Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Linux

Steam Not Coming To Linux 520

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the put-yer-pants-back-on dept.
dkd903 writes "A rumor has been going around for about four months that Valve was working on a Linux version of Steam and this had a lot of people in the Linux community very excited. But, Valve has now officially killed the rumor. And it is not what people wants to hear – there is no Linux version of Steam in development. Doug Lombardi, the Marketing VP of Valve Corporation, in an interview, has put an end to all the rumors by saying that they are not working on Steam for Linux right now."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Steam Not Coming To Linux

Comments Filter:
  • by odies (1869886) * on Monday August 23, 2010 @08:57AM (#33339610)

    It's not really a surprise. To begin with 99% of commercial games don't even have a Linux version, so there's nothing to sell to Linux gamers. You can't really rely on emulation either, if you sell the game as a Linux version you really have to do a native build. Then there are hundreds of different Linux distros and configurations which all work a little bit different. Also, just imagine the outcry about DRM and Valve not open sourcing Steam or it's games. The whole open source and everything-must-be-free mentality goes against businesses. You can already read here on slashdot how some people refuse to use Steam because it might go down in 50 years. This thinking is 100x worse with Linux users.

    I think the problem with Linux is that those who develop it push their philosophy too much and refuse to give room for other philosophies, along with way too much spread ecosystem (distros, configurations, all the problems). There's a reason why we still haven't seen the year of Linux on desktop and probably never will. As much as I dislike Apple, if you want an UNIX based desktop OS you get a Mac.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:05AM (#33339706)

      Most serious gamers have dual-boot or a console. There aren't many sales to be gained, honestly.

      Linux would have more to gain by this than Valve, and it's not like it's a priority for the Linux community...

      • by watermark (913726) on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:39AM (#33340058)

        I do dual boot, but I wouldn't have a need to dual boot if the games ran native in Linux. The only reason windows exists on my box is to run games, bringing the cost of games to $cost_of_games+$microsoft_tax. While I like free things as much as the next guy, I expect to pay for games (just not monthly, screw Blizzard.) Steam's DRM is unintrusive and very rarely causes me inconveniences.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by danieltdp (1287734)

          So if steam is on Linux, nothing changes from the sales point of view. You will buy Bad Company for Linux instead of Bad Company for Windows.

          My point is, valve is not going to sell much more games. Their audience will just migrate from one OS to another. They (we) will be very happy, but it won't come out as more money to the company.

          Reality is a little cruel sometimes. It would love to get something like steam running on my Linux box. I would be great. But I see their reasoning...

      • serious linux users (Score:3, Informative)

        by OrangeTide (124937)

        Casual linux users dual-boot their systems, serious linux users go for a big uptime.
        Serious gamers who are also serious linux users have two machines.

    • by Nursie (632944)

      Oh nonsense, it's perfectly friendly to commercial software, linux is our biggest platform in the enterprise sector I deal with.

      It hasn't got a huge desktop install base, and whilst it would have won valve some kudos I'm not sure that it would have paid for its dev costs.

      Me, I run it under wine and some of the games work as well as windows. Not all by a long stretch, but some.

    • by Spad (470073) <{ku.oc.daps} {ta} {todhsals}> on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:16AM (#33339814) Homepage

      I think the problem with Linux is that those who develop it push their philosophy too much and refuse to give room for other philosophies

      I'm probably going to upset a lot of people here by comparing Linux to religion; specifically Christianity, but the others are just as guilty of it:

      When Monty Python's Life of Brian was released the church was up in arms about it, protesting and demanding it was banned because *they* didn't like it and *they* felt it was unacceptable for people to watch, that it had a negative effect on the church because it went against what they believed in. It never occurred to them that *other* people might be quite happy to go and see it without any issues at all, they just saw it as their duty to protect all us witless heathens from ourselves.

