Slashdot Mirror
Valve Starts Publishing Packages For Its Own Linux Distribution
An anonymous reader writes "In preparation for the "Steam Box" game console that will make necessary their own Linux-based software platform, Valve developers have started publishing Debian packages for their platform which looks like their first-generation operating system will be derived from Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS. So far the packages being published include a new "Plymouth" boot splash screen as the operating system loads, a Steam desktop wallpaper, auto-updating system scripts, and experimental NVIDIA Linux graphics drivers."
Steam for Linux only formerly supports Ubuntu 12.04 IIRC. So it makes sense they would base their own distro off of that.
It looks like this might finally be the year. With Windows 8 throwing a lot of users away with a bad interface and a marketplace lock-in, The timing is pretty good. A lot of people always claimed that games were the only reason they were still on Windows.
I think you might mean formally...
-- Linux user #369862
Oh, right. Never mind.
Standard OS, standard hardware, standard drivers.
I for one welcome our moneyed overlords. If anyone has the clout to push developers to include Linux drivers with their releases it will be Valve.
a game console that will make necessary their own Linux-based software platform
Just a FYI, but this sounds like it was written by a non-native English speaker. While the grammar is technically correct, a more understandable choice (for native English speakers) would be "a game concole that will require...".
please, whynot a simple (clean) debian base, *buntu is fubar (many people would agree)...
it tries to be everything to everyone, and ends up in a worse overall 'state' than properly setup debian distros (or gentoo for that matter).
Both Deb and gentoo based derivatives I think will have less problems in the long run, with less 'gotchas' /. feedback on this... haven't all real linux users abandoned *buntu since a year or 2 back?
Seriously, I'd like the
Can you explain how this is expressed in the Linux world? I know unsubstantiated claims made to attack Linux are acceptable (unlike every other platform) but I insist that you expand upon this.
1) The hardware is open so that you can (if you wish) put a different Linux distribution on it.
2) If the Steam Box software works on any distribution you so install.
3) The games are protected only by Steam's own DRM and not encumbered by anything more onerous.
4) All games use the controller. The keyboard and mouse can be an option, but it should not be the only option.
I know this makes it nothing more than a nice small form factor PC with a standard spec. I'm happy for it to be exactly that.
also windows drivers and windows wrapped drivers. Linux is hit or miss on laptops.
Also wine is very hit or miss as well.
I never found that older applications were broken under Linux. They usually just required (at worst) for you to install an older version of a shared library, which you can do side-by-side with the current version. Sometimes it was necessary to compile afresh, that was fine though. A good makefile renders this automatic. My Linux knowledge is ancient though. The Kernel still had a major version starting with 2 when I last used it. My knowledge may be outdated or otherwise faulty.
Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
There's probably just one reason left for windows to exist .. Nobody makes games for linux . I just hope finally .. finally .. no more windoze ever ever again ...
FTFY:
I know unsubstantiated claims made to attack Apple are acceptable (unlike every other platform)
As desktop, Linux still sucks
...for you. Which is fine. I love it and use it every day.
Windows have serious security problems, etc etc but it does not break the existing applications on each relevant update and have behavior/interface consistence
There's an argument to made that this has happened in the Windows world a few times, but I digress. Gnome fucked up badly with Gnome 3. We get that. A lot of us still hold a grudge against them for that. That sort of update is in the minority. Most (as in 99.9%) updates I install work without any sort of configuration changes needed, and as an additional nice point, don't require a reboot (usually only kernel updates need a reboot in Linux).
I'm not trying to sell you, I'm just pointing out that what you've heard doesn't mesh with my experience.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Plus all of the Steam stuff will be binary only, and surely x86_64.
When XP was introduced, I switched to windows for the games. I have happily paid for newer versions of Windows since because they are very usable and I don't want to learn linux. Now, there's no good new version of windows to switch to, based on what I'm reading about windows 8. Apparently valve and steam are making gaming on linux easier than ever. I'm at risk of trying it and finding I like it. The real threat to Microsoft may be their own vision with Windows 8.
And how long will it take before people are suing Valve for the updates they'll have made for their distribution?
I find it unlikely they'll be putting a vanilla install of Livelink on it, and I'm skeptical they'd be willing to give back any changes they made.
Which means this is on a collision course with the GPL in all likelihood.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
This could, potentially, be a very big deal. But we need more info:
Price point?
Does it do media?
Can we modify the OS?
Will it come with a decent solution to the "Keyboards from the couch suck" problem?
I have a lot of hope here for Valve, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
I can assure you: that's still how it is. You install the appropriate version of the library - et voilà, it works!
