[waldojim]

kirovs, on 01 May 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

Well, everything you say is such a stretch from the truth that I can call you a lier. Oh, drivers- try to install XP on hp 9207. Ubuntu installed 2 years ago as a breeze. XP was DOA.

Never used an HP.... anything. And I wouldn't either. That said, I have installed XP on a Gateway MX3414, a Lenovo X100e, a Lenovo W520, A Lenovo z575, an MSI k7N2 Delta-L, an MSI k9N2 Platinum, an MSI 790FX-GD70, an EVGA 750i FTW, an EVGA P55-SLI, and several other machines over the years. Driver problems? NONE. How many of those ran Linux worth a damn? The X100e, the EVGA 750i, and the MSI k7N2 Delta-L all ran Linux like a champ. Everything else took many hours of tinkering.

I guess that means I can call you a liar now?

[waldojim]

linuxrants7xpg, on 01 May 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

waldojim, on 01 May 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

Isn't it? At less than 5% for 30 years now, how is it not a flop as well? (apple computers that is - not just the current OS-X iteration)

The only reason it is gaining traction right now is because it is "in" to hate MS. That, and Apple finally managed to get their machines sold in more than just Apple stores.

By the standards Linux is held to, it certainly is. With that in mind, can you think of a single respectable journalist that has published anything claiming such? I can think of at least three for Linux in recent weeks. I can't think of a single one for OSX.

I never once claimed the negativity towards Linux was fair. Then again, lesson learned early in life: Life isn't fair.

[waldojim]

Evildave, on 01 May 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

Netflix also works fine through game consoles, various set top boxes, bluray players, network enabled TV sets, etc.

Complaining about Netflix (while ignoring all MANY the other streaming movie services) is pure Microsoft-owned hatred for Linux.

You mean those people who use Netflix because NETFLIX has what they want to watch? Or are you referring to people who considered Hulu, Amazon, and the like, and found the selection terribly lacking by comparison? It is entirely the choice of Netflix to exclude Linux. Though that won't last long. Once Windows 8 launches, and SILVERLIGHT becomes a figment of their imaginations, then things will change, and Linux will at least stand a chance... depending on how Netflix chooses to proceed.

[waldojim]

MikeFreeman0717, on 01 May 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

There are several places that will ship Linux-compatible laptops (not none, like you say below). Here's a small sampling:

https://www.system76.com/laptops/
http://www.linuxcert...ux_laptops.html
http://www.thelinuxlaptop.com/

Most hardware out there is very compatible. I've installed Linux Mint on about 6 or 7 completely different machines, with hardware from vastly different companies. Not once has something just not worked. Granted, some needed some tweaking to get it working, and that could be improved (and is getting better with every new release). The only hardware that's generally not compatible is either REALLY new (like released in the last 6 months), or so obscure that no Linux devs have run into one to be able to make a driver for it. If it doesn't work, give it some time and it probably soon will. Or, either buy something 6 months to a year old, or look for compatibility information online before you buy something (it's EVERYWHERE - just gotta look).

I don't know about Micro Center or Fry's (don't have those here), but definitely not at Best Buy. I have seen them in other stores, though, especially locally-owned shops, which are better to buy from anyway (from the standpoint that the money stays in the local economy, and the people there actually know about what they're selling as opposed to Big Box National Chain Store monkeys). But, like I said before, most people will just buy any machine that fits their needs and install Linux themselves.

Those are all overprices hacks. They are bought at retail, stripped of Windows, and you get to pay a premium to get one with Linux. I suppose if you really must feel great about using a Linux based laptop that is behind the tech curve, that is the best route though.

And no, when dealing with laptops "most" hardware is not. There is a solid amount of supported hardware on OLDER laptops (meaning at least one year old), but not most. I can take any random laptop at Fry's, run a live DVD, and prove that Linux doesn't work right on it. It could be anything from flaky touchpad drivers (the problem I have with my W520) to lack of hardware support for video card switching (another I deal with), to broken power management, or even not sizing up a screen correctly. I once had a distro that extended my desktop by less than 5 pixels on the ends because it couldn't identify a standard 720P resolution. Sorry, but it can be proven in any store that Linux doesn't like newish gear.

