Google for info on why steambox might not succeed for a plethora of reasons about why its failure is significantly more likely than its success.
Just because it might be theoretically possible for Valve to break all the odds and become a smash hit console device doesn't mean that, at least at this juncture, it's a particularly realistic thing to be projecting as a probable outcome.
What I'm seeing is the largest store front of games looking like it's about ready to commit commercial suicide, unless they don't lock themselves into just making Linux titles... but without exclusive content, there won't be anything to drive sales of the unit, so the money they spent there will be wasted.
And what I'm seeing is people who think otherwise confusing what they are hoping for with what is realistically the most likely outcome.
...: free, unencumbered by licensing issues, no Microsoft vendor lock in, and source code is open...
None of which matter to anyone but people who are already fans of Linux.
What's currently missing is a solid distro
What's missing is the market... which is created by the apps, which in urn is drawn by the user-base, and yes, I'm fully aware this is an inescapable catch 22.
Windows got around that catch-22 by initially being a DOS add-on that still ran practically all DOS games, and by offering what it contended was a superior interface, slowly but surely, more and more people would adopt it. As this happened, the necessity for application writers to write DOS games diminished, which, in turn lessened the necessity for backwards compatibility and so on until you get to where we are today.
What I meant was that Windows has nothing to do with it, specifically. I mean that people already own PC's that are just going to play exactly the same games that steambox is going to.
Or do you think that devs for this platform are going to lock themselves into it? How is that any worse than being locked to a commercial OS such as Windows or MacOSX? At least those have a historically proven track record of having some commercially successful games for them.
If you can even name one popular game that owes any part of its commercial success to the fact it was ported to Linux, then I'll certainly be prepared to admit that my judgement in this matter is premature. If not... well, I'm just calling it as I see it.
I know quite a few people in the games industry actually... about 15 or 20. And other than the ones who already happen to really like Linux (and therefore might have some cause to wishfully hope that this takes off), all of them think that this venture on Valve's part is nothing less than ridiculous.
And bear in mind that this device *WILL* need exclusive content to drive its sales... so that means that the developers it gets will have to *NOT* write the same games for Windows.
So... how many other companies has Valve contracted to develop games exclusive for this device ? How many of them are large game studios?
Understand that I would love absolutely nothing more than to be proved completely and utterly wrong I've been using Linux for 20+ years now, and it's been my only desktop OS for over half of that time.
And I get that everyone else who loves Linux might just be aching to prove me wrong... but in the end, the numbers are what's going to do it... not you trying to convince me here.
I have absolutely nothing personally invested in seeing steambox fail, but I've got quite a few friends on the video game industry, and based on their input, I really can't see this thing becoming successful. Certainly nobody else that I know other than people who already have a passion for Linux in some way seem to think that this has anything but even the slightest chance of succeeding... and it's my own assessment that such belief is only wishful thinking.
Do you honestly believe that Valve, singlehandedly, is capable of producing enough content on their own exclusively for their device (because if they also make it for windows, then people won't generally bother getting the console because it is traditionally exclusive content that moves consoles), that people would bother to get one?
And what incentive will other game studios have to make games for this console that is running an OS that's been around for 20 years, and not once gotten to even 2% of the end-user consumer computer use outside of the server market?
If Linux had any chance of being successful in the home, on a general purpose PC, wouldn't it have, by now?
They would bother because the only thing that's currently holding them back from using linux/Mac OS is having their games available.
Uh... no.
The average home user doesn't give a damn about OS wars.
They just want a machine that will play their games.
They already have a windows box. There's no incentive to go out and buy another box that plays all of the same games when they could just go and buy another windows PC for about the same amount of money.
You may not be alone... but do you seriously think that there are actually enough people like you to make this a successful venture?
Can you justify this belief against the existing demographics which have Linux with an almost vanishingly small percentage of home desktop users? I'm not saying they aren't out there... just suggesting that their numbers probably aren't sufficient to bring about any real commercial success in the home user mass-market
But I really can't see this being a successful venture.
I'm not trying to troll, just calling it as I see it.
Why would people bother with this when they can just play practically all of (if not actually all of) the same games on the windows PC that they already have?
Their Linux console certainly isn't priced any more economically than a PC, so I'm not sure I see the advantgage as far as the end-user is concerned.
It's not that it's impossible to write nonportable java, it's just that what's interesting about Java, particularly when you compare it to C or C++, is that you get that portability with practically zero extra effort.
Java is not unique in this regard... although to the best of my knowledge, most of the other languages that achieve the goal are script-based.
To be fair here, the submitter may only be guilty of reporting something that they were hearing was already true from another source that is presumably trustworthy.
