directory since before there was a Linux or a Windows.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    12. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean it's commonly done. For instance, installing to anything but /usr is something that almost no package manager out there does. So sure, you can install $PACKAGE yourself, but first you're going to have to track down the three libraries it uses, and the two libraries one of those use, and the three libraries one of those use. (Believe me, I do this a fair bit because I somewhat frequently have need to install things to non-standard locations.)

      What we're talking about here is what basically every user will see. In other words, the common case, rather than (at least currently) the uncommon one.

    13. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by iroll · · Score: 1

      Can somebody explain why Valve wouldn't want to do this (add a repo to sources.list and update via apt)?

      It could still do version checks and even prompt you to run a script (by clicking an update button) to run apt-get update.

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    14. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Counterhint: Steam circumvents this by providing only a tiny 'seed' package, which will then download the whole steam application and all games to the user's home folder.

      Turning the life of anybody that properly partitioned his disk into a hell. No wait, turning the life of EVERYBODY into a hell, since it will replicate Steam on everybody's home dir, and let several different versions of it installed at the same time.

      Or maybe they'll be "smart" and make a setuid updater... That will open every computer running it to invasion, and will finaly turn virus into a everyday problem for Linux users. (That may have a silver lining, at least AV vendors will stop spreading FUD.)

      I really hope Steam will be smart and do it the Linux way. Or they could be up to a serious awakening once the problems start appearing, and will be locked into Windows again.

    15. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      I don't know. But I do have a guess.

      Steam pretty aggressively updates the actual games in its library. This means that either (1) it would fairly frequently need to ask the user to sudo those changes or (2) put the game files in $HOME anyway. It's possible they think that (1) would be too obnoxious and so go with (2) for that reason; and once you've done (2), why not just put Steam itself in $HOME too?

    16. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So sure, you can install $PACKAGE yourself, but first you're going to have to track down the three libraries it uses, and the two libraries one of those use, and the three libraries one of those use.

      That's not how binary blob software works. Every imaginable library the program might concievably need will be included in the package.

    17. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it does that, then why would it need packaged at all?

      Dependencies. The installer is just a bootstrap, but by installing it, it will pull in all the libraries the full program needs.

      To make the bootstrap download-and-run by unprivileged users requires making the full program a massive statically-linked behemoth, or bringing along a heap of private .sos; either way, Valve takes on the responsibility of tracking all those libraries and updating for each bugfix.

    18. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by devman · · Score: 1

      Steam on linux doesn't install to system directories. The update method is similar to updating HLDS or SRCDS which have valve created update tools that work across dozens of distros. Everything the apps need to run is provided by the steam updater, and can be installed and run by the user where ever they please.

    19. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because the OS belongs in /usr

      Stuff like this belongs either in your home directory (Preferable) or /opt (give it permissions to write to its own directory).

      Build everything with the LSB and bundle everything that is not part of it that you need. And use RPATH

      It is trivially easy. (I have built KDE in my home directory and used it just fine in the past).

      I understand why RPATH can be a bad idea for the distro but for stuff like this is what it is supposed to be used for.

      If it wants to use /opt then it only needs root access once.

      It could even bundle its own everything (including libc and use its own ld.so) the overhead would be fairly minimal compared to the proprietary stuff anyway.

      Might also solve a lot of problems due to Ubuntu not knowing what they are doing.

      Even LTS releases never get critical major bugs fixed. (Reason why stuff like Cadence doesn't support Ubuntu).

    20. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ./configure --prefix=$HOME is a great way to deal with asshole admins who won't install a package you need on the server.

    21. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 1

      That's a point. I'd point out a few holes in the concept, though. Firstly is that the installer package lists dependencies for the installer, not the program itself. That poses a problem as the program auto-updates, since the dependencies for the installer package will be getting out of sync with the actual program dependencies (not everybody will update packages every time they run a game, in fact most won't). And it'll turn into an outright nightmare if the Valve devs aren't very very careful to play nicely with all other software in the system. Windows DLL Hell comes in large part from programs having overly-specific requirements for which versions of shared libraries they can use. The traditional Linux way of avoiding that is to not depend heavily on exact versions, which runs counter to the usual commercial-software practice of never allowing use of versions the software hasn't been tested with. What's the game software going to do when it's automatic update requires a dependency that isn't installed, or requires a newer version of a dependency than's currently installed? As user software it doesn't have any privilege to update packages.

