And how easy it is to obtain information.Vigormortis said:
I mean, it's on the internet. You know, that place people go to check their facebook page and post images of kittens.
Gabe Newell Says Linux Is "The Future Of Gaming"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I mean, it's on the internet. You know, that place people go to check their facebook page and post images of kittens.
And such a claim is worth questioning. It's a bold claim, no matter how you look at it. One that may very well come back to bite them in the end.canadamus_prime said:
However, I've noticed a lot of people dismissing the claim simply by virtue of Linux's limited presence in the consumer space; direct presence anyway. As well, dismissing the claim as though it were made as just a wishful thought. As if Valve were simply sitting on their laurels and proselytizing.
Most don't realize they, in tandem with quite a wide range of other companies in the industry (including but not limited to other game devs and GPU manufacturers), have been working towards this end for some time now. It hasn't received much media coverage, mostly due to the parties involved remaining silent on the matter, but there seems to be a decently sized effort taking place behind the scenes.
Whether the endeavor pans out remains to be seen. A lot of things have to go right for it all to work. Still, I think some people are being overly dismissive of the movement.
Again, bold claims to be sure. Perhaps even overzealous. But sometimes bold ideas are what're necessary to make significant changes.
Besides, I think we can both agree that, regardless of who makes such an idea come to fruition, the concept of truly open game and content creation....blurring the line between creator and player....is something to strive for.
I don't think it is, personally. From a technical standpoint, Windows 8 is ok. From a front end standpoint i.e. gui, it's fairly awful. This is where the problem with the OS is. The average person isn't going to care about what's under the hood, they see the tiles and they say "dafuq?!". The average person also cares more about the UI, therefore you'd have to make the UI appealing. Clearly people much prefer the "classic" way of things, of which Linux is more than capable of providing. Hell, I could modify Ubuntu to look like windows 8 if I wanted to.Vigormortis said:
I get that they want to make the shift to mobile devices and want to create a user interface to accommodate that, but the new UI compliments mobile devices, not desktops.
Of all Microsofts money and power, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't make the OS adaptable based on screen resolution or hardware so that it gives you a different user interface.
example: OS recognizes that it's installed on a mobile device, gives tile UI. <-- good
OS recognizes that it's installed on a desktop/laptop, gives the classic windows UI with start menu <-- good
There's also the other issue of people beginning to distrust large companies like Microsoft and Apple and looking for alternatives I.e. Gabe and Valve, but that's a totally different debate.
Worth mentioning: A lot of people don't realize how ubiquitous Linux actually is in their day to day life. Aside from desktop environments, most electronics are running some version of linux as their firmware. Android is essentially a linux based OS in of itself.Vigormortis said:
What is Gabe Newell's definition of open source? With Ubuntu (which, let's be honest, is the closest to a consumer-friendly distro there is right now) you got a limited repository and practically no backwards compatibility, and the only viable way (other than apt-get) to install new software is via the built in Software Center, an app for downloading apps á la Windows Store.
Not to mention that any Linux OS is going to have a very limited library of games seeing as more existing titles are made for DirectX which isn't compatible with that platform.
In my experience, trying to install and enjoy games and other software is so closed and restricted it's claustrophobic, and it's not only because of the major Linux/NT kernel incompatibility.
While Linux might be more open in theory, I assume that most people's experience with Linux is going to come in the form of a pre-packaged, pre-installed Steam-booter locked to big-picture mode, which is by no definition open, particularly not compared to Windows.
Gabe's been talking a lot about open platforms, but he has yet to address how this open platform his company aims to provide would actually, in practice, enable users any more freedom than what you got now with Windows.
Not to mention that any Linux OS is going to have a very limited library of games seeing as more existing titles are made for DirectX which isn't compatible with that platform.
In my experience, trying to install and enjoy games and other software is so closed and restricted it's claustrophobic, and it's not only because of the major Linux/NT kernel incompatibility.
While Linux might be more open in theory, I assume that most people's experience with Linux is going to come in the form of a pre-packaged, pre-installed Steam-booter locked to big-picture mode, which is by no definition open, particularly not compared to Windows.
Gabe's been talking a lot about open platforms, but he has yet to address how this open platform his company aims to provide would actually, in practice, enable users any more freedom than what you got now with Windows.
Is the Linux learning curve less steep than before? Yes. Is it more usable than previously? Yes. Is it as easy to use as Windows? No.
Part of that is the sheer amount of apps developed for Windows. If you want something that does X, you can usually find something that does X, install it and do X. Not so for Linux. It's not Linux's fault that peopl haven't developed for it but does limit the usability of Linux on a practical level.
