Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds: SteamOS Will 'Really Help' Linux On the Desktop
nk497 writes "Linus Torvalds has welcomed the arrival of Valve's Linux-based platform, SteamOS, and said it could boost Linux on desktops. The Linux creator praised Valve's 'vision' and suggested its momentum would force other manufacturers to take Linux seriously — especially if game developers start to ditch Windows. Should SteamOS gain traction among gamers and developers, that could force more hardware manufacturers to extend driver support beyond Windows. That's a sore point for Torvalds, who slammed Nvidia last year for failing to support open-source driver development for its graphics chips. Now that SteamOS is on the way, Nvidia has opened up to the Linux community, something Torvalds predicts is a sign of things to come. 'I'm not just saying it'll help us get traction with the graphics guys,' he said. 'It'll also force different distributors to realize if this is how Steam is going, they need to do the same thing because they can't afford to be different in this respect. They want people to play games on their platform too.'"
Well, the folks who only play games on Windows might. Or they might dual boot, and use Steam on Linux. And a lot of people cite the absence of Triple-A games on Linux as being the big thing stopping them from migrating.
Certainly, it isn't going to hurt anything :)
Seems to me that Steam is already an "app store". Distributing non game software through it shouldn't be a problem, really.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Why not? Increasingly games are using standard APIs and getting multi-platform releases. They're not tied to an OS anymore. A Windows license is a huge, unnecessary expense for PC gamers. Gamers worship hardware and entertainment software, not operating systems. They're going to go with whatever has support for the hardware they have and the games they want to play. With Valve pushing Linux and GPU makers joining them, all the pieces are in place to dethrone Windows or at the very least drum up some competition.
Drivers are probably about the biggest problem that Linux has right now. It's the main reason I'm not using it on my laptop. Last I tried, about 6 months ago (2 year old laptop), I could not get accelerated graphics working on the desktop. It still looked good enough, even without accelerated graphics but I suspect this also had the other disadvantage of greatly lowering my battery life, by running everything in software. Battery life was about half of what it was on windows. Also, because there was no accelerated graphics, I couldn't play any games. Well, that and Netflix. I don't understand why I can run Netflix on Android, but I can't run it on Linux. Personally, I don't even want to run in a browser. I'd actually rather run it as a separate application. And they can make it closed source for all I care.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
There is netflix for linux.....it just matters who is willing to pay the licensing fee.... the WDTV Live+ is a linux device and supports netflix...western digital was willing to pay the licensing fee....your major distros however probably arent willing to bear that cost.....
The point is that he's either not thought to it properly, or he has, but doesn't care about the consequences. I tend to believe it's the latter - he thinks that software developers should take a hit, except for himself.
Essentially, he insists that people to whom software is distributed - whether sold or gifted - should have the 'right' to 'help their neighbor' by giving away the software, if asked. That provision alone guarantees that any price tag put on the software is meaningless, since it's only the software developer's users who'd then be paying for it, while everyone else who gets it from those users and below would get it for much less. In short, it dilutes the market for the software developer, and limits what they can recoup in development & operating expenses.
I've argued here that a shared source model, as opposed to an open source model, is a better idea. Under this, a user/customer gets the source code when they buy/receive software, and they have the rights to modify it, study it, install it on any number of their own boxes. Only right they don't have is redistribute it. This is a win-win scenario for both the software developer and customer. Customer gets all the advantages of open source - getting the source code, keeping it as long as their systems last, porting it to any great new systems they might buy in future, spread it over additional iron that they buy. Vendor avoids the one major disadvantage - of their customer redistributing it and thereby reducing their potential customer base.
Not a model that Stallman or the 'libre' crowd support, but that's the only one that protects the interests of both parties involved in the software business
There are hundreds of thousands of developers world wide following the "Stallman method" as you call it. We call ourselves contract programmers, or "solutions architects" if were hawking our wares bizniz types. We get paid for our time and skill, not per copy of the code. The client gets to (0) run the software for whatever purpose they chose; (1) inspect the code to verify it works the way they want and modify it to suit their needs (practically, they hire another guy to do code review, QA, modifications etc) (2) distribute copies to all their staff without onerous licensing agreements, and if they really want to give a copy of the software to others; they're a business so they won't, but they are free to do so, and finally (3) distribute modified copies of the code. The majority of software written in the world (measured by lines of code) supposedly falls into this category of development. Off-the shelf, or in the modern world, off the internet software accounts for a surprisingly small percentage of software in the real world; most developers don't work for micro-gapple sized companies.
Yeah and just as some say GIMP doesn't compare to Photoshop, Paint.NET doesn't compare to GIMP, which is a lot more than a photo editor. For instance, I draw with the GIMP on a Wacom tablet. Paint.NET, which doesn't have pressure sensitivity, is useless for me.
As for painful to use, well, that's just like, your opinion, man. Me and the GIMP get along just fine.
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!