      I know ways to solve this, but they all start with a basic operation: completely re-write the game software to conform to Unix conventions. That means separating per-user configuration and data from the code, so you can package the code and install it at the system level and maintain updates only through the package management system while still keeping data per-user. But that completely precludes automatic updates.

    22. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the "Windows" way, of every individual program looking for and installing updates on its own, whenever each wants to, is fundamentally broken.

    23. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      "That's not how binary blob software works. Every imaginable library the program might concievably need will be included in the package."

      That depends what you mean. If you're talking about a binary blob actually meant for the end user, then yes, you're right. Those actually work. But almost nothing gets packaged that way. If you're talking about the things that people actually use -- binary packages from the distro -- then no, those are built assuming you'll be installing through a package manager (or don't mind hashing out dependencies yourself).

    24. Re:Does it really need to be packaged at all? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      What's the point? Every linux distro already has a package manager which updates software, I don't need two programs doing the same thing!

  11. Re:Hey guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Swing and a miss. Don't worry, smarter people than you are working on it.

  12. Why just one by phorm · · Score: 1

    Eh? Why not all of the above. A lot of companies provide RPM and DEB archives, plus a .tar.gz
    It's not particularly hard to package things up.

    If they want to add some ease-of-use to updating, throwing the packages on a public repository would work, but I believe that the application itself was supposed to have self-updating capabilities.

    1. Re:Why just one by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Because multiple repositories just multiplies the work Valve has to do supporting Linux. Simply packaging things isn't a lot of work, but checking to see if the packages work is. Better to have one canonical archive and let the distros do their own packaging and testing.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Why just one by EvanED · · Score: 2

      Because multiple repositories just multiplies the work Valve has to do supporting Linux. Simply packaging things isn't a lot of work, but checking to see if the packages work is. Better to have one canonical archive and let the distros do their own packaging and testing.

      I can flip that argument around though: if you're Valve and thus concerned about the quality of your product, why would you turn over control of said quality to a third party?

      (I'm not sure to what extent I buy these two arguments; I'm just putting it out there as sort of a "devil's advocate" perspective.)

    3. Re:Why just one by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      I believe that the application itself was supposed to have self-updating capabilities.

      Or, if they really wanted to play nice, they could disable auto-updating on Linux. (They may keep it on if it was installed from a tarball. Just don't make a self-updating .deb or .rpm.)

    4. Re:Why just one by devman · · Score: 1

      The system they have works well. Half-Life DS and Source DS also use Valve created update tools and people run those servers on dozens of distros with out the need to wait for maintainers to update package repositories.

  13. "the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop! by mfearby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It happens every so often around here that someone will claim X as the final hurdle to "finally realizing the year of the Linux desktop", and if you think that packaging Steam is that last cab off the rank, you are sorely mistaken. What about the ruination of a good desktop environment (GNOME), and the torture that getting a video card properly working can be? Or the cacophony of sound libraries that mean I can't get Skype to pick up my microphone? Or the many mail programs that *should* be able to import/export each other's databases yet, to this day, still manage to be a PITA (Kontact!).

    I've been using Linux full time for 5 years (since the Windows Vista calamity) and it wasn't until Ubuntu ruined their distro with Unity that I had to hop to another one (Debian Squeeze and now openSUSE due to a new mobo install, and to get support for the LAN on same I wasn't prepared to upgrade to Sid). openSUSE 12.2 hasn't turned out to be as stable as I had hoped, so my Mac Mini should be delivered on Monday (TNT tracking currently has it in transit from Hong Kong :-) And installing and configuring Oracle Java is a nightmare. Just when you think you've found the right HOWTO to get it installed, you find that there's another way, and the way you were using was perhaps ill-advised. Yes, this isn't Linux's fault but Java is a necessity for some people, and the free Java doesn't quite cut it for some apps (CrashPlan, for example). It used to be that there were non-free repos in Ubuntu that added all these things nicely, but these seem to be a thing of the past nowadays for most distros.