Quote

Not quite. Again, it just takes a little Google searching to find the info you need. You can just buy from one of the links I posted earlier, or shop around and gather a list of various hardware that would fit your needs, then Google 'linux [hardware model]' and read about the issues and buy the ones that work best. Or, start with a list of Linux compatible hardware (quick Google search will give that to you) and buy from that. Takes a little work, but it'll save some headaches later.

That isn't quite right either. I had a laptop once that used an extremely common sound card. But the manufacturer decided to use the outputs in a non-standard format (two headphones instead of surround sound) thus breaking compatibility. Took Linux 2 years to fix that problem.

Quote

I'm sorry to hear that. It's certainly not the norm, at least in recent years. What have you done to try to solve these issues? Generally, there are fairly easy tweaks available for most problems, but they might not be obvious. That's what Google is for.

I've never seen so many problems with Linux as you're having. I've seen some distros that work better than others on a variety of hardware, though. I've used Linux Mint successfully on Gateway, Compaq/HP, Dell, and Apple computers, with little to no hardware problems. I've run several different brands of wifi cards and dongles. I've mainly only used NVIDIA and ATI graphics cards without problems, which support is really great for, but Intel and other major brands are generally well supported as well. I've used fairly new printers (admittedly not the newest, since I'd rather get a good deal on a slightly older printer on sale) from Canon, HP, Epson, etc. as well as brand new copy machines from Konica-Minolta and Kyocera without problems. I've run into some very minor glitches here and there (because the Linux installer can't guess all the needs of every piece of hardware out there), but all have been fixed with very minor tweaking. Best thing to do is just find a store that sells Linux machines, or Linux-compatible hardware. Then everything should work 100%.

How can you say this isn't normal? You have people on these forums every day reporting they problems they have. I am just throwing out what I have gotten to deal with on three machines I currently own. I haven't even gotten into the HP DV5-1003NR (the one with the broken audio for two years), the Sony Vaio SB, nor the Gateway MX 3414. Shoot my dad owns a Compaq that he fought for another 2 years just to get the trackpad to work right! The thing would "lose sync" constantly, and require a restart of X. He decided to get an external mouse and suffer through until the Ubuntu team finally fixed it.

Yes, Nvidia, and AMD GPUs are very well supported - actually the Intel cards have terrific support OOTB. Laptops with switchable graphics results in very confused distros.

In the end, it is a PITA and most people don't want to deal with such things.

[linuxrants7xpg]

waldojim, on 01 May 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 01 May 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

By the standards Linux is held to, it certainly is. With that in mind, can you think of a single respectable journalist that has published anything claiming such? I can think of at least three for Linux in recent weeks. I can't think of a single one for OSX.

I never once claimed the negativity towards Linux was fair. Then again, lesson learned early in life: Life isn't fair.

Nor did I claim that you did. I'm simply pointing out why I regard these articles proclaiming that Linux is a flop or that Linux is dead or some other similarly inane proclamation with total contempt. If the author is not willing to make a similar statement about OSX, then they're worthy of nothing but utter disdain.

[JuliusBumaatndw0]

Happy Ubuntu Linux user for more than 4 years :-)

[waldojim]

linuxrants7xpg, on 01 May 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Nor did I claim that you did. I'm simply pointing out why I regard these articles proclaiming that Linux is a flop or that Linux is dead or some other similarly inane proclamation with total contempt. If the author is not willing to make a similar statement about OSX, then they're worthy of nothing but utter disdain.

I can agree with that sentiment.

At the same time, I would also ask the Linux users of the world to understand that there is more to this than a black and white Linux is better, or Windows is better. As you should be able to tell from the shear number of systems I have used Linux on, and the number of Distros I have been through, I have nothing against Linux per-say. I do have something against the mindset that Linux works for everyone. Because it doesn't. There are many real situations involving hardware, software, or both where Linux fails. In some cases, fails miserably. The same can be said for ANY OS.

If Linux wants to replace Windows on the desktop though, it needs to do more than simply work most of the time. It needs to give people a reason to switch. The "but Linux doesn't have viruses argument" obviously isn't working. Nor is the "but it is on 80% of the worlds webservers, and 95% of the worlds supercomputers." I also don't see Unity changing anything - namely because it is a cumbersome mess.

[Evildave]

waldojim, on 01 May 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

Evildave, on 01 May 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

Netflix also works fine through game consoles, various set top boxes, bluray players, network enabled TV sets, etc.

Complaining about Netflix (while ignoring all MANY the other streaming movie services) is pure Microsoft-owned hatred for Linux.

