Steam Coming to Linux Soon

[Treblaine]

Maybe my PC gaming will finally get out of Wine and Minecraft
Do we know if it will support 64-bit binaries?

Well, it IS 2012... not 1996. They bloody well should.

As far as I know the only reason 32 bit is so common is because Microsoft operating systems have stuck to it for so long. WHY? I don't know. Anyway, almost every chipset made in the past half decade has been 64-bit compliant and on the system memory front we have most definitely hit that wall (4096 MiB of memory addresses) I'd be really surprised if 64 bit wasn't comprehensively supported.

Actually there is another reason. A lot of programmers who use C and C++ use Pointer Arithmetic, and in a lot of code instead of using a 64bit int (long) they cast it into a 32 bit int. As long as they don't have over 2 gigs that works. If they have 4 gigs hopefully they used an Unsigned 32 bit int, and anything over 4 gigs will break. That's actually what caused Skyrim to crash to the desktop whenever it hit the 2 gig limit, and their fix was enabling up to 4 gigs with the unsigned int.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that, but that is just coding a game in 32-bit. That 32 bit program can still run fine in a 64-bit operating system (on 64bit hardware of course) and interacting with other 64-bit programs like Steam Client.

i.e. there is no reason Steam on Linux shouldn't fully support and encourage 64 bit processing? Would skyrim have to run within some sort of 64->32 bit emulation? Other than it being remade for Open GL

 

[octafish]

definitely agree with gabe Windows 8 SUCKS! From a technical point of view, it looks flimsy, unreliable; it doesn't look like it's a great release. it looks worse than the transition from XP to Vista-Looks better(not really) but probably has bugs. Not ever switching to windows 8. not if they pay ME.

"Then you will die" - The Emperor

People said that about Vista

But Vista was a commercial failure because so many people hated it. Even this late in the game XP has a significant market share. I believe Win7/8 will mirror XP/Vista, at least when it comes to core gaming/business desktops and laptops. Even when it comes to tablets Apple and Android have a comanding lead and they both work well enough with windows for there to be a compatability issue, even for corporate clients.

 

[nickpy]

Honestly, I don't see this having any significant impact on the "future of computing" for two reasons:

1. Developing for wide-distribution across different linux distributions is a complete pain in the butt - I know, I've done it - because by their very nature, different linux distros have different things in them. Yes, you could only support certain distros or go for a lowest common denominator, but then you're not really seeing the full benefits of trying to "go linux", methinks. Thus, I think many developers simply wouldn't bother - especially imagine the support calls! Most technical support departments don't even understand how windows works, so good luck getting any help when the game crashes with a random error on your linux box! Evidence: All Introversion games are released with Linux versions, and I have never once managed to get them to run on any of my Linux boxes, and I wasn't even using obscure distros.

2. Different OSes are good for different things and different people.
Linux is an amazing OS, incrediably flexible and powerful, and the sheer level of control that it places on the user is astounding - you can do pretty much anything you want to it, and this is reflected in the quantity of different distros, or make your own! But, this has a drawback: Average PC users are thick. They like Windows because it is familiar, and it tends not to explode too often. Mac users are often an extension of this, Macs are completely locked down: consequently there is no real ability to tinker like in Linux or to a lesser extent Windows, but this also means the less tech-savvy are physically prevented from mucking it up. I guarentee you that if you put most average PC users (even gamers!) infront of a linux box, they'll find a way to screw it up. Again, I am basing this on experience. I had a very nice box running Ubuntu 6.06 (some time ago now), and then I went away for a bit. My father needed a computer temporarily, so I said he could use it and gave him the passwords. When I came back, he'd completely bricked it - he tried to install Windows 95 on it because he couldn't fathom this "linux" thing.
Linux - Techies and Servers. Windows - Average PC users. Mac - Artists and people with too much money.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love Linux, I use it most every day. But I also use Windows, and I love it to. As I see it, they both have their strengths, and I wouldn't want it any other way. I don't -want- a Linux desktop because in my experience, that's simply not what they're good at. Windows is, but as a server system it is rubbish because it's far too locked down and vulnerable.