      A lot of Linux users are exactly the same with anything closed source; *they* don't want closed source software and drivers because *they* feel it's unacceptable for people to use them and that it will have a negative effect on Linux because it goes against what they believe in. It never occurs to them that *other* people might be quite happy to use closed source software & drivers without any issues at all and just see it as their duty to protect all us witless heathens from ourselves.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by gid (5195)

        I'm sure myself along with many other Linux users are perfectly fine with things such as the closed source nvidia drivers. I'm just glad they exist. I'll let the kernel developers and nvidia duke it out on their own tho.

        As long as I don't have to purchase a driver, I'm fine. :)

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by rtb61 (674572)

        Linux is open source and covers many different groups. You fall guilty of the same nonsense using what was originally an M$ marketing strategy to paint all Linux users the same.

        Governments use it, corporations use it, the military uses it, the bulk of ISP's use it. The majority use it to save time, hassle and of course money. Some use it because of greater control they can exercise over it.

        Really it is no different to defining all M$ coders as tiny limp windrones and that statement is also not true.

        B

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          "M$" and "windrones"? Did you just wake up from early 2000s cryogenic suspension? Here's something to help: we hate Apple now.

      • by locallyunscene (1000523) on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:36AM (#33340038)
        The same can be said of any ideology. Do you believe it is better to have access to the source code, or do you believe that companies will fairly use the trust you have given them to create better products? You think you know the answer that is best for you and they think they know the answer that is best for them. They aren't "forcing" anything on you like most religions I know.
      • Excuse me? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by voss (52565) on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:40AM (#33340074)

        Who is "They" and how many is a "lot"????

        I use closed source nvidia drivers with no particular ethical issues.
        Most linux users (more than 50%) would be perfectly happy if their favorite game
        worked on linux whether it was closed source or open source, native linux or WINE.

        As a linux user I will say his "holiness" Richard Stallman does not speak for me.

        • by nedlohs (1335013) on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:48AM (#33340178)

          As a linux user I will say his "holiness" Richard Stallman does not speak for me.

          It's GNU/Linux you heathen scum!

        • by Smivs (1197859)

          I use closed source nvidia drivers with no particular ethical issues. Most linux users (more than 50%) would be perfectly happy if their favorite game worked on linux whether it was closed source or open source, native linux or WINE.

          Same here - I don't have a particular issue with closed-source. Indeed my browser-of-choice is the closed-source Opera. If it works I'm happy, and if it's free I'm happier still and more likely to use it.

        • by shish (588640)
          Ditto that; and doing a survey of "Comment #33340074 and its responses", we so far have 4 votes for "happy if their favorite game worked on linux whether it was closed source or open source, native linux or WINE" and zero votes for "open source is truth and justice and you shall have nothing else", so your guess of 50% seems low :) (Sure, the sample size is tiny, but it's better than the ass-pulled figures that the grandparent was stating)
        • Re:Excuse me? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by ACS Solver (1068112) on Monday August 23, 2010 @10:19AM (#33340668)

          Thank you! Same here. I identify myself as a "non-ideological Linux user". I do believe that free software is often better but for purely practical reasons. I use Linux because I find it a very solid OS, because I like the control that it gives me, I like how quickly certain command-line utilities get their respective tasks done, and because I really like KDE. That's it. I'm not using it because of some ideological or philosophical reasons, I have no problem with also using Windows 7, which I find to be a pretty good OS too. I certainly have no problem with using closed-source drivers on Linux or running the occasional proprietary application through Wine.

          I used to like Stallman and the FSF when I thought they're basically Linux advocacy. I don't like them now because they're essentially about philosophy and politics, not about the practical side of software. And because of how their actions are indeed often similar to a hardliner religious group.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's not really a surprise. To begin with 99% of commercial games don't even have a Linux version

      And in other news, fire is hot. Thank you Captain Obvious.

      , so there's nothing to sell to Linux gamers. You can't really rely on emulation either, if you sell the game as a Linux version you really have to do a native build.

      If you plan on selling a game for any platform, you need a native build. Again, thank you Captain Obvious.