You mean those people who use Netflix because NETFLIX has what they want to watch? Or are you referring to people who considered Hulu, Amazon, and the like, and found the selection terribly lacking by comparison? It is entirely the choice of Netflix to exclude Linux. Though that won't last long. Once Windows 8 launches, and SILVERLIGHT becomes a figment of their imaginations, then things will change, and Linux will at least stand a chance... depending on how Netflix chooses to proceed.

I am saying people who cite this as an argument against Linux seem to ONLY want to watch Netflix on a PC, ever, rather than on a proper TV set, which all of those set top boxes, bluray players, game consoles, internet enabled TVs, etc. that I mention all seem to already have Netflix on.

Moron: "OMG! I can't do one particular thing on Linux, so it's not good for anything! WAAAAHHH!!!"

PCWorld Moron: "OMG! I can THINK of something I can't do on Linux, which I've never tried! It's USELESS!!!"

[ChrisWortman]

I am writing this after spending a solid month distro-hopping as it is coined. The applications were there, but only just. Linux has this "good enough" mentality that it needs to get rid of. Everything was just barely "good enough" but never the best tool for the job. From games to applications I have invested over $10thousand not including Windows licenses. For me to replace every application I used and I did try Wine, Wine is a joke by the way and only sort of works. I can't run my life on "sort of working" and "good enough" when I am used to being able to work from home and at the office. It isn't that Linux has a long way to go, the developers need to grow up and make some useful applications for it. I completely agree with this article. If I can't find my way within a month in 2012, then Linux will never make any real headway. From broken xorg to broken nvidia drivers to applications just not working the way they should, Linux is a failure. If I had to pay for it I would still choose Windows.

[ChrisWortman]

Watcher426, on 30 April 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

while some valid points are made, I find it humorous when "experts" predict why Linux is flopping and why it has "less than 1% market share" If these people did real research about Linux and Unix, they'd see that it is easily 1/3 of all windows sales. Countless people dual boot and since one does not really purchases linux, they can't measure that either. millions use it so it is not 1%.

I live in a fairly populated area, Oneonta NY. I asked people and did some research, 20 or so people said they ran Ubuntu, never did I find any other distribution. I asked well over 3000 people. Went door to door out of sheer morbid curiosity. Asked random people on the street. Most knew about Linux and said they tried it but didn't use it because it just plain sucked or didnt work with something they needed to do. Your 1/3 is a little blind there. Just as blind as the 1% claim, I would wager more like 7~10% of the people who use computers as a desktop use Linux and I am just guessing. Few people at work use it and have more headaches than mac and windows users combined.

[crosswordbob]

RickDobbelmannqbtt, on 01 May 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

Linux is everthing and anything you want it to be.

This is patently false.

[crosswordbob]

linuxrants7xpg, on 01 May 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

waldojim, on 01 May 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

linuxrants7xpg, on 01 May 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

By the standards Linux is held to, it certainly is. With that in mind, can you think of a single respectable journalist that has published anything claiming such? I can think of at least three for Linux in recent weeks. I can't think of a single one for OSX.

I never once claimed the negativity towards Linux was fair. Then again, lesson learned early in life: Life isn't fair.

Nor did I claim that you did. I'm simply pointing out why I regard these articles proclaiming that Linux is a flop or that Linux is dead or some other similarly inane proclamation with total contempt. If the author is not willing to make a similar statement about OSX, then they're worthy of nothing but utter disdain.

The comparison is flawed. OSX is almost certainly used by the vast majority of devices that support it. If it were available to run on non-Apple hardware then a comparison with Linux would make more sense. And if, were this to be the case, it occupied a similar proportion of devices as (it is claimed) Linux currently does, I would have no doubt you'd see just as many articles declaring it a flop.

You might argue that we don't hear many people discussing how many Macs run Wndows, and whether or not this contitutes a flop, but with Macs occupying a small fraction of computers out there, I guess the question is of far less interest.

[Evildave]

Debian based Linux variants (including Mint and Ubuntu) run on Intel OS X hardware (under 'Bootcamp', if you want to dick around with it), but it runs very well in a virtual machine like Parallels, as does windoze.

A small fraction of computers out there: 60,000,000+ computers (out of a billion or so).

By similar arguments, Americans at 300,000,000 are a small fraction of the 7,000,000,000 or so humans out there, and therefore they don't count, either.