P.S. Regards the debate on Windows 8, no, I'm not particularly looking forward to it either. They're trying to kill two birds with one stone but will fail to capture either; they need to offer something absolutely amazing to have any impact in the tablet market, which they inveitably won't, and the "Metro" screen will completely ruin the experience on ordinary PCs - and that's even if you DO happen to have a touchscreen hooked up to your PC or Laptop. Chances are you won't, and it'll just be awful. I don't mind them trying to capture tablet market share if they want, but for God's sake leave the "classic" start menu as an option, or I will never, ever buy Windows 8. Period. I would probably even go so far as to wipe it off a new computer and install Windows 7 in it's place if "Metro" couldn't be disabled.

</long-ramble>

 

[SpAc3man]

Would skyrim have to run within some sort of 64->32 bit emulation? Other than it being remade for Open GL

Skyrim already has an OpenGL version running on the PS3 so I would imagine they wouldn't have to do much there.

 

[vfn4i83]

STEAM supporting Linux;

About Time [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YT2A2Ltwly4#t=397s]

 

[Agayek]

Crap, I might just convert to running Ubuntu myself. [http://www.ubuntu.com/]

Arch Linux or Mandriva or bust IMO.

 

[Covarr]

Umm, just one problem. Phoronix is the same site that reported this last time, when VALV[sup]E[/sup] flat out denied it. Just because they say "okay, we're serious this time" doesn't mean they should be trusted as a source.

If it turns out to be true, I'll be that much happier for it, and might finally switch to Linux (depending on if graphics card manufacturers get their act together in terms of Linux drivers), but for now I don't believe these guys.

P.S. Thanks

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I can have steam chat on my netbook possibly? THIS IS GOOD!

 

[Treblaine]

Would skyrim have to run within some sort of 64->32 bit emulation? Other than it being remade for Open GL

Skyrim already has an OpenGL version running on the PS3 so I would imagine they wouldn't have to do much there.

Wasn't the PS3 version of Skyrim the derpy version? Or was that more down to the PS3's specific hardware design issues, like how there is only 256MB of system memory, pitifully small for 2012 where 4GB of dedicated system memory is almost ubiquitous on PC, 16x as much memory.

But interesting none-the-less. If open-GL versions are made for every game that gets a PS3 release, then it's no huge leap to also release a Linux version as well. There are already 533 Mac games on Steam store (UK), I imagine most of them could easily be ported from there to Linux.

Interesting times. This is the shot in the arm that Linux needs, we all wanted it to succeed, now it has the chance. The plucky underdog, not controlled by a corporation with conflicts-of-interest.

 

[medv4380]

...

...

...

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that, but that is just coding a game in 32-bit. That 32 bit program can still run fine in a 64-bit operating system (on 64bit hardware of course) and interacting with other 64-bit programs like Steam Client.

i.e. there is no reason Steam on Linux shouldn't fully support and encourage 64 bit processing? Would skyrim have to run within some sort of 64->32 bit emulation? Other than it being remade for Open GL

A 32 bit app should still run on the 64 bit hardware as long as the 32bit libraries are installed. If programmers would just stop casting the pointers into 32bits when they should be 64 bits then from the programming side it's a single line change in the compiler and it'll output a 64 bit binary.

Talking between 32bit and 64bit apps can be an issue though. As an example, if I were to write some Native code in 32 bit and use it in Java I would need 32bit Java if I use 64bit Java when it goes to the 32bit code it will error out and demand 64bit version of the native code. The reason is the code needed to make 32 bit and 64 bit talk on the same system is a little tricky and can slow down the application, and be a mess to maintain. The developers of Java decided to avoid the issue entirely.

Personally, I'd prefer 64bit since most of the new and improved architecture is built around the 64bit code, and I always feel a little cheated when I have to use a lot of 32bit apps and games on my 64bit Quad with 8 gigs of Ram.