      Then there are hundreds of different Linux distros and configurations which all work a little bit different.

      And? Would't be hard to have a system requirement Debian base? You know ... like many games require Windows Vista +, so you are fscked on XP or 2000.

      Also, just imagine the outcry about DRM and Valve not open sourcing Steam or it's games.

      VMWare Workstation ran/runs fine on Linux without open sourcing it. Nobody complains. As for DRM, not many people complain about Steam anyways.

      The whole open source and everything-must-be-free mentality goes against businesses.

      Yes because Redhat are bankrupt and Novell also and IBM

    • by Ephemeriis (315124) on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:20AM (#33339872)

      To begin with 99% of commercial games don't even have a Linux version, so there's nothing to sell to Linux gamers.

      The same could be said of Macs. Part of what made Steam viable on the Mac was Valve porting a number of their games over to the Mac. And they could do it again for Linux if they wanted to...

      Also, just imagine the outcry about DRM and Valve not open sourcing Steam or it's games. The whole open source and everything-must-be-free mentality goes against businesses. You can already read here on slashdot how some people refuse to use Steam because it might go down in 50 years. This thinking is 100x worse with Linux users.

      This, I think, is the real problem.

      I like free stuff as much as the next guy... And I'm not a big fan of DRM in general... But I can at least accept that game developers need to eat, and that I'm not entitled to their games for free, and that Steam is a relatively reasonable platform.

      A lot of folks here on Slashdot disagree with me. A lot of folks here on Slashdot think Steam is an absolutely horrible thing. They wouldn't touch it with a 10' pole. They sure as hell wouldn't install it on their Linux system and purchase games through it.

      I think the Linux market is even smaller than the Mac market... Not because of the number of users out there, but because of the philosophy you see behind so many Linux users.

      • by Macrat (638047) on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:33AM (#33339996)

        To begin with 99% of commercial games don't even have a Linux version, so there's nothing to sell to Linux gamers.

        The same could be said of Macs. Part of what made Steam viable on the Mac was Valve porting a number of their games over to the Mac. And they could do it again for Linux if they wanted to...

        Most Mac owners actually BUY software.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          To begin with 99% of commercial games don't even have a Linux version, so there's nothing to sell to Linux gamers.

          The same could be said of Macs. Part of what made Steam viable on the Mac was Valve porting a number of their games over to the Mac. And they could do it again for Linux if they wanted to...

          Most Mac owners actually BUY software.

          Only because they can't steal it from work.

        • by jedidiah (1196)

          Most Mac owners actually BUY software.

          Any group that spends 2 or 3 times what they really need for something are
          bound to wander around spending like drunken sailors on leave. It kind of
          comes with the territory. MacOS is more payware centric than even Windows
          is. Mac users are made to pay for stuff that no one else is, Windows users
          included.

          OTOH, real facts paint a different picture.

          Some of the most expensive software out there runs on Linux.

          Linux also holds it's own in terms of Indie games.

          Macs are only marginally better in the gaming market (fo

        • by sammyF70 (1154563) on Monday August 23, 2010 @10:01AM (#33340370) Homepage Journal
          But more Linux users will actually pay and pay more [wolfire.com] for good native games. They just won't pay for something of which they can legally get working free equivalents
          • Seriously, Linux users cling to that as their one and only piece of proof that they pay, not realizing how pathetic it is. There are some major, major problems with that:

            1) People made it a cross platform thing, they went out of their way to give more to "Show how good $platform is!" Fine, but that has nothing to do with their normal purchasing habits. They gave more this one time but that doesn't mean they regularly spend money on games.

            2) More importantly, all the numbers are totally pathetic. Linux users

            • by sammyF70 (1154563) on Monday August 23, 2010 @03:13PM (#33345650) Homepage Journal

              1) shit...someone must have forgotten to send me the memo. I bought the Humble Bundle because the games ranged from good to absolutely amazing, were DRM free, native to the OS I use, and I was able to buy them without breaking my bank account (I paid what I was able to pay at that time, and would have paid more if I had been able to). I didn't know I was doing it to "show how good $platform" is.