Well, first of all, they're going to derive their distro from Ubuntu. This is sort of like Mint which I, a former Ubuntu user, currently run. I would guess that much of what has frustrated Ubuntu users will be excluded and replaced with custom, in-house frustrations. Secondly, "all real linux users"? I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. A Linux user, by definition, is a person who uses Linux. Ubuntu is a Linux distribution. Therefore, a person who uses Ubuntu is also a Linux user. There is no place for "real" qualifiers to enter this any more than someone can be a "real bachelor" or a "true Scotsman". To count oneself a real Linux user and to deny that to others who happen to use a distro one doesn't like is just self-indulgent.
Looks like Steam are finally building the Indrema.
Most (as in 99.9%) updates I install work without any sort of configuration changes needed, and as an additional nice point, don't require a reboot (usually only kernel updates need a reboot in Linux).
I've never had the kernel go down, but I've been forced to kill the X server quite a few times and early KDE4 made unrecoverable barfs on top of X a few times too. So as a server sure it can have years of uptime, but as a desktop it doesn't really live up to its reputation. That it doesn't go down for planned updates is nice but the unplanned are the worst anyway and the difference between a reboot and and X reset is minimal to a desktop.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Interesting how last month when steam Linux had some gains we had a front page post here trumpeting as much. This month, when Steam Linux saw drops in usage across *every* participating distribution, so such story describing this on the front page. Hmmm.... Meanwhile Windows 8 crossed 10% to become the second most popular gaming platform. Where's the story about that?
If valve start to make a fortune in the venture, or one company can demonstrate that cash can be made, I'm sure (hope) that will start to get better.
Well ... I consider a problem the need of having to rebuild the desktop (if it does work, since usually compiling something big is a hell) to get things back up and running. You do not see the problem because you're used to doing so, but ask the same thing for the average user to see what happens.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
I do not feed trolls, sorry :-)
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
If you can get that to read - "I can assure you: it works!" no matter the user skill level. You're onto a winner.
So you refuse to back up your claims? Good to know.
Try to install a new X server from source, or try to update some relevant library (to be able to use shiny new application with obscure or alpha dependencies), and you will see the problem that I are talking about. The kernel Linux is stable, but the software needed to make the desktop work are incomplete, inconsistent or simply broken.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
For someone else, yes. For you? Nope :-)
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
which looks like their first-generation operating system will be derived from Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS
In theory, this means support for Radeon 2000 through 4000 GPU's if they stick with X.Org 1.12 (AMD refuses to support those GPU's - not all of which can be considered dated in the least - in 12.10/X.org 1.13).
by 'real' I mean people who actually know what a kernel is vs those that don't...
*buntu has been pushed to *ma&pa* status, and thus enjoy a rather large share of new installations... but people who actually have used linux for years know the difference and have left the *buntu derivatives because of the problems, and usually end up on a debian based system, or gentoo, or fedora etc
I know mint is a great distro, but even they are trying to get out from under the *buntu dependencies, hence why they did : http://www.linuxmint.com/download_lmde.php
Well, first of all, they're going to derive their distro from Ubuntu
Which means it's going to be even further from base Debian. Which emphasizes OP's point, wtf is wrong with Debian?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
What use is the platform when there are literally no games to play on it? Team Fortress Two and Half Life - spoilt for choices..
Ok, so you won't back up your point when asked, and when asked you claim "oh you're a troll and I don't feed the troll!"
I suspect this is because you can't do more than come up with a contrived example, and because you don't like my opinions you avoid my request.
Wait, when is a user of Ubuntu, particularly a non-technical user, ever going to do that?
Your arguments are more incomplete, inconsistent, or simply broken than the platform you're trying to attack is.
Autoupdate is really cool:
v+
#!/bin/bash
apt-get update
apt-get upgrade -y
apt-get autoclean
#v-
Check it out, I'm not kidding you...
We'll actually get to see a bit in a year or so, as there are some bigger games coming to Linux. A few Kickstarter titles have pledged Linux support as there were some vocal calls for it from backers.
I think though that Linux users are going to be a little disappointed with the results. The graphics driver situation with regards to hardware OpenGL support is pretty bad in Linux. The only driver that seems to support current features, in hardware, without blowing up is the binary nVidia driver.
So the games may well came to Linux, but only run if you have an nVidia card and if you load the binary driver. That is not likely to please the Linux community at large, but there may be no real other option. It is one thing to do a game with fairly simplistic graphics (rendering wise) that just uses SDL or something, it is quite another to make a game that uses current 3D hardware features.