    Until Linux learns to cope with the installation/addition of other software that doesn't live up to its high and mighty standards, and stops fragmenting its core GUIs and programs, the much prophesied "year of Linux on the desktop" is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN! And if you think that people are going to accept a totally stripped-bare 100% pure distro the likes of which Richard Stallman would use, then it's game over (though it's probably been game over for years, now).

  14. Why include it at all? by Infernal+Device · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Why do distros have to ship with every possible FOSS package under the sun? Why not let the user decide which packages to install after they get the base system installed?

    A word processor is not necessary to make a working system, yet every bloody one of them ships with Open Office as part of the default install, which then costs time in removing it. If I want a word processor, I'll install it later.

    Same thing with Steam. It's awesome that Valve is doing this, but at the same time, it's not necessary to a working system and the people that are actually interested in playing Valve-distributed games will make the necessary investment in downloading the installer as a separate package. There is no need to include Steam on any distro.

    --
    "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    1. Re:Why include it at all? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Nobody's talking about putting Steam in the base install of any distro. If you want users to be able to easily install it, it has to be in the repository. That's what we're talking about.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  15. As if it's never happened ... ? by briancox2 · · Score: 1

    Linux Mint comes with Dropbox. And that is a good thing.

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
  16. Relevant, but not a problem, and here's why by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The license says you can't redistribute it without permission. Valve will likely give permission to any distribution worth mentioning. Metadistributions won't be permitted to redistribute without permission, but they can simply link to the original distribution's repo and/or packages.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apt-add-repository ppa:webupd8team/java && apt-get update && apt-get install oracle-java7-installer

  18. Over here in Arch land... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...we don't GAF and will just make it work one way or another.

    1. Re:Over here in Arch land... by devman · · Score: 1

      Arch Linux is awesome. Steam will work find as I can tell your running HLDS and SRCDS on Arch works great, and there updating tools work great. You dont' even have to fiddle with pacman or AUR to get it to work,

  19. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by 6031769 · · Score: 2

    OK, here's the news:

    1. Nobody really uses SUSE anymore. Even Slackware beats the pants off it for usability. Give SUSE the heave-ho and you're halfway to paradise. *

    2. Java is 100% unnecessary for most of the productive tasks for which you will use a computer. Just bin it. If anything you think you want to run requires java, bin that too and just use a non-java equivalent. Java is very useful for mobile phones and old-style web apps, but nothing on the desktop since 2004.

    3. This is the choir here. Nobody in this audience really cares whether 2012 is the year of the Linux desktop or not. The linux desktop is great: we know that and we use it. Whether everybody else uses it or not is largely irrelevant to us.

    4. GNOME 3 sucks - this is widely established. The good news is that you run Linux, so you have your choice of XFCE, LXDE, Enlightenment, AfterStep, Ratpoison, Fluxbox, etc. Just run whichever window manager you want.

    5. If your MUA won't export to mbox and/or maildir, why are you using it? Question 1 for any data-critical apps is always "How do I get my data out of it?". If an app cannot answer that, don't use it.

    *OK, that one may be slightly contentious, but TBH, I've never (and I mean in since kernel 1.0) heard any convincing argument regarding why anyone should run SUSE over another distro. Counter-arguments happily invited.

    --
    Burns: We're building a casino!
    McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
  20. Not as uncommon as you think by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 1

    "So sure, you can install $PACKAGE yourself, but first you're going to have to track down the three libraries it uses, and the two libraries one of those use, and the three libraries one of those use. (Believe me, I do this a fair bit because I somewhat frequently have need to install things to non-standard locations.)"

    Believe me, I've installed "official" versions of Firefox and Opera in any directory accessible to my non-root user account. They typically come in a tarball of program binaries rather than the usual open source code. A third-party binary tarball or installer intended for GNU/Linux will sensibly include any unusual libraries needed by the program.