What is Linux's fault is that it is not as easy to install and uninstall those little programs. Often, as soon as someone wants to install that one little app that is relevant to them, you are thrust into command line world, and even your tech-savvy Windows friends can't help you there. You are lost, alone, in the dark.
Part of that is the sheer amount of apps developed for Windows. If you want something that does X, you can usually find something that does X, install it and do X. Not so for Linux. It's not Linux's fault that peopl haven't developed for it but does limit the usability of Linux on a practical level.
What is Linux's fault is that it is not as easy to install and uninstall those little programs. Often, as soon as someone wants to install that one little app that is relevant to them, you are thrust into command line world, and even your tech-savvy Windows friends can't help you there. You are lost, alone, in the dark.
This is the easiest (and most reliable) way to install software but isn't the only way. For instance the 'limited repository' isn't actually limited, the software centre, which is just a UI for apt, can have other repositories added to it. The modular nature of the project means that the software centre just searches the contents of repositories and displays them, it doesn't care what those repositories are. As a matter of comparison I have the standard repos, plus three others for drawing more up to date versions of software than the Ubuntu repos hold.TomWiley said:
The other way to install software is to download the source, build it and run the install script. Beyond this you can actually just download the files for the program precompiled and physically dump them in the correct folders.
Linux does support things, the driver suport is spotty but no better or worse than Windows 7 in my experience. A regular user can use Linux as easily s they could Windows if they went for the right distro. Expert users can too, the ones that tend to get in to trouble are the 'power user' level people.Strazdas said:
In terms of supporting different pieces of software it's like complaining that the 360 doesn't run ps3 disks. Linux supports Windows applications through Wine, Mac does to a certain extent through Cider and Mac applications are fairly easy to port to Linux and vice versa. Windows is actually the black sheep here, not that it matters because if you think about it it's incredible that any operating system can support programs written for another.
I wouldn't put money on that you know, there's no reason a corporate workstation needs Windows any more with more and more businesses switching back to central computing. When you're running Office 365 or remote desktop you don't really care what the client OS is.Baldr said:
Linux... If it hadn't been mentioned off-hand by my computer lab teacher that one time in high school, I wouldn't even know it existed. Just going by what I can see in this thread, it seems like there's no real reason or upside to even try Linux out in terms of user-friendliness. This is coming from someone who used to be a strict Windows user until I heard the many upsides to switching to Apple, so its not like I'm opposed to making the jump if can see something worth the bother on the other side.
Not really no, though in terms of experience it's rather similar to using a Mac. Linux is built for stability and modularity, the fact that it happens to make a pretty good desktop OS for regular users is a happy accident. If you do any kind of development or are a nut for automation it's awesome, if you've got a second PC you can wipe down to play with it I'd recommend it just for the experience. The key mistake people make when trying out Linux is that they virtualise it or use crappy old hardware, the fact that Linux runs well on crappy hardware is nice but it's much nicer on proper modern hardware.Miss G. said:
Additionally the command line is pretty much identical to the Mac one, very similar toolset and most of the common ones are actually the same.
I don't care for modding, programming and such, I just like the quality, ease of use and not having to deal with the security problems like with PCs (that I have since gotten rid of and wish not to return to, so there's none around to try Linux out on since the whole family migrated to Apple). If anything needs more effort than 'press restart' on the off chance of a problem (I've experienced one in the 2 years I've had it), or 'here's a 2 minute easy tutorial on how to use our OS if you're unfamiliar with it', its not something I want to deal with. Every bit of Linux-related technobabble in this thread is more steps than what I've had to take in switching to a Mac OS from Windows; step 1 get my MacBook Pro, step 2 turn it on and follow the aforementioned short and easy-to-follow tutorial and I was set. That's my computer/OS preferences, convenience and peace of mind.ForumSafari said:
So inputting my opinion on something automatically constitutes as being a Linux hater?Waaghpowa said:
I'm just saying it as it is.
Not many people, consumers or dev wise want to put in the effort into figuring out, yet alone porting to Lunix.
You then said that Linux's failings to get into the good eye of the general public is due to people being lazy and not wanting to try things out.
Forget about the fact that while computers are basically an essential to everyone's lives now- many have a hard enough time navigating through Apple computers. Did Lunix get easier? By your word yes. How many people even know such an OS exists? Everyone on the Escapist sure. Being PC savvy and all, but what about other gaming forums? Or places outside of that?