Now a dedicated set of hardware/software like a defined "Steam Box" could solve that of course... But then that's not really gaming for Linux, that's a videogame console that happens to run Linux.
Is there a distribution that has its own binary format? I ran Linux back in 2003 with Mandrake/KDE, and it seemed fine except it didn't have the ability to download executables off the Internet and run them. With the superior security of Linux, system files can't be modified without a root password typed in by the user. So while Windows can get hosed by running a binary, Linux is basically immune to viruses. I would constantly struggle compiling and installing software enough that it was a big headache. I think if there was a binary format for one or all Linux, then it would be something I would be interested in using again. I also thing the advantages of not being gun shy about downloading random executables from the Internet, would lead me to like Linux even more than Windows.
God spoke to me
Ubuntu makes it easier to use proprietary drivers, and Valve probably rightly assumes that most people that want to play proprietary games through a proprietary DRM-lite storefront will want this. Don't know if that outweighs all the other downsides to Ubuntu but it's something.
by 'real' I mean people who actually know what a kernel is vs those that don't...
This elitist attitude is damaging to Linux. Users who don't know what a kernel is would normally be called a typical user. If anything, people who know what a kernel is aren't "real" users in that they don't represent the vast overwhelming majority of computer users.
1) The hardware is open so that you can (if you wish) put a different Linux distribution on it.
2) If the Steam Box software works on any distribution you so install.
3) The games are protected only by Steam's own DRM and not encumbered by anything more onerous.
4) All games use the controller. The keyboard and mouse can be an option, but it should not be the only option.
I know this makes it nothing more than a nice small form factor PC with a standard spec. I'm happy for it to be exactly that.
1) Why? Most users will see the box as "yet another console", if you need a PC... well... Buy a PC?
2) theoretically possible, but in practice impossible. Few developers have the resources to make the software compatible with the 2^n existing Linux distros, and would be enough one of them to change anything to throw out this work.
3) Possible
4) Well, is a "console" so I think that all games will use joystick by default as on any other console. And yes, it would be useful to have the option to use keyboard and mouse (Gears of War with joystick? ARGH!)
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
How can it be easier than 'apt-get install nvidia-glx'?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Years ago, at the first sign of trouble getting something to install, I would just compile from source to try to fix problems. But now I can't remember the last time I compiled from source on my Linux desktop, outside of code I wrote myself. I have to do it all the time to get some stuff to run on my Mac work laptop, so I guess I am still used to it. That might make it difficult to gauge the difference between compiling a little and compiling a lot to fix problems, but I am pretty sure the amount I have compiled in the last several years has been zero, which is a bit less subjective.
What's especially bad is the time it's taking even the "Valve" games to come to Linux. Platform support isn't very useful without product.
If they'd at least migrated a few more of their own titles (Left 4 Dead 1/2, Half Life 2, etc), it would be more viable. Hell, basically all you can play is the original CS and TF2... not even newer CS:GO.
Try to install a new X server from source, or try to update some relevant library (to be able to use shiny new application with obscure or alpha dependencies), and you will see the problem that I are talking about
Wait, are you complaining about having to compile things when you chose to install something from source? And if an application depends on some library that doesn't have a binary distribution, isn't that the application's fault?
Do you maybe want to name some actual examples? I use my Linux desktop pretty heavily for various work and personal projects, and I haven't had to compile or recompile things from source for some time. And that includes installing quite a bit of alpha software and experimental drivers, etc., in order to test out new features sooner instead of later.
It is possible.
But you will see the same thing happen as when Unreal had a console release capable of using keyboard/mouse. The controller monkeys were crushed. You have no fine granular input with a controller. You have a very limited number of executions with a controller whereas with a kbd/mouse your actions per second are MUCH higher.
This elitist attitude is damaging to Linux.
Define "damaging."
If it means it will prevent mass adoption, sure. If it means that Linux will die, then no - that attitude has been around for decades and it hasn't died yet.
If anything, people who know what a kernel is aren't "real" users in that they don't represent the vast overwhelming majority of computer users.
They represent me though, which is all I really care about. I don't contribute to FOSS so that somebody's grandma can use it. I mean, sure, I'm happy if they can and all, but that isn't really the reason I do it. I contribute to FOSS because I find it useful and would like to make it more useful. That generally means that I'm helping to make it more useful for others like me.
Now, the reason Canonical contributes to Linux is that they want to obtain a commercial return. They're not going to get that return by catering to users who are already catered to by Linux. Their target is the grandma most of the established Linux crowd doesn't care about. Their efforts to make Ubuntu more widely accepted are likely to lose their existing user base. From their standpoint it doesn't matter - if they lose a few thousand users to gain millions it is a good commercial trade. However, this is why they get so many complaints on forums like this one.