    You can visit the MegaGlest RTS project page for an example of a GNU/Linux installer that can be run from a non-root account (http://megaglest.org/download.html). The installer is itself binary that you must bless with the proper executable permissions.

    So Linux binary tarballs and installers aren't as uncommon as you think, at least when it comes to cross-platform projects that have fairly frequent official releases.

    1. Re:Not as uncommon as you think by EvanED · · Score: 1

      So Linux binary tarballs and installers aren't as uncommon as you think, at least when it comes to cross-platform projects that have fairly frequent official releases.

      That may be true... but "cross-platform projects that have fairly frequent official releases" isn't a particularly common thing that I want to install. (And yeah, I'm posting this from a custom-installed Opera. :-)) Excluding 1 Python library, the 10 latest things I've installed like this are: Boost (no 1st-party binary build available that I can see), libdwarf (no binaries available; in addition, common 3rd party builds like the one in Ubuntu's repos are unsuitable), gperftools (RPMs available; don't know if they work), libigraph (no 1st-party binary), git (no 1st-party binary), ghex (no 1st-party binary), libgnomeprint (no 1st-party binary), tree (no 1st-party binary), p7zip (binary release available; I didn't try it), and the Awesome window manager (no 1st-party binary; has several dependencies like libxcb that I also had to build as no 1st-party binaries are available). That's 80% have binary releases only through distros or other places I don't know about.

      In some of them I'm sure I could have used the distro's RPMs -- but not always. In the case of libxcb for example, it's too old. In other cases, programs build to explicitly reference things via hard-coded absolute paths under their --prefix, and so installing them to other locations would fail. (I cannot install Spotify, for instance, for this reason -- it looks for things under /usr explicitly.) And even if a distro RPM would work, that doesn't help with the dependency-resolution problem. Building packages is almost always pretty easy; it's figuring out what other packages to install that gets annoying.

  21. disappointed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Windows and Linux user both, who has almost $2000 worth of games in my Steam account, I'm disappointed that I didn't get into the Steam For Linux beta. :-(

  22. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'll translate this for the Linux-uninclined:

    1. It's your fault for using something that I don't use.

    2. It's your fault for using something I don't like.

    3. It's your fault for caring.

    4. It's your fault for not rolling your own distro.

    5. It's your fault for using something that's broken.

    Typical Linux community response: "It's YOUR fault. STFU and RTFM."

    Typical end-user response "Fuck you, you fat fucking prick. I'm going back to something that actually works and doesn't require being in the elite club of fat-fuck jackoffs with no life and a wad of your own dried and crackly cum splattered across your neckbeard to utilize. Fuck you and die, you fat fucking piece of excremental ass spackle."

  23. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Java is 100% unnecessary for most of the productive tasks for which you will use a computer.

    Exit your cave. Lots of shit unfortunately requires Java. Glad nothing of yours does.

  24. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by mfearby · · Score: 2

    You managed to summarise his points quite well... Not too sure about the last one, though... but it was a funny read :-)

  25. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Opensuse is better maintained than Kubuntu for certain.

    (It is pretty much the only distro with a well maintained and kept current Xen).

    The Linux Desktop sucks it is losing everything that made UNIX good in the first place.
    (Even more annoying is it is forcing the BSD's and Solaris to implement their junk).

    It is a mess like Windows 98 was a mess (And getting slower and more bloated not faster).

    Java is necessary to use the lights out functionality on most servers. (And modern distro's seem to not like making using a serial console easy).

    radeonfb is broken. There is very little hope of the graphics or sound situations ever being fixed for Linux. (You can use jackd and if you are lucky find a version of alsa that works properly and try to maintain it yourself).

    Whereas sound in FreeBSD and Solaris is just great. (Maybe one day there will be a complete driver that works properly and is opensource but I doubt it - r200 was complete and it is now almost totally unusable unless you use Xfree86 ironically.)

    It is easy enough to just build everything for yourself but it getting more and more time consuming due to the options I want not being common hence the code sucks.