              2) So your argument is : "Real Men Pay More"? kind of vain, isn't it? I guess you wouldn't buy any of the ~cheap~ windows games that are available on Steam, in fear someone might see you?!

              my own experience :
              I knew WoG, I already owned the Penumbra trilogy (and in a side note, I've already pre-ordered the next game by Frictional ... just to "prove how Good Linux is" apparently), but I had never heard of Lugaru, Gish or Aquaria before (nor of Samorost for that matter). The Humble Bundle gave me the opportunity to get those games (admitedly for a rather low sum), and I ended up playing through 3 of the 4 games I didn't know ... something that rarely happens when I buy more expensive titles ( mostly from Steam by the way).

              And One Last Thing : paying 50$ to show off your taste in OS (or how large your bank account is) is incredibly stupid.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by GuerillaRadio (818889)

          http://www.techdirt.com/blog/entrepreneurs/articles/20100518/0844299463.shtml

          "The other interesting tidbit, as many noted, is that despite suggestions from some that the "open source" world are folks who "just want stuff for free," the average amount paid by Linux users ($14.52) was significantly higher than those paid by Mac ($10.18) or Windows ($8.05) users."

      • by KiloByte (825081)

        To begin with 99% of commercial games don't even have a Linux version, so there's nothing to sell to Linux gamers.

        The same could be said of Macs. Part of what made Steam viable on the Mac was Valve porting a number of their games over to the Mac. And they could do it again for Linux if they wanted to...

        I guess it's not really about porting the games itself, it's about porting the DRM. Any form of DRM is fundamentally incompatible with an open OS -- since the user has full control over the hardware, and can tell the kernel to lie to the Steam client in any way he wants. And even if they add a kernel driver, it can be easily worked around.

        On Windows and Mac, DRM, while still not viable in theory, works in practice since working around it is hard.

      • not believing in DRM and not believing that i should get games for free/developers need to eat is not the same thing
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by irving47 (73147)

        "The same could be said of Macs. Part of what made Steam viable on the Mac was Valve porting a number of their games over to the Mac. And they could do it again for Linux if they wanted to..."

        I play on a fairly recent iMac... Team Fortress 2 is gorgeous on the Windows 7 side, but when I reboot from that, into Mac OS X version, the difference is still quite clear, even with the recent updates. Also, the microphone tends to fail after 3-5 minutes of use.

        So essentially... they have enough to worry about as it

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mark72005 (1233572)
      You're right that there needs to be more room for the other viewpoints. Personally, it irritates me when I install ubuntu or similar, and drivers that I need for wireless are included in the available libraries, but you have to opt-in to those because they "are not free software". If you know that my wireless card is in there, why not turn it on by default? Why assume I won't want to use a system device unless the driver is "free software"? The assumption should be made in the other direction. Does anyone e
      • by Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:51AM (#33340208)
        I think its less to do with some ideology about only using free software, but with the license under which ubuntu is packaged, where it can't automatically opt you into closed-source software
        • by Kjella (173770)

          Huh? Sure they can, many paid versions of Linux have come with closed source tools. What may be an exception are kernel modules, which comes back to the age old question if they're derivates of the kernel and must be GPL'd or not. I would not think that line goes at "installed by default" either way. But even if they could ship it installed, I would require a check box for Ubuntu's own sake saying "This is closed source software, we can't support it, if you have problems with it contact the producer of your

      • by shish (588640)

        If you know that my wireless card is in there, why not turn it on by default?

        Because the driver license makes it illegal to distribute in that way?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 (641858)

        Personally, it irritates me when I install ubuntu or similar, and drivers that I need for wireless are included in the available libraries, but you have to opt-in to those because they "are not free software".