So, do I want to see Linux succeed? Well, that's a trick question, because as far as I'm concerned it already has.
Oh, and we're using Linux in the context of the traditional Linux distro. If you're talking about Linux the kernel, well, it already is adopted. Chances are it is running on your DVR, car entertainment system, phone, etc already.
Why do you believe this will become the standard? It doesn't even support working with two applications side by side where you end up dragging a laptop over if you want to work on an app and see it running at the same time.
Which means it's going to be even further from base Debian. Which emphasizes OP's point, wtf is wrong with Debian?
Debian Stable is over two years old at the moment and tends to be outdated even when it is brand new.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
have left the *buntu derivatives because of the problems, and usually end up on a debian based system, or gentoo, or fedora etc
Or some of us go tired of the gentoo way of doing things, and while learning a lot back then, moved on to using the computer to do other things. I've been on xubunutu for a while now, and have not seen any need to change it. Maybe back when I was younger I would have switched distros on the drop of a dime to try things out, but I don't really see the point at the moment if it is not going to actually increase the usability of my computer. You make it sound like more experienced users change distros a lot, when in my experience, the older advanced users get, the less they care about screwing around and the more they care about getting things done. And I think I have some idea what a kernel is, considering I've done development on RT kernels for embedded devices before...
How come something like ksplice hasn't gone mainstream to solve that last problem?
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Seriously?
Have you used Linux since 1995?
No...really.
Package/dependency management has been around for well over a decade now and takes care of *all* but the worst "not ready for prime time" applications/functionality still in development.
"install a new X server from source"
You're kidding, right? Who in their right minds would even attempt such a thing on a modern distribution of Linux? Are you high??
I don't think he's trying to attack it, rather he's explaining the shortcomings. For the most part I agree - the thing I hate the most about using linux is the entire X infrastructure. Everything else about linux is done beautifully.
Most of what I do therefore is at the command line. When I make changes to my servers, I almost never do anything involving X, even if doing so would be more efficient.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
...and as an additional nice point, don't require a reboot (usually only kernel updates need a reboot in Linux)
Eh, my informal impression from being a partially-Ubuntu user for a bit now is that, at least with Ubuntu, reboot-requiring updates actually come about as often (maybe even a little more often) than they do on Windows. I tried tracking this for a little bit of time but for a couple reasons I wasn't diligent enough about checking for updates, and reboot-required updates come by infrequently enough that it'd take a few months of observation to get a decent answer.
Other distros of course don't require updates nearly as often, but (1) as Ubuntu is probably the most popular distro especially for non-technical and first-time users, that's what most of them are going to see, and (2) it would make me wonder, if I was using another distro, whether I should be updating anyway even though the distro wasn't pushing it.
Steam for Linux is x86 (32 bit) - probably mostly because the Ubuntu download page still recommends that people download and install the 32-bit version.
And to be fair, it's still a good choice - the kernel has PAE support built in by default, so you can address all your RAM even if you have > 4GB. And most people don't have a need to run a single process that addresses more than 4GB of space - even modern games.
It's not the BEST choice, because the 64-bit instruction set probably improves some high-performance programs (like modern games). But most of the games I see on Windows are 32-bit executables anyway, presumably because the developer or publisher doesn't want to invest in multi-platform quality control for the sake of the small number of customers who would benefit.
Being that you're a Mint user, anything to say about that Firefox extension?
You know, "Mint Search Enhancer." The one that you can't remove without also removing the meta packages for your desktop as well, that "Mint Search Enhancer." Nowhere is that behaviour announced, nowhere on the Mint website or the forums is it discussed except for people to point out that it's there. Call the Dash lens fiasco spyware if you like, at least Canonical are up front about it and give you an off switch.
Funny how everybody who gushes over Mint never seems to have an answer for that one. Not even the people behind the project.
It's so much easier to install Windows or MacOS from source.
I want this account deleted.
Probably because it's a lot of work to maintain the underlying $ervice$.
I want this account deleted.
So as a server sure it can have years of uptime, but as a desktop it doesn't really live up to its reputation.
I can't remember the last time my Linux desktop or laptop crashed or had any sort of instability of any kind. And I use Gentoo with a mix of stable and unstable packages on the desktop and Arch on the laptop (so this is modern software - it's not like I'm talking about Debian Stable here).