    Linux was good whilst it was still just trying to be a good efficient UNIX clone.
    (GNUism's suck and they have made it much more difficult to use stuff anywhere without using gcc. (Or even the superior compilers have to emulate gcc)

  26. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

    I don't generally like to comment in threads like this, but I have to hand it to you for translating the previous commentator's comments to what he actually means.

  27. Re:Gaming via Proxy by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

    Not really bringing gaming to Linux as it's more or less emulated, FGS fix Linux!

    Emulated? You realize that the whole point with making a native Steam-client is exactly that the devs would start releasing native games?

  28. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by bmo · · Score: 1

    >Ubuntu ruined their distro with Unity that I had to hop to another one

    This is silly, because in the Ubuntu repos, there are a couple of dozen window managers and all the standard DEs. And Unity itself is just a Compiz plugin. You can just go into ccsm and turn it off.

    Changing distro because you don't like the default window manager or DE (if you did a dist-upgrade, you'd have kept your own settings) you're doing Linux the wrong way.

    >rest of message

    I dunno man, I've been doing this stuff since 1994, and Ubuntu has been stupidly easy to set up and change around to my liking. Ubuntu doesn't look or act at all like default over here.

    --
    BMO

  29. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since LAN support comes from the kernel, you could have got the LAN support in Debian Squeeze using backports. The backports repository is now an official part of Debian. Unfortunately, it's not completely obvious that this solution is there.

    The reason that Oracle Java is no longer found in the non-free archives is because of a licensing change. It used to be acceptable for Debian and Ubuntu to distribute, but the new license makes distribution illegal.

  30. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've managed to sum-up a large number of the Linux-community responses I've come across in the past 15 years.

  31. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your stupidity is astounding.

  32. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by http · · Score: 1

    Is this another one of those for-sale-low-/.-UID accounts? Sometimes I wish I had weaker memory.

    (a) Only old people used GNOME. XFCE or LXDE for the easy wins, plus openbox, e, or even KDE if you're a glutton for punishment. Plus, others for the asking.
    (b) X has become so good that a configuration file is simply not needed for a single-monitor user. I've only encountered one machine in the past 4 years where X didn't work, and that was for a video card/mobo combination that wouldn't even display console (a pizzabox PowerPC (Damn you, Apple!)).
    (c) Skype can't figure out the mike, yet audacity does, and audacity isn't written specifically for linux. I'd be pinning the blame closer to skype than the libraries.
    (d) Now you're just making shit up. Kaddressbook (Kontact is merely a front-end for a set of programs) imports/exports in CSV, vCard, LDIF, and a couple other formats I've never heard of before looking into this.

    At which point, I give up. I bet you feel validated as a troll because I wasted 30 second researching and a moment or two typing. At least it was a canonical troll, false notions presented in a plausible manner, rather than flamebait, designed to incite emotional reaction.

    --
    If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
    3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
  33. Re:Hey guys... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

    they also don't get the source code to VMWare Player, Adobe Flash Player, or any of a dozen other common linux apps

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  34. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by mfearby · · Score: 1

    I had no idea people cared about the UID of their /. accounts, but I've been here for a very, very, long time. I'm not going to invest the time and energy refuting all of your points, but suffice it to say, I've reached the limits of what tinkering with my OS can teach me. I'm all about "getting things done" now and if I have to read a lengthy HOWTO to achieve something that "just works" somewhere else, sorry, but the "just works" is going to win. I hope that Linux does get to the point where it can claim >= 10% desktop market share, but as long as its as fragmented as it is, that day will never come. Oh, and happy to have wasted your time :-)

  35. You are wrong... by WebCowboy · · Score: 1

    ...about the "year of Linux desktop" never happening because it that has already happened, if you look at things from different perspectives.

    There is a case to be made that this past year, 2012, is the "year of Linux on the desktop" in a sense. When you factor in mobile devices, in this past quarter, Android computing devices shipped in higher numbers than Windows computing devices (NT-kernel based and otherwise) INCLUDING THE TRADITIONAL PC. So, when you set your phone or tablet on a desk at least, Linux has finally triumphed. One thing is for sure--if it isn't the year of the Linux DESKTOP it is certainly the year of Linux PERSONAL COMPUTING.