I'd read about this happening earlier this morning... several hours before I saw it on slashdot.
It may be that the article is BS, but I wouldn't suggest that it appeared here only because of MS-hate.
I'm curious how practical this advice is in the face of the following facts:
Lawyers cost money.
money
This person was a student, and therefore probably practically broke, beyond having enough to eat and keep a roof over his head.
Legal aid for people in financial need has a waiting list that is weeks if not months long.
Borrowing money, even to hire yourself a lawyer, is often unviable for young Canadians, who may not have the credit rating to qualify for anything yet.
Well, as I no longer have the machine, I can't look inside to make sure. I do remember what it looked like on the outside very vividly however (being my first computer of my very own), as well as the startup page (because it was different from what I was used to at school).. Also, this was before the//c came out (I don't remember exactly how much time went by before the//c, but it wasn't long.... probably less than a year).
And yeah... pedantry. Still, a fun trip down memory lane.
Well, I had a revision B motherboard (something I specifically requested, because of certain features I wanted to experiment with), and the extended 80 column adapter, which expanded my system memory to 128k (bank switched, since only 64k was addressable), but the CPU in my system was definitely not a 65c02.
My system also did not have the MouseText characters that came out with the//c, so by the link you are referring to above, I had an unenhanced Apple//e. Nonethless, both the logo on the case and the startup logo said//e, not ][e.
This website refers to a model that was discontinued in 1985, and is right beside an image that looks exactly like the model that I had. Note that it has the//e logo on the case cover. It's entirely possible that it was called the ][e for a very short time after launch, but I had never seen it... and I was practically living in a computer store near my place at the time, when I was preparing to get my own system.
While admittedly this could reasonably qualify as news for nerds, the exploits that are being discovered in Java these days are happening with such rapidity now that it truly seems like a complete waste of time and effort to report them all individually. They are so frequent now as to border on spam.
The logo on it still said "Apple//e". This is what the one I owned looked like, and that was in 1984. The link you refer to says that the ][e was renamed to the//e when the//c came out, but the//c did not come out until 1985.
I also remember the splash startup logo on my//e saying "Apple//e" at the top of the screen, which differed distinctly from "APPLE ][+", which I had been used to seeing previously at school.
Slashdot Mirror
Google for info on why steambox might not succeed for a plethora of reasons about why its failure is significantly more likely than its success.
Just because it might be theoretically possible for Valve to break all the odds and become a smash hit console device doesn't mean that, at least at this juncture, it's a particularly realistic thing to be projecting as a probable outcome.
Name a console that didn't get its start with exclusive content.
What I'm seeing is the largest store front of games looking like it's about ready to commit commercial suicide, unless they don't lock themselves into just making Linux titles... but without exclusive content, there won't be anything to drive sales of the unit, so the money they spent there will be wasted.
And what I'm seeing is people who think otherwise confusing what they are hoping for with what is realistically the most likely outcome.
None of which matter to anyone but people who are already fans of Linux.
What's missing is the market... which is created by the apps, which in urn is drawn by the user-base, and yes, I'm fully aware this is an inescapable catch 22.
Windows got around that catch-22 by initially being a DOS add-on that still ran practically all DOS games, and by offering what it contended was a superior interface, slowly but surely, more and more people would adopt it. As this happened, the necessity for application writers to write DOS games diminished, which, in turn lessened the necessity for backwards compatibility and so on until you get to where we are today.
What I meant was that Windows has nothing to do with it, specifically. I mean that people already own PC's that are just going to play exactly the same games that steambox is going to.
Or do you think that devs for this platform are going to lock themselves into it? How is that any worse than being locked to a commercial OS such as Windows or MacOSX? At least those have a historically proven track record of having some commercially successful games for them.
If you can even name one popular game that owes any part of its commercial success to the fact it was ported to Linux, then I'll certainly be prepared to admit that my judgement in this matter is premature. If not... well, I'm just calling it as I see it.
I know quite a few people in the games industry actually... about 15 or 20. And other than the ones who already happen to really like Linux (and therefore might have some cause to wishfully hope that this takes off), all of them think that this venture on Valve's part is nothing less than ridiculous.
And bear in mind that this device *WILL* need exclusive content to drive its sales... so that means that the developers it gets will have to *NOT* write the same games for Windows.
So... how many other companies has Valve contracted to develop games exclusive for this device ? How many of them are large game studios?
Understand that I would love absolutely nothing more than to be proved completely and utterly wrong I've been using Linux for 20+ years now, and it's been my only desktop OS for over half of that time.
And I get that everyone else who loves Linux might just be aching to prove me wrong... but in the end, the numbers are what's going to do it... not you trying to convince me here.