What I do do, however, is a little bit of research before buying my components or laptop. No, I don't expect grandma to know which kernel drivers are the most stable and well supported, but I'm personally just not very concerned with Linux for the layman. Others are interested in evangelizing, and that's fine, but I'm just happy to have rock-solid servers and solid, easy-to-use (to me) desktop.
Linux on the desktop, specifically, yes. In an embedded fashion it's already ubiquitous. I would bet that almost everybody has at least one Linux device in their home/possession whether they know it or not. For example, the ADSL/VDSL/FTTH modems that Bell Canada hands out to all their customers runs Linux.
Well, for one, I have to open that so called Terminal thingy, which is black and not clear at all about how it should be used. You can write commands, but I don't want to learn those by heart... and I can't see where it offers a list of the possible commands with an explanation on-hover, which would be the very least I've come to expect from my computer. So I don't want to use that scary thing, and especially not your command, which I don't know what it does but requires my password.
And why would I have to type that much anyway?
Cheers.
I'm running a custom kernel on my netbook because the integrated graphics on the shitty motherboard wasn't supported by the version in the then contemporary version of Ubuntu (or Mint, or a couple of other distros I was looking at). I know what a kernel is. I still run Ubuntu. I will probably switch my personal machines over to Mint next time I decide I want a change, but most of the time Ubuntu just works and the forums are useful and friendly. Probably because they aren't populated by people who don't consider someone who doesn't know what a kernel is a 'real' user.
Ksplice is mostly of use (almost exclusively of use) in mission critical environments where the downtime to reboot into a fixed kernel alone is unacceptable. It also only covers the kernel, and not anything else.
How can it be easier than 'apt-get install nvidia-glx'?
A preinstalled driver, where you don't have to type in *anything*.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
Ubuntu was probably downloading new kernels. Kernel development proceeds at a fairly fast pace, but a lot of times it's not strictly necessary to update them. I haven't used Ubuntu in a while but if it's like it was when I was using it, another advantage is that you're never *forced* to reboot after a set amount of time as you are by default in Windows. (Yes, I know this can be configured away with registry editing and whatnot, but it's not the default or even easy.)
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Seriously, why is the spell correction +5 while the comment that was actually informative is just +3? I don't usually comment on the moderation system but that's just backwards.
Try to install a new X server from source
Who really installs X from source? I mean, Gentoo users, but they're used to it and it's handled by a central package and dependency management system, so it's very unlikely that the build will break. Everybody else (the vast majority) uses binary packages.
or try to update some relevant library (to be able to use shiny new application with obscure or alpha dependencies)
Libraries that get into the standard Debian / Ubuntu repos have been tested and retested. They're not "alpha". If you choose to install an alpha / beta / untested library, you get what you requested, which is potentially unstable code. This is not any different from other architectures like Windows or OS X.
The kernel Linux is stable, but the software needed to make the desktop work are incomplete, inconsistent or simply broken.
I am posting this from a stable Linux desktop system that sees daily use and has for more than a year. Ergo, you are wrong. QED.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
How come something like ksplice hasn't gone mainstream to solve that last problem?
A bunch of legalities centering around Red Hat's control of the platform. Essentially, Ksplice isn't really free.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Go fuck yourself nigger.
Ubuntu was probably downloading new kernels.
It was, and that's my guess as well. However, I don't know this for sure... for instance, I can imagine that they'd take a conservative approach and update if there was some X or Unity update as well, and there's not an indication in the update list as to which particular updates require a reboot. Heck, I think it doesn't even tell you in aggregate ("installing the selected updates will require a reboot") until after it's done. (In 12.10 it doesn't even show you the list of updates by default!) So I'm basically in the same situation as in Windows: do the update, then if it says "reboot", try to do it ASAP in case not doing so could cause something to go haywire.
(Is it likely to go haywire? No. Could it? Yes, theoretically. Not having audited the code for everything being updated, I can't say for certain.)
(Yes, I know this can be configured away with registry editing and whatnot, but it's not the default or even easy.)
If you just want to do it on a per-update basis, there's no registry editing necessary; you just have to stop the Windows Update service. Heck, you can probably do it with a net stop command from the command line.
But yes, even though I would characterize it as "small", it's a benefit nonetheless.
Package/dependency management has been around for well over a decade now and takes care of *all* but the worst "not ready for prime time" applications/functionality still in development.
Yep, but still do not work so well in many cases. f you do not believe me, try removing some packages that apparently are not needed as I did, and have the package system asking if I want to remove half the desktop together.
You're kidding, right? Who in their right minds would even attempt such a thing on a modern distribution of Linux? Are you high??