    Some might say the desktop was conquered by Linux much earlier. When a user sits at a desktop how long is it before that user opens a browser and uses Google to search or Facebook to, well, waste time I guess. Sure, most of those desktops booted into Windows by a large measure, but it was a mere shell--a runtime container for the web app that is Google or Facebook, and both would not be possible without Linux. So at a differnt level, Linux is already master of the desktop.

    Still think that the above arguments are valid, and think that a Linux Desktop is nothing less than a full sized PC on a desk that boots into a Linux OS and hndles the full software stack? Well then maybe that is a cause not worth fighting for. Something is pretty evident here: It would be wrong for Linux advocates to dwell excessively on "the desktop". Though "the desktop" will never disappear completely it is clearly a mature, stagnant segment of the global computing ecosystem that is only going to become less dominant over time. As such, conquering the desktop is not the path to conquering the computing world. It might be important to you, but you are not a normal computer user. Indeed, very few slashdotters are. I am certainly not a normal computer user that is for sure. Your comments very much reveal that"

    I've been using Linux full time for 5 years (since the Windows Vista calamity) and it wasn't until Ubuntu ruined their distro with Unity that I had to hop to another one

    To me it looks like you are a "power user"--comfortable with computers enough but don't cope well with change. My guess is that you were satisfied with WinXP but circumstances forced you onto Vista (your old PC was too outdated to run the more contemporary bloatware, or broke down, etc and you needed a new machine, and they all came with Vista by then). There was definitely a time for many where it was acually easier to obtain and install Linux than get a legal downgrade to XP so you were motivated to go to Ubuntu. Then Ubunti changed (or got "ruined" for you), and so you picked the most conservative one out there--Debian--in an effort to resist change. But you don't have the stomach to use any "unstable" packages to support more recent hardware so you went to the next mode conservative community distro. I do see the pattern here.

    There are distros and desktops out there for you. You could go back to Debian--I would suggest "testing" though (don't be scared of the name--by Debian's standards "testing" is more stable than an LTS release of Ubuntu). I can already tell you would NOT like GNOME 3--even if it was brilliant it is too different from that win95 era design pattern for you--so be sure to use XFCE and you will be right at home. Apart from that Linux Mint is another good OS--and Cinnamon or MATE are old-school enough in their design to work for the "traditionalists" among us. I like them anyways...

    The puzzling thing is that you spout off all these old problems--can't get metworking going, cant get sound going, can't get video going blah blah. These are not the challenged they were 5 years ago, and even 5 years ago they were not such huge problems aside from wireless and bleeding-edge video chipsets. These days it isn't a challenge to find Linux-friendly ha

  36. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by mellyra · · Score: 1

    *OK, that one may be slightly contentious, but TBH, I've never (and I mean in since kernel 1.0) heard any convincing argument regarding why anyone should run SUSE over another distro. Counter-arguments happily invited.

    The best reason to use SUSE (which is also the best reason not to use SUSE) is YaST. It's one of the best configuration tools for new users (iirc only Mandrake/Mandriva had something comparable) but it can lead to horrible breakage if you mix using YaST and manually editing configuration files.

    SUSE also used to provide (imho) the best out of the box KDE desktop experience but with the switch to Gnome they let that strength fall by the side entirely...

    SUSE also came with very decent manuals (a user guide and an administration guide which rivaled many Linux books in size & scope) but the sale of boxed sets has been scrapped with SUSE Linux 11 as far as I remember (at that point Novell decided to adopt the RH model and only to provide an enterprise distribution). In the German language area it also was the distribution for which 3rd party documentation was the most readily available (e.g. Michael Kofler's excellent "Linux" book used to be quite SUSE centric and even included SUSE Linux evaluation versions at times).

    From my point of view SuSE peaked around version 7 where it provided massive advantages over contemporary distributions for non-experts. Today there is very little reason for a home user to use OpenSUSE and SUSE mostly competes with RHEL.

  37. Distros are very helpful to their users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy hell, I hate all this stupid package crap.
    Why do you people have to have your hands held for you by distro-creators?