I personally didn't hear about Lunix until 3 years ago, and I only knew about it because my friend is a tech geek. All I know about Lunix is that every device has some parts of it within their own system. Even Windows computers. However nobody knows that. At least, the general public doesn't.
So if Lunix wants to even begin to be the "future of gaming" then they need to put themselves out there as the public eye. Not only be a name only those who lurk the tech forums know about.
...I was going to argue the point, but every time I think of lolcats, I just can't find the strength.Vigormortis said:
Dragonbums said:
You still haven't answered the question, since you haven't actually used it, I find it hard to believe that you have the experience to criticize it's usability.
TL;DR I never used it, but I feel that I know enough to criticize an OS for failings I don't actually know exist.
Having an opinion is one thing, having an opinion on an OS's usability with absolutely no experience of your own is ignorant. You are no longer worth my time.
Again, this thread can be summed up with "I haven't used it, but I think I'm qualified to criticize aspects of it I know nothing about"
Don't resist. Just give in to the fuzzy shenanigans.Zachary Amaranth said:
I mean, just look at it:
LOOK AT IT!
And once again, only Linux has to blame for that because they never put the effort or time into advertising themselves as a better alternative to the other OS's, and to say it's the fault of consumers is not how the market works.Waaghpowa said:Dragonbums said:
You still haven't answered the question, since you haven't actually used it, I find it hard to believe that you have the experience to criticize it's usability.
TL;DR I never used it, but I feel that I know enough to criticize an OS for failings I don't actually know exist.
Having an opinion is one thing, having an opinion on an OS's usability with absolutely no experience of your own is ignorant. You are no longer worth my time.
Again, this thread can be summed up with "I haven't used it, but I think I'm qualified to criticize aspects of it I know nothing about"
If the majority of the people here have no interest in trying it, then Linux needs to make them want to try it.
Of the few people on this thread that have used it, all but one have stated that it was too much of a hassle to use. The one user who liked it compared it to Apple OS's.
If that is the general opinion of even people who do use Linux, then it's clear that Linux needs to do a better job then what it's currently doing.
Granted I don't even think they give a shit because Microsoft, Sony, Apple, and any other OS software company probably pays them good money to utilize their OS into their products anyway. So why should they care to advertise themselves as a more efficient OS.
I'm not the one deflecting. I'm tackling your arguments and you keep skipping around the issue and re iterating the same points of "no one wants to try it" despite me giving you reasons why.
What, you mean the OSI model? That's...not what you think it is. The OSI model is about communication between computers (well, and other devices but generally computers) it is divided into 7 layers but to be honest, that's just more of a formality as the lines often blur together. In general, you do get hardware at the bottom (or top, depending how you order them, it does make more sense to me to be on the bottom, though) and you do get the user at the top (sort of), but there is no operating systems there. You get the following layersRandV80 said:
1. Physical layer - exactly what the communication occurs through - what type of wire or cable.
2. Data link layer - a very basic way of how you actually get data from one point to another, it also tries to correct some problems with the physical layer (data corruption, for example)
3. Network layer - finally something that resembles what we know and use it's...networks. Yes, how would you form networks out of what the other two layers provide and what would they do.
4. Transport layer - it's building on top of everything above and providing a way for reliable data transportation from one node to another in a network.
5. Session layer - it is in control of starting and ending communication between nodes as well as generally what happens between these two.
6. Presentation layer - actually handling real data. No it is not how a web page looks, for example, it is what data is being presented at the other end - XML, plain text, whatever.
7. Application layer - the final layer and the closest to the user. It is pretty much just...applications. Because applications don't need to worry about anything 1-6 - if you make a game, you don't need to figure out how to connect to others from what type of wire to use through how to move the data - you just rely on the lower layers to provide that for you.
And that is it - no operating systems around.
But...that exists. Get a .deb file and double click it. There is even a better feature - the Software Centre, which is something I really like - it is merging the best things of both PC installations and smart phone installations, namely, it's just click and go. That is it - no hassle, find what you want, and just click install and use it. Why would you like people to no use that? It's even simpler?deadish said:
Nothing wrong with "App Stores" but Ubuntu's "software manager" Synaptic was scary back when I tried it out. That will not fly with the average user. Cluttered with everything under the sun plus the kitchen sink. A total mess. Apple is probably the first to put out a decent App Store.DoPo said:
Also the last time I tried, even with .deb files you have to drop to command line often.
It's best IMHO if everything was in one directory and you just run the most colorful icon to start the application.
With uninstalling involving just deleting the directory. That's how most Java applications work if I'm right - MacOS is trying this, but half of their applications still run their own installer with all sort of scripts.