Even at '1%', Linux users (the ones using web browsers) is still 10,000,000 users strong. It is never going to go away, no matter how hard the windoze creeps wish upon a star.
http://marketshare.h...t.aspx?qprid=9#

Some people just happen to need a robust OS like Linux, that gets a JOB done, as opposed to a fragile TOY, like windoze to play games.

[RickDobbelmannqbtt]

ChrisWortman, on 02 May 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

I am writing this after spending a solid month distro-hopping as it is coined. The applications were there, but only just. Linux has this "good enough" mentality that it needs to get rid of. Everything was just barely "good enough" but never the best tool for the job. From games to applications I have invested over $10thousand not including Windows licenses. For me to replace every application I used and I did try Wine, Wine is a joke by the way and only sort of works. I can't run my life on "sort of working" and "good enough" when I am used to being able to work from home and at the office. It isn't that Linux has a long way to go, the developers need to grow up and make some useful applications for it. I completely agree with this article. If I can't find my way within a month in 2012, then Linux will never make any real headway. From broken xorg to broken nvidia drivers to applications just not working the way they should, Linux is a failure. If I had to pay for it I would still choose Windows.

Linux is not good enough because you invested $10,000+??

Of course you are going to think Linux is not good enough, it justifies you wasting $10,000+

Same argument the for the OSX users.. They paid all this money so they must have the best OS.

If you spent $10k+ on software it is your own damn fault. Don't change, stay with your inferior M$ gimmick. But don't say Linux is "barely good enough". It runs the world wide web.. It is plenty good. Maybe you should rephrase that you on the other hand are just barely good enough to run Linux.

This post has been edited by RickDobbelmannqbtt: 02 May 2012 - 10:52 AM

[nonseq]

ChrisWortman, on 02 May 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

I am writing this after spending a solid month distro-hopping as it is coined. The applications were there, but only just. Linux has this "good enough" mentality that it needs to get rid of. Everything was just barely "good enough" but never the best tool for the job. From games to applications I have invested over $10thousand not including Windows licenses. For me to replace every application I used and I did try Wine, Wine is a joke by the way and only sort of works. I can't run my life on "sort of working" and "good enough" when I am used to being able to work from home and at the office. It isn't that Linux has a long way to go, the developers need to grow up and make some useful applications for it. I completely agree with this article. If I can't find my way within a month in 2012, then Linux will never make any real headway. From broken xorg to broken nvidia drivers to applications just not working the way they should, Linux is a failure. If I had to pay for it I would still choose Windows.

The boldfaced passages above are the telling points in Chris's argument, in my opinion.

"Good Enough" is not enough to capture the interest of a buying public who have high expectations of even the most basic of applications. "Good Enough" is not adequate to build market share for a public that wants plug and play and are unwilling to "google" for solutions for linux problems that don't seem to appear in Windows and OSX.

Linux is a fine operating system and, in my opinion, suffers from the Open Source development process/philosophy. What is the incentive to conceive, design, and produce an extraordinary application with little or no opportunity for return on the investment in time and resources, not to mention intellectual property? To make it worse, once that product is distributed others can take it, repackage and change it without regard of the developer's intent and vision. Both of these issues reduce much of OS to lowest common denominator applications. All of this is my opinion and I offer it as such. Others will voice a different view.

I'm not sure that Linux on the Desktop is a flop if the developers' goals are not to dominate the desktop or to create top drawer professional work product. If the goal of Linux on the desktop is to provide a low cost or no cost alternative to the current state of the art, Linux on the desktop could be considered an overwhelming success.

This post has been edited by nonseq: 02 May 2012 - 11:09 AM

[waldojim]

RickDobbelmannqbtt, on 02 May 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Linux is not good enough because you invested $10,000+??

Of course you are going to think Linux is not good enough, it justifies you wasting $10,000+

Same argument the for the OSX users.. They paid all this money so they must have the best OS.

If you spent $10k+ on software it is your own damn fault. Don't change, stay with your inferior M$ gimmick. But don't say Linux is "barely good enough". It runs the world wide web.. It is plenty good. Maybe you should rephrase that you on the other hand are just barely good enough to run Linux.

So you see no difference between a web server, that has no real world interaction with people (on the OS level), and a desktop/workstation user with the exact opposite usage scenario.... I hope you didn't expect anyone to take you seriously. Because there is nothing in your post to hint at you being serious.