        A much more common case is that the drivers are not included because Ubuntu does not have the right to distribute them. A lot of WiFi cards require firmware to work, which is not freely redistributable. When you 'opt in' you are actually running a script that fetches the firmware from the original supplier. Other drivers are redistributable, but not in conjunction with the Linux kernel. The nVidia drivers are an example of this. They are not compatible with the GPL, so if you distribute them with the

    • World of Warcraft and EVE online run just fine on Linux with WINE. Neither company uses DRM on their client. EVE online had a native linux client but
      the WINE version ran better.

      Despite all the mythlogy about "too many distros" the truth of the matter is that 90%+ of linux users use spinoffs of one of four distros (debian, redhat, suse, and mandriva) all of which run WINE just about the same.

    • I think the problem with Linux is that those who develop it push their philosophy too much and refuse to give room for other philosophies, along with way too much spread ecosystem (distros, configurations, all the problems). There's a reason why we still haven't seen the year of Linux on desktop and probably never will.

      You are wrong. There are commercial products released for *some* linux flavours. Agreed, they don't fare well on the linux ecosystem at large, for simple reasons : install is complicated while native free softwares are at hand's reach after an 'apt-get install zzz' or 'yum install zzz', they don't run on every flavour whereas native apps correctly packaged do, you can't get insurance your paid software will keep on running after upgrade while free softwares can be recompiled to take advantage of new system

    • This is one of those classic cases where strength becomes weakness. The strength of Linux is diversity, but diversity is the bane of game testing and deployment.
    • by Lumpy (12016)

      Exactly!

      That's why there are no Closed source uses for linux....

      We dont have linux running most of the internet or the Infrastructure for the fortune 500...

      Oracle is not on linux. You cant do anything to make money on linux... Linux is dead.

      Oh wait, Linux is used HEAVILY for commercial purposes and has software that cost more than 8000 Games at full MSRP. that is 100% closed source and chocked full of good ol' DRM.

      Linux on the desktop is here. It's called ubuntu, you should try it, because a very larg

    • by duguk (589689)

      Then there are hundreds of different Linux distros and configurations which all work a little bit different.

      I know nothing about writing games, but even I'd imagine that writing compatible games on Linux is easier than on Windows. Certainly I've had less trouble playing them anyway.

    • by DrXym (126579)
      It's not really a surprise. To begin with 99% of commercial games don't even have a Linux version, so there's nothing to sell to Linux gamers. You can't really rely on emulation either, if you sell the game as a Linux version you really have to do a native build.

      Same is true for the Mac. Most of those Mac games on Steam have running Windows code which has been rebuilt with Cider (which is a Wine variant).

      Anyway I think Valve's position should be to pay someone like Cedega to support Steam on Linux and

  • Phoronix (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23, 2010 @08:59AM (#33339632)

    Your number one source on the web for wild speculation and misinformation in the linux world.

  • Wine (Score:5, Informative)

    by The MAZZTer (911996) <megazzt@noSpAM.gmail.com> on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:00AM (#33339642) Homepage
    Last I checked it ran pretty good in Wine (the Source engine too), so it's not a total loss.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Kjella (173770)

      Yes, but trying to run Steam with different games requiring different WINE settings is a giant pain in the ass.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Cato (8296)

        True, but you can use WINE bottles to get around this - install a WINE bottle, then move the steamapps directory somewhere else and do a symbolic link to it from the WINE bottle, and install one game in this bottle. For the next game, install a new bottle (with new WINE settings etc) but with symbolic link to the shared steamapps folder.

        For extra point, the steamapps folder can be on an NTFS partition (but only if you have kernel >= 2.6.26, or your GCF files may get corrupted) - then you can multiboot i

  • It would be nice to have a gaming standard as big as Steam available for Linux, but between spotty drivers and lack of Linux versions for most games, I can understand why Valve won't make the investment.

    Oh well, WINE works "good enough", I suppose...Still, this is just one more reason I keep a Windows 7 64 bit machine around.

    • by armanox (826486)

      It would be nice to have a gaming standard as big as Steam available for Linux, but between spotty drivers and lack of Linux versions for most games, I can understand why Valve won't make the investment.