No, I'm just following the Linux spirit "solve the problem yourself" when you can not find a ready-made solution. Funny you think tha is madness the one thing that is usually the only thing to be done.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
However, I don't know this for sure... for instance, I can imagine that they'd take a conservative approach and update if there was some X or Unity update as well
That should have said "and reboot if there was some X or unity update".
I am posting this from a stable Linux desktop system that sees daily use and has for more than a year. Ergo, you are wrong. QED.
"If it works for me then have to work for everyone"... It is this way of thinking that makes the desktop linux the problem it is today. My desktop - today - is reasonably stable but I had to spend weeks researching to get it. Now put a normal user (the average Joe) having to do the same thing, and you will understand why only 5% of desktops use Linux.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Debian stable is too old and testing changes far too often for something like this. It's 2013 and Debian still doesn't compile packages with stack protection and PIE and they don't use app armor or selinux by default. Ubuntu also patches things like freetype and cairo to provide better font rendering. Debian would just be more work for absolutely no gain.
Looks like I hurt the dogmas of some fanatics :-)
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Oh .. I hurt your fragile feelings? I ask a thousand excuses, seriously! :-))
PS: No, I am a Slackware user (from 1999 to today), and now Linux Mint user too. Try again, is funny
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Is it likely to go haywire?
Very much no. I don't remember the last time I came across non-kernel software that required a reboot immediately to work. Obviously, new drivers and whatnot will not work until you reboot, but the old versions will remain in memory and in-use until you do if they can't be used immediately.
Heck, I think it doesn't even tell you in aggregate ("installing the selected updates will require a reboot") until after it's done.
I'm not sure of this but the last time I remember using Ubuntu, I believe it did tell you on the update list prior to installation. I could be wrong.
you just have to stop the Windows Update service
That's kind of a sledgehammer-to-kill-an-ant approach. It's indicative of what I perceived as a larger problem; I often found that Windows was an adversary with things like this, where you had to work around it to get it to do what you want. Linux typically works with you.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
"If it works for me then have to work for everyone"... It is this way of thinking that makes the desktop linux the problem it is today.
Nowhere have I indicated this. Your claim was the following: "The kernel Linux is stable, but the software needed to make the desktop work are incomplete, inconsistent or simply broken." One working instance is a rebuttal of that claim (notwithstanding the fact that I have used many different distros on a wide variety of hardware). Furthermore, I know for a fact that the default Ubuntu install works fine with few changes. It may not be what you personally would like, and it may not have the latest software, but that's the trade-off they make for stability.
My desktop - today - is reasonably stable but I had to spend weeks researching to get it. Now put a normal user (the average Joe) having to do the same thing, and you will understand why only 5% of desktops use Linux.
I installed Ubuntu on my very much tech-phobic uncle's computer, dual-booted to his existing Windows installation. I have not had to fix anything on the Ubuntu side in over two years. If your next claim is that it's only that way because I installed it, I would ask whether your theoretical user installed Windows from scratch on their system. My thinking would be no. If they can install Windows, they're not an average user, and with current install processes for modern Linux distributions, they could certainly install Linux.
If you're going to argue about an installed Linux vs. a preinstalled Windows system, complete with drivers, you're arguing an apples-to-oranges comparison. Find a desktop system with preinstalled Linux (they do exist, despite Microsoft's stranglehold on the OEM market). My guess is that such a system would be far more stable than an equivalent Windows system.
I'm starting to think some of you guys are astroturfing here, but whatever, I'm open to debate.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
"I am posting this from a stable Linux desktop system that sees daily use and has for more than a year. Ergo, you are wrong. QED."
Here for you. One working system in thousands is not "works for everyone", is "works for me", then my said. And maybe I missed the important part: The "working" part is not "I can get video and a wallpaper", is "desktop working good or better than the market leader". Examples? ctrl+c/ctrl+v, never worked well here, in 14 years (works in some applications, have strange behavior in anothers, or are broken).
Another one? behavior/appearance. In appearance/behavior QT applications are good, GNOME applications more or less, each application look different and they should have the same appearance and behavior in their common functions. Try pgAdmin3? He uses another GUI toolkit, and a bizarre one (and full of bugs), if you try another one he uses GTK1 (and have a grotesque appearance). See now what are the problems?
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
Actually I'm not used to doing so. I've not been a regular user of Linux for quite some time. You're still correct to say that I don't see it as a problem, while some people might. Those people might well be under a misapprehension about how hard the process actually is though.
Very much no. I don't remember the last time I came across non-kernel software that required a reboot immediately to work. Obviously, new drivers and whatnot will not work until you reboot, but the old versions will remain in memory and in-use until you do if they can't be used immediately.