[waldojim]

nonseq, on 02 May 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

ChrisWortman, on 02 May 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

I am writing this after spending a solid month distro-hopping as it is coined. The applications were there, but only just. Linux has this "good enough" mentality that it needs to get rid of. Everything was just barely "good enough" but never the best tool for the job. From games to applications I have invested over $10thousand not including Windows licenses. For me to replace every application I used and I did try Wine, Wine is a joke by the way and only sort of works. I can't run my life on "sort of working" and "good enough" when I am used to being able to work from home and at the office. It isn't that Linux has a long way to go, the developers need to grow up and make some useful applications for it. I completely agree with this article. If I can't find my way within a month in 2012, then Linux will never make any real headway. From broken xorg to broken nvidia drivers to applications just not working the way they should, Linux is a failure. If I had to pay for it I would still choose Windows.

The boldfaced passages above are the telling points in Chris's argument, in my opinion.

"Good Enough" is not enough to capture the interest of a buying public who have high expectations of even the most basic of applications. "Good Enough" is not adequate to build market share for a public that wants plug and play and are unwilling to "google" for solutions for linux problems that don't seem to appear in Windows and OSX.

Linux is a fine operating system and, in my opinion, suffers from the Open Source development process/philosophy. What is the incentive to conceive, design, and produce an extraordinary application with little or no opportunity for return on the investment in time and resources, not to mention intellectual property? To make it worse, once that product is distributed others can take it, repackage and change it without regard of the developer's intent and vision. Both of these issues reduce much of OS to lowest common denominator applications. All of this is my opinion and I offer it as such. Others will voice a different view.

I'm not sure that Linux on the Desktop is a flop if the developers' goals are not to dominate the desktop or to create top drawer professional work product. If the goal of Linux on the desktop is to provide a low cost or no cost alternative to the current state of the art, Linux on the desktop could be considered an overwhelming success.

There is absolutely nothing to stop you from developing closed source code for Linux. There is also nothing to stop you from charging for it. There is also nothing to force you to give away the source code for your software. But don't expect everyone to appreciate it. WineX, later known as Cedega was most definitely closed source. They charged a subscription based usage, and are still in business now... what 8 years later?

[RickDobbelmannqbtt]

waldojim, on 02 May 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

RickDobbelmannqbtt, on 02 May 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Linux is not good enough because you invested $10,000+??

Of course you are going to think Linux is not good enough, it justifies you wasting $10,000+

Same argument the for the OSX users.. They paid all this money so they must have the best OS.

If you spent $10k+ on software it is your own damn fault. Don't change, stay with your inferior M$ gimmick. But don't say Linux is "barely good enough". It runs the world wide web.. It is plenty good. Maybe you should rephrase that you on the other hand are just barely good enough to run Linux.

So you see no difference between a web server, that has no real world interaction with people (on the OS level), and a desktop/workstation user with the exact opposite usage scenario.... I hope you didn't expect anyone to take you seriously. Because there is nothing in your post to hint at you being serious.

lol you must have over paid for your soft and hardware too..

To be honest, IDGAF what you think.

A server can do the same damn thing a desktop can do.

Just because a server doesnt have a GUI you think it cannot do what a desktop can?

Really?

I suppose the following companies and government institutions do not have any desktops or work stations and they probably also think Linux is "barely good enough".

US DEPT of DEFENSE, NASA, US NAVY Submarine fleet, The City of Munich Germany, Federal Aviation Administration, French Parliament, U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Federal Courts, Government of Mexico City, German Universities, Switzerland Schools, Indiana Schools, Novell, Google, IBM, Panasonic, Virgin America, Cisco, Amazon, Wikipedia, New York Stock Exchange, Burlington Coat Factory, Toyota Motor Sales, Travelocity, CERN, Internet Archive, IBM iDataPlex in Canada, Disney, DreamWorks, Pixar and on and on and on..

This post has been edited by RickDobbelmannqbtt: 02 May 2012 - 11:32 AM

[Evildave]

If you don't like 'WINE', run some version of windoze in VirtualBox (available for all the common Linux variants). If you have '$10,000 worth of software', you probably have a windoze media+key lying around to install into a VM, along with whatever other over-priced crapware you need.

VirtualBox is pretty portable, though I had to consistently do some hand tweaking of XML to move things from one machine to another. VMs are also somewhat sensitive to the CPU architecture, so a VM made on AMD might not work on Intel, and vise-versa. Parallels has been a 'dream', as far as migrating.