 

[MorganL4]

YAY!!!! You have NO IDEA how long I have waited to hear this.... I have wanted to abandon windows for the longest time, but what kept me tethered was my beloved gaming pass time. Now if steam goes to LINUX and my library carries over, So will I. I will leave Microsoft in the dust, I mean I will probably keep a dual boot with Win 7 just on the off chance that I need it for something. But I just about screamed when I read the title of this thread.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Crap, I might just convert to running Ubuntu myself. [http://www.ubuntu.com/]

Arch Linux or Mandriva or bust IMO.

Debian I say. Although if they DO start developing games for linux, they would probably use Ubuntu because of its "User friendliness", but what do I know? [sub]No seriously, I don't know[/sub]

 

[Bradeck]

I'm sorry to be such a dummy, but I just took the Unbuntu tour, and it looked amazing. Is it really that simple to get a new free OS? Or does Linux mean lots of coding and technical areas that I have to be trained in? I just built a new desktop (First time, no explosions!) and I was debating buying a new copy of Win 7 Ultimate, but this looks great!

So can anyone with experience guide me here? I didn't see any signs saying "Not for dummies, must understand A+ and other types of code, or your computer will explode".

 

[MorganL4]

"Perhaps Gabe should just create his own Steam OS. A gaming OS designed specifically for web browsing and gaming... Hell yes please!" - quote from facebook

Anyone think that just maybe this is what the "steam box" actually will end up being. A STEAM Linux distro, I mean I can't think of anything cooler. Okay maybe this:

 

[SpAc3man]

Wasn't the PS3 version of Skyrim the derpy version? Or was that more down to the PS3's specific hardware design issues, like how there is only 256MB of system memory, pitifully small for 2012 where 4GB of dedicated system memory is almost ubiquitous on PC, 16x as much memory.

But interesting none-the-less. If open-GL versions are made for every game that gets a PS3 release, then it's no huge leap to also release a Linux version as well. There are already 533 Mac games on Steam store (UK), I imagine most of them could easily be ported from there to Linux.

I'm pretty sure it was down to memory limitations. Skyrim worked in a way where it loaded any changes made by the player (stored on the save file) into memory. The PS3 has two lots of 256MB with one dedicated to graphics. The 360 has 512MB shared over system and graphics. Both had issues but I think PS3 might have been affected slightly more. Don't take that as absolute truth. Both suffered the same memory issue but I don't have hard evidence suggesting one was worse.

OSX is a Unix-like OS. In my experience in writing C/C++ on Linux I have definitely found it easier to go between Linux and OSX rather than Windows and Linux. Mostly due to the fact Windows uses a different indicator to signal a new line in plain text (source code) where Linux and OSX use the same system. All my Linux written source code appears as one line when opened in Windows.

 

[adlerman1]

It is pretty simple to install but you'll want to make sure your motherboard supports booting from usb and that your wireless card is supported(the reason I am not currently running it). If you use a hardwire for internet you shouldn't have a problem. Also i would recommend keeping a separate working pc to help look up any problems you run into. You don't need to code anything but you probablly will need to use a few console commands.

 

[Agayek]

Debian I say. Although if they DO start developing games for linux, they would probably use Ubuntu because of its "User friendliness", but what do I know? [sub]No seriously, I don't know[/sub]

Oh almost certainly. Ubuntu is "Baby's First Linux" after all. Doesn't mean I can't dream

 

[Waaghpowa]

I'm sorry to be such a dummy, but I just took the Unbuntu tour, and it looked amazing. Is it really that simple to get a new free OS? Or does Linux mean lots of coding and technical areas that I have to be trained in? I just built a new desktop (First time, no explosions!) and I was debating buying a new copy of Win 7 Ultimate, but this looks great!

So can anyone with experience guide me here? I didn't see any signs saying "Not for dummies, must understand A+ and other types of code, or your computer will explode".

Ubuntu is, as the above post says, "babies first linux". For the most part it's fairly simple. You MIGHT run into issues installing drivers. I just installed Nvidia drivers on my Ubuntu partition, not by downloading and installing it like normal, but using the command terminal to get the files and installing them directly.

The great thing is that there's a huge community for linux in generall, meaning if you have an issue, a quick google search will give you a step by step to solving the issue.