I'm not really worried about whether I'll get the new version; that's fine. What I'm worried about is that some file Foo which is not being used at the time of the update will be changed, and then after the update the old version of the program which is still running will go and open Foo, and because of a version mismatch, bad things will happen.
Is it likely to happen? No. Is it theoretically possible it could? Absolutely.
(And for the record, I've also run Windows for some time after completing an update without restarting, and haven't really hit any problems because of it as far as I know. So Windows and Linux in that scenario are really not all that different.)
I'm not sure of this but the last time I remember using Ubuntu, I believe it did tell you on the update list prior to installation. I could be wrong.
Well, I could be wrong too. :-) I did try it before posting, but the current batch of things I needed didn't require an update so it wasn't a good test. I'll keep an eye out.
Ah, you're missing KDE?! KDE alienated a lot of people too, and in approximately the same timeframe as the Gnome issue. In short the 2 major desktop interfaces browned off a lot of Linux users. Nor were these problems of the "oops, we needed 2 more weeks of QA before we released" variety.
I know that no distro was forced to adopt. They did, it happened, and the community reacted negatively.
And we haven't even gotten to the Unity discussion yet.
A lot of the Gnome mistakes happened during brief window Novell had a lot of influence on Gnome development at the time Novell was trying to kiss up to Microsoft. Novell got bought out since then and SUSE is running it own ship again.
Wrong
Anyone who runs debian or any of its bastard child are retards, not Linux users.
Debian, *buntu, mint, etc all suck donkey balls.
I agree.
If I wanted to run a "stable" distro, I would just grab an opensuse version from 2007 or so, which is about on par with a "modern" debian distro.
To the fucktards working on debian, stable mean old, not actually stable.
"install a new X server from source"
You're kidding, right? Who in their right minds would even attempt such a thing on a modern distribution of Linux? Are you high??
Anyone using Gentoo, for a start.
Why would that be the case today? A lot of newer implementations are being virtualized, so you could simply clone the guest, patch the clone, and do a live swap at layer 2 once the patched server has booted. That also mitigates the chance that the patch breaks something, in which case you simply put the unlatched system back in place.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
this is FUD!
No one in current times, unless its a developer or a gentoo user, will compile X from source
Only a windows user would think that mixing libraries is a good idea to put a program to work, its the fastest way to break a system. Only advanced and knowledge users should try it and only for a very good reason (like trying to support a closed source app... if you have the source, its probably easier and safer to recompile)
Every distro have some form of beta, latest, unstable, -current, etc version, where you have even more update apps if you want. many have external repositories and ftp servers where you can get updated versions, compiled for your system... so even if someone wants a newer version of something, all it needs to know is to use google and read.
lastly there are software that needs to be fine tuned, but no OS is perfect. Windows require huge amount of extra software to be useful and is lacking in many places, MacOSX break many things, lacks others and is not as flexible, linux have incomplete features in some places. Now all depends what you need, what you use, need or not need. The good new is that linux advance faster than the other OS, so one problem for one user last year might have disappeared already today.
Higuita
"custom, in-house frustrations" is well put.
FUD? Not so fast.
First, I thought that part of linux philosophy was the ability to be able to compile the program from source code. When was it changed and no one warned me? Usually the package works, the problem is when it does not work (yep, happens) or the packaged version is too old and my last resort is compile myself.
Second, your distro maybe do not have repositories (hello, Slackware user here) or the packages are the wrong version or more common, incompatible for some obscure reason (i cannot install application "X" because the packaging system refuses to install the "Y" libs, even "Y" libs can be installed side by side with the current "Z" lib).
At last, the problem is not exactly the OS (ie, the kernel), but the desktop, the application set (and interaction with the OS) that makes it work. As I wrote in another comment, today - since before 2000 - the copy / paste still does not work consistently across desktop applications, is a "hit-and-miss" game where some applications works well, some have strange behavior and another one simply have exclusive (and bizarre) ideas about what a "copy/paste" means.
In short, it's like I was in fact running multiple, distinct and mutually incompatible desktops simultaneously on the same monitor.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
As desktop, Linux still sucks
Well, I've been using it since 1996, and at that time it was better than this Windows 95 (Or MacOS 8 or OS/2).
Windows have serious security problems, etc etc but it does not break the existing applications on each relevant update
It does not? Well, my experience is somewhat limited to wine, but as far as I can see, those pesky needed add-ons like DirectX, PhysX, and especially .NET or GFWL break applications all the time. I've got a lot of broken Windows applications (which worked at some point) due to some add-on library update by another application.