I have absolutely nothing personally invested in seeing steambox fail, but I've got quite a few friends on the video game industry, and based on their input, I really can't see this thing becoming successful. Certainly nobody else that I know other than people who already have a passion for Linux in some way seem to think that this has anything but even the slightest chance of succeeding... and it's my own assessment that such belief is only wishful thinking.
Sony is a big name. People had confidence in it.
Microsoft was a big name. People had confidence in it.
Linux? Not so much.
Do you honestly believe that Valve, singlehandedly, is capable of producing enough content on their own exclusively for their device (because if they also make it for windows, then people won't generally bother getting the console because it is traditionally exclusive content that moves consoles), that people would bother to get one?
And what incentive will other game studios have to make games for this console that is running an OS that's been around for 20 years, and not once gotten to even 2% of the end-user consumer computer use outside of the server market?
If Linux had any chance of being successful in the home, on a general purpose PC, wouldn't it have, by now?
Uh... no.
The average home user doesn't give a damn about OS wars.
They just want a machine that will play their games.
They already have a windows box. There's no incentive to go out and buy another box that plays all of the same games when they could just go and buy another windows PC for about the same amount of money.
When did I mention Windows?
You may not be alone... but do you seriously think that there are actually enough people like you to make this a successful venture?
Can you justify this belief against the existing demographics which have Linux with an almost vanishingly small percentage of home desktop users? I'm not saying they aren't out there... just suggesting that their numbers probably aren't sufficient to bring about any real commercial success in the home user mass-market
But I really can't see this being a successful venture.
I'm not trying to troll, just calling it as I see it.
Why would people bother with this when they can just play practically all of (if not actually all of) the same games on the windows PC that they already have?
Their Linux console certainly isn't priced any more economically than a PC, so I'm not sure I see the advantgage as far as the end-user is concerned.
This.
It's not that it's impossible to write nonportable java, it's just that what's interesting about Java, particularly when you compare it to C or C++, is that you get that portability with practically zero extra effort.
Java is not unique in this regard... although to the best of my knowledge, most of the other languages that achieve the goal are script-based.
To be fair here, the submitter may only be guilty of reporting something that they were hearing was already true from another source that is presumably trustworthy.
I'd read about this happening earlier this morning... several hours before I saw it on slashdot.
It may be that the article is BS, but I wouldn't suggest that it appeared here only because of MS-hate.
I'm curious how practical this advice is in the face of the following facts:
Actually, internet is a gramatically pluralizable word, since you can identify a quantity for it, even if that quantity is one.
Because if not, then the question really becomes "How do I get my significant other to like the things that I like?"
And it doesn't take a genius to figure out what road that question leads down.
iPod Touch + find my iPhone.
These Java exploit announcements are becoming too frequent.... at some point it stops being news and starts being a waste of bandwidth.
Well, as I no longer have the machine, I can't look inside to make sure. I do remember what it looked like on the outside very vividly however (being my first computer of my very own), as well as the startup page (because it was different from what I was used to at school).. Also, this was before the //c came out (I don't remember exactly how much time went by before the //c, but it wasn't long.... probably less than a year).
And yeah... pedantry. Still, a fun trip down memory lane.
Well, I had a revision B motherboard (something I specifically requested, because of certain features I wanted to experiment with), and the extended 80 column adapter, which expanded my system memory to 128k (bank switched, since only 64k was addressable), but the CPU in my system was definitely not a 65c02.
My system also did not have the MouseText characters that came out with the //c, so by the link you are referring to above, I had an unenhanced Apple //e. Nonethless, both the logo on the case and the startup logo said //e, not ][e.
This website refers to a model that was discontinued in 1985, and is right beside an image that looks exactly like the model that I had. Note that it has the //e logo on the case cover. It's entirely possible that it was called the ][e for a very short time after launch, but I had never seen it... and I was practically living in a computer store near my place at the time, when I was preparing to get my own system.
While admittedly this could reasonably qualify as news for nerds, the exploits that are being discovered in Java these days are happening with such rapidity now that it truly seems like a complete waste of time and effort to report them all individually. They are so frequent now as to border on spam.
The logo on it still said "Apple //e". This is what the one I owned looked like, and that was in 1984. The link you refer to says that the ][e was renamed to the //e when the //c came out, but the //c did not come out until 1985.
I also remember the splash startup logo on my //e saying "Apple //e" at the top of the screen, which differed distinctly from "APPLE ][+", which I had been used to seeing previously at school.
You're thinking of the ][+. The //e (note, //e, not ][e, and yes, I'm being pedantic) was not quite as open.