    Because unlike the stupid Microsoft crap where you are a slave to whatever a company says you can do, Linux allows communities to create their own improvements, and each community does so the way they think best.

    The distro package systems are all infinitely better than going to a thousand individual sites and installing their junk in an ad hoc manner. The packaging systems provide consistency and a certain degree of pre-checking that binary blobs install OK and more or less work, which is a great benefit and reassuring to the distro users.

    The fact that you are objecting and give no coherent reason just shows that you don't understand Linux and its distro communities at all.

    And yeah, I realize I shouldn't be feeding an obvious troll.

  38. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "1. Nobody really uses SUSE anymore."

    Yeah, only 5th place on Distrowatch.
    (openSuse, but that's the one the person you're responding to was talking about)

  39. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, here's the news:

    2. Java is 100% unnecessary for most of the productive tasks for which you will use a computer. Just bin it. If anything you think you want to run requires java, bin that too and just use a non-java equivalent. Java is very useful for mobile phones and old-style web apps, but nothing on the desktop since 2004.

    4. GNOME 3 sucks - this is widely established. The good news is that you run Linux, so you have your choice of XFCE, LXDE, Enlightenment, AfterStep, Ratpoison, Fluxbox, etc. Just run whichever window manager you want.

    Woah. Let's just pick these two points. You have apparently no experience apart from isolated boxes. If you really have productive system you usually don#t have these choices. Most times you will be happy if you get a jar, because the .exe version wont run. You don't get to pick, because the requirements don't allow for a replacement. You don't have a choice of windowmanager. You'll be stuck with kde as corporate policy and maybe with a second one the administrative stuff favors. Un*x is great for networked systems for solitary systems it is overkill. I hope the trend of cutting networking features in favor of desktop stuff stops, because there is the strength of the systems. Don't need a system that is a master of none, but dabbles anywhere.

  40. Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, what's with all of you guys chomping at the bit to bring some of the heaviest DRM out there to Linux?

  41. Re:"the year of the Linux desktop"? Make them stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Absolutely hilarious.

    One thing you forgot is the Cheeto powder encrusted fingers.

  42. ROFL - last major hurdle... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really...because a majority of games STILL will not be playable on Linux without Wine/PlayOnLinux tricks.

  43. Hoping they go the way of the Android by Metricmouse · · Score: 1

    All I need is a game-centric distro (Valvux?) and Adobe to jump in with CS6 for the platform, and I am all set for work and play. I would love for them to eventually render iSores and M$ screensmudgers 8 useless to my demographic.

  44. Better stay out of any distro I use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or I'll be replacing it with a distro which is not so quick to jump on the bandwagon of one of the biggest violators of consumer rights since Apple and Microsoft.

  45. ....ssssshhhhh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop this nonsense. It will scare them!
    Let them set a foothold, later you decide whatever you like binary blobs or not. But just please don't make your worldview ours by force. Don't make them exclude us again.

  46. Who cares about the license? by ALeader71 · · Score: 1

    I want gaming on Linux to work, not be releated to failure because a few pundits get all twisted up over the license. We have not-free drivers and free-as-in-beer software. Even the GPL license has fallen off in popularity over BSD and Apahce licenses. If Valve makes gaming on Linux work AND brings hadrware vendors into the Linux fold, it will be worth it. Free software has its place. Free tools made Linux possible. Free tools enabled Apple's app explosion. If it works, few will care or look at the end user agreement unless it hinders product use.

    Bring it on Valve! More power to ya!

    --
    Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
  47. Cheap LV Shoes,Gucci Shoes,brand handbags sale by dsangdhw · · Score: 0

    Hello!! Fashion,low price,the good shopping places, Cheap wholesale and retail Gucci/Shoes , ( Discount UGG/Boots ) LV Shoes , DG Shoes , BURBERRY Shoes , LACOSTE Shoes , Women Boots , handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g/Gucci) , Sunglasses(Oakey,coach/Gucci,Armaini) , free shipping and quantity discount, Accept credit card and PAYPAL ==== http://www.cbssbase.com/ ==== ==== http://www.cbssbase.com/ ====