And in my experience, Linux breaks a lot less upon upgrades. Not the least because it has a package management.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
I actually think Steam would have done better making PC-BSD the basis for their platform. It's a lot more stable and less likely to change over time.
Also, I was curious as to why they had to come up w/ their own Linux distro, instead of make a game platform that would be available in .rpm, .deb, .pac and so on? That way, they can install on anything and be available for most of the Linux user base.
He's a time traveller, you insensitive clod!
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Not to mention that Gnome or Unity (two different things IMHO) aren't the only desktops out there. Most distros include other desktops or tutorials are readily available.
Windows works like an old donkey, dragging its feet and complaining, right out of the box. But there is no way to fix it or ensure against the registry slowdown.
Linux will in some cases require editing a few settings in a .conf (text) file once, and adding restricted/proprietaty stuff once, but usually just works right out of the box. And there's always a way to fix it when you've screwed up.
I call BS on GP. You're just too lazy to learn something different.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
yes, FUD ! trying to show the worst case possible as a normal, everyday thing is FUD.
1- you CAN compile anything... but that doesn't mean that anyone must do it. Again, only people that really want to do it (developers and gentoo users) will ever do it. Most ubuntu users dont even know what compile is and they use a linux system just fine.
2- a) i'm a slackware user since 1995 and slackware DO have repositories! You have the main ftp for distro packages, you have alienbob packages, you have the slacky repository, rlworkman repository, linuxpackages.net and finally, the slackbuilds repository, where you have build scripts for many softwares (but yes, you can still compile manually if you like!)
b) if you have a package that need a different lib version that you are using, then you are doing it wrong! binary packages are build for one distro/version, should be used on that distro/version. Trying to mix distros or version packages is a great way to have a broken system. Please note that i'm not saying that it doesn't work, most of the time it works fine, but one should ALWAYS prefer distro+correct version packages, and if not available, a source compiled. The above repositories for slackware have many programs compiled for the correct slackaware versions and if not, have the slackbuild ready to quickly compile things.
Downloading a random binary from the internet and trying to use it on a random distro is the "windows way", not the "linux way".
ps: if you are talking about gnome, forget it, that is a dependency hell... on slackware you need to use a gnome repository (like GSB or dropline) to have matching libs. For other distros its the same thing... binary packages build for set of libraries. NO MIXING... if you mix versions, its a user problem, not distro nor linux problem
3- Linux have 2 "clipboards", that work in different ways... if you dont understand then, its better to install some clipboard management, like klipper, glipper, parcellite, etc and enable the clipboards sync. It will make copy&paste more useful and consistent, specially for windows users. If you are talking about feel and use consistency, try to use the same platform for all apps (kde, gnome, xfce, etc), but as linux have more GUI libraries and no central management, the GUI is more fragment than on windows and mac... but those systems also have different GUI frameworks and so, the exact same problem . For some people that is a problem, for others is a good (promotes competition)
Higuita
those are good points... users who want that level, could they use debian unstable? (aka sid)
I know a few distro's that go with that as a base, and tend to have those newer features, but its been a while since I've reviewed them
There's no such thing as Unity. I have retconned it from my universe. LALALALALA
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
How can it be easier than 'apt-get install nvidia-glx'?
The driver that comes with nvidia-glx in debian stable is over a year and a half old. In order to play a game I downloaded from humble bundle that required a more recent version I had to update it manually. Then I had to convince debian that the driver update I made manually would not break anything. The latter step eventually broke my system and I had to fix it. It took weeks for me to figure out all the repercussions of what I had done. I probably haven't gotten them all even now.
Now for sure, I didn't know what I was doing and I'm sure I didn't do things the right way. But I still don't understand how the debian way of doing it (as opposed to the nvidia way) actually works -- I tried to understand it for a while. More importantly, this is a comment on general usability, not on my own incompetence.
Steam works perfectly on 12.10 as well as Fedora. The biggest reason for 12.04 is likely because it will be supported longer than 12.10.
Since when is having elementary computer knowledge "elitist".
Learning what a kernel is and does is not exactly difficult.
It must fucking suck to live in your world where knowledge is difficult to attain, and only the elite do so.
Captcha redeck - how fitting since your attitude fits those redneck teabagging retards
Steam for Linux only formerly supports Ubuntu 12.04 IIRC. So it makes sense they would base their own distro off of that.
Seeming Ubuntu is based on Debian im sure its safe to say Valve will be using debian as a basis seeming its the granddaddy of all distros.