      /quote> First off, I am going to have to disagree with the driver statement. This isn't 2006 anymore. Secondly, that same statement can be applied to questioning Steam on Mac OS.

      • by Hyppy (74366)

        First off, I am going to have to disagree with the driver statement. This isn't 2006 anymore. Secondly, that same statement can be applied to questioning Steam on Mac OS.

        OSX doesn't have nearly as many driver problems, because the hardware is very tightly controlled.

  • I'm glad (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rshxd (1875730) on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:01AM (#33339658)
    Linux is for serious business. If you want to goof around, buy a Mac
    • ...because there are so many Steam games for Mac right now?

  • by Da w00t (1789) * on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:04AM (#33339682) Homepage
    iD software has historically produced Linux versions of their games; I remember fondly playing the quake(s), and doom 3 under Linux. While there have been lots and lots of reports over the years showing there is a Linux gaming market, it isn't a large enough market share for these game developers to put serious effort into it. I bet some of them actually see developing for Linux as a hindrance, even though most big game dev companies essentially abstract-out the bits between PS3, XBOX, Wii, PC, etc that are different.
    • by CFBMoo1 (157453) on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:11AM (#33339760) Homepage
      I like iD, they've historically given back to the public domain after a limited period of time. As their new tech comes out they've released the older tech to the general public. My game purchases may be pittance but I like rewarding them as best I can for their actions even in this crappy economy. Still have the metal box Quake 3 Linux package and CD. >_>
    • by segin (883667) <segin2005@gmail.com> on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:13AM (#33339772) Homepage
      Developing for Linux is a lot like developing for OS X - pthreads, POSIX, OpenGL, and all. Besides, if they need their games ported to Linux, all they would have to do is contract Ryan Gordon [icculus.org].
    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      The thing with Steam was getting the marketplace/appstore aspect of it into Linux. It creates a shopping venue and hence a customer base. iD might have produced a Linux version of their game, but you don't see them unless you go out searching for them specifically, and you don't tend to see other Linux games on the e-shelves to buy while you're buying the latest iD game.

      It's sad, but Linux gaming is actually regressing, whilst the OS as a whole is going forward. Bioware released Neverwinter Nights for Li

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:05AM (#33339698)

    they are not working on Steam for Linux right now.

    This confirms they will be working on it later! I bet it'll be out in time to make 2011 the year of Linux on the desktop!

    • Maybe they'll buy the IP for DN:F and port it?

      We have WINE 1.2 now. So, miracles can happen...
    • they are not working on Steam for Linux right now.

      This confirms they will be working on it later!

      Though this is obviously in jest, it's not like it's unheard of for Valve to completely change their position on a platform.

      Gabe Newell on the PS3, January 2007:

      The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels, I think it's really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted. I'd say, even at this late date, they should just cancel it and do a 'do over.' Just say, 'This was a horrible disaster and we're sorry and we're going to stop selling this and stop trying to convince people to develop for it.'

      Gabe Newell on the PS3, October 2007:

      I think [PS3 is] a waste of everybody's time. Investing in the Cell, investing in the SPE gives you no long-term benefits. There's nothing there that you're going to apply to anything else. You're not going to gain anything except a hatred of the architecture they've created. I don't think they're going to make money off their box. I don't think it's a good solution.

      Gabe Newll on the PS3, May 2010:

      We would love to see the PS3 be more open like a Mac than more closed like a Gamecube. It makes it easier to justify those investments if that were the case.

      One month later he was on stage at E3 during Sony's keynote announcing Portal 2.