I don't even know what I'd do without virtual machines. Even when I ran windoze (before M$ Shista made me swear off the stinking pig OS forever), I ran virtual machines. It's the best way to encapsulate development and testing tasks, and especially test client/server apps. I have one that's got a 'windoze XP' setup on it, with a crappy VPN client that only works under it, that I'm forced to use, that's been used on several computers over the years, working for the same idiots who require those tools (CVS+SSH+ODDBALL VPN = RETARDS). It's nice just copying it over and pointing the VM software at it. 'Setup complete', back in business with the new computer. Boot up the VM to commit over their network, sometimes to test on some windoze browsers. I used to do some other tasks with it, but over time the various development tools migrated elsewhere. Though it does have STEAM on it, and runs the 'windoze only' games just fine.

Every sign indicates Windoze 8 will see a fresh spike in new Linux converts, just as Ubuntu's Gnome 3 mess is pushing users away to other Linux variants. If you don't have a tablet, compromises for pretending to be a 'touch device' suck.

[RickDobbelmannqbtt]

Evildave, on 02 May 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

If you don't like 'WINE', run some version of windoze in VirtualBox (available for all the common Linux variants). If you have '$10,000 worth of software', you probably have a windoze media+key lying around to install into a VM, along with whatever other over-priced crapware you need.

VirtualBox is pretty portable, though I had to consistently do some hand tweaking of XML to move things from one machine to another. VMs are also somewhat sensitive to the CPU architecture, so a VM made on AMD might not work on Intel, and vise-versa. Parallels has been a 'dream', as far as migrating.

I don't even know what I'd do without virtual machines. Even when I ran windoze (before M$ Shista made me swear off the stinking pig OS forever), I ran virtual machines. It's the best way to encapsulate development and testing tasks, and especially test client/server apps. I have one that's got a 'windoze XP' setup on it, with a crappy VPN client that only works under it, that I'm forced to use, that's been used on several computers over the years, working for the same idiots who require those tools (CVS+SSH+ODDBALL VPN = RETARDS). It's nice just copying it over and pointing the VM software at it. 'Setup complete', back in business with the new computer. Boot up the VM to commit over their network, sometimes to test on some windoze browsers. I used to do some other tasks with it, but over time the various development tools migrated elsewhere. Though it does have STEAM on it, and runs the 'windoze only' games just fine.

Every sign indicates Windoze 8 will see a fresh spike in new Linux converts, just as Ubuntu's Gnome 3 mess is pushing users away to other Linux variants. If you don't have a tablet, compromises for pretending to be a 'touch device' suck.

Valve is porting Steam and the Source engine to Linux



Valve’s digital distribution service Steam has been offering up games for almost 9 years now, and yet until May last year it remained a Windows-only service. Then Valve made Mac gamers happy by porting not only the service, but its back catalog of games to Apple’s platform. Now, it looks as though the long rumored Linux port is finally going to happen.

Michael Larabel, the man behind the well-known Linux website Phoronix, was invited out to Valve’s offices in Bellevue, Washington. He has now returned and started sharing the details of what they showed him.

Apparently Valve has been working towards a Linux port of both the Steam service and Source engine for quite a while. The reason it has taken so long is there has been no real direction and focus on the project: developers there just work on it when they can and when they want to. That has now changed, with Gabe Newell taking the lead on pushing the project forward.

While at Valve, Larabel got to load up Ubuntu and launch a working version of the Steam client without need of Wine (used for running Windows apps on Linux). He has also confirmed that Left 4 Dead 2 is the game being used to test development/porting because it offers both a stable and up-to-date implementation of the Source engine. Once that is ported other games from Valve’s back catalog will follow, meaning Half-Life and Portal on Linux will be released eventually.

Based on Larabel’s account of what he saw and what he talked about with Newell, Linux users are likely to see a release at some point this year. It may be beta, and it may be limited to one Valve game, but that’s a great start. Larabel also believes Valve is going above and beyond what other services and games companies are doing on Linux, and that they will become the “most Linux-friendly game company.”

Read more at Phoronix





-----
I wonder why Valve is porting Steam to Linux? It must be because Linux desktop is a flop, lol

This post has been edited by RickDobbelmannqbtt: 02 May 2012 - 11:48 AM