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.
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.
A game "concole"?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
How can it be easier than 'apt-get install nvidia-glx'?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
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.
"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
He's a time traveller, you insensitive clod!
Defining Statistics and Social Research