      I completely agree that Steam on Linux as a released product is unlikely any time soon. We've seen the fragments that made it in to the Mac code so we know it's being worked on, but there's a huge gap

  • fooled me (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ko10ha (1343785)
    I actually bought a new computer, partly in anticipation of steam and half-life2 coming to Linux. Silly me. And in response to those that keep saying that there are too many distro's and that Linux for games for that reason is a lost cause - I don't buy that. I'm running Openbox on Slackware, there's no gnome on my machine and I never use kde. Yet, only rarely do I encounter a program that does not run (usually because of lots of silly gnome libs not being present). I mean, what does a game need from kde o
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Games require fast access to 3D, audio and controls. Having dozens of distros all doing things their own way is a PITA.

      And the last time I heard someone talk about X, he was saying it's two decades behind in terms of what games require.

      Like it or not, there has to be a single Linux distro with a single specific setup if you want companies to support Linux at all.

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        > Games require fast access to 3D, audio and controls. Having dozens of distros all doing things their own way is a PITA.

        Except they aren't doing things their own way at this level.

        Any Linux distribution is just a collection of a number of common components.

        This includes the kernel, the graphics subsystem, the device drivers, the desktop shell.

        ALSA and OpenGL are the same on any distribution. So is SDL or OpenAL.

        You can even package your product up old school if you are worried about dependencies.

        Hell, O

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Goaway (82658)

      The reason your programs all work is that everybody is forced to live with the limitations and don't actually make the kind of programs that would have big problems with the different distros.

      Like, for instance, closed-source modern games.

    • Steam and HL2 work fine on Linux with WINE.

  • I don't follow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jorl17 (1716772) on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:33AM (#33339994)
    I can't seem to follow this, nor get it straight in my mind.

    It all started as rumors such as this one [dailyradar.com].

    But, then, they announced that it was official and that Valve had announced that it would be launching a Linux version. I do not recall seeing any actual Valve announcement, but this news hit Slashdot like a "Microsoft-is-dead!"-news-issue: http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/its-official-steam-coming-linux [linuxjournal.com]
    And they say:

    We recently touched on one way of being a Linux gamer. Recent news that Valve Software will soon be releasing a Linux client promises to provide another option for Linux gamers. The news could not come at a better time as the world will shortly focus on gaming with the upcoming, industry-only E3 conference, the crown jewel of the gaming industry.

    While there are still no details on the list of game titles that will be available, the announcement alone is reason for any Linux gamer to get excited. Steam is a content delivery system for gamers which allows you to buy and download game titles and related media, once you have the client installed.


    So, how do we go from announced to "not happening". Was this "announcement" a fake? It seems like it was...otherwise someone is BS me...
    • Re:I don't follow (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Lunix Nutcase (1092239) on Monday August 23, 2010 @09:45AM (#33340132)

      Protip: Those rumors had no basis in reality.. This is why you should not trust Phoronix as a source of reliable information in addition to their crappy benchmarks with questionable methodology.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by smbell (974184)
        I'm not a big fan of Phoronix and it's multi-page click through articles, but saying the rumor had no basis in reality is a bit of a stretch. The short of it is there was never an official announcement. Phoronix pointed out, and many others verified, there was several references to linux in various portions of the Steam client. This all came to a bit of a frenzy as some binaries that appeared to be the early workings of a linux client were found available from a valve server. They were up for several we
    • by Jorl17 (1716772)
      Also, doing the ridiculous thing of answering myself, I'd like to add this forum thread (yes, Phoronix and noted by Phoronix as well):

      http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23328&page=5 (page 5 is interesting, be the thread is lengthy)

      So...what was that thread all about? A user on page 6 says: They could be developing the client on Linux for Mac OS X. The fact that the files have support for Linux does not mean that they actually intend to support it. The best that you can conclude that Linux
  • Just where did those "rumors" come from?

    It's a common practice these days for has-been journalists to attempt to boost their page hits by using inflammatory article titles or leads to mundane or ridiculous articles that may only vaguely refer to Linux. You've seen them - "Is Debian Yesterday's distribution?" is but one recent example.

    It appears to me that the Valve corporation salted the rumor mine in order to gain FREE publicity about their Steam product. Letting "leak" a Mac Os X launcher script that co

What this country needs is a good five cent microcomputer.

Working...