Valve taps testers for Linux Steam Valve is seeking participants for its Steam for Linux beta test and has asked experienced users of the open source platform to apply. The company confirmed it would launch Steam for Ubuntu back in July, but failed to hint at any release dates. It did, however, promise a port of Left 4 Dead 2, and a month later claimed that …
This post has been deleted by its author
One of the questions relates to WINE, so there may not be as much work involved as you think.
Pretty much everything runs in WINE with enough tweaking, and if Steam bother to make nice "bottles" of WINE configurations, it could be point-and-click setup quite easily. As a former user of Crossover Office and other packages, I know it can be quite simple to get a specific app to gold standard if you really have an interest in doing so.
That said, I'd hope more than indie studios (currently doing very well in the "bundle" stakes), and a large publisher or two would go properly Linux-supporting (i.e. recompilation) like many of the titles on my existing Steam account already do and hope that the rest of the world would follow suit.
If MS can push Windows on ARM, I'm sure people would be just as happy with Steam on Linux.
I haven't filled in the application because I'm not an experienced linux user, I'm a linux noob. But the idea of using WINE makes sense. So long as they state "natively supported" and "emulated" on the linux titles it shouldn't be too bad. I'd actually considered trying to get some of my games running via WINE anyway.
> Steam bother to make nice "bottles" of WINE configurations, it could be point-and-click setup quite easily.
WINE can be included at compile time to produce a sort of faux native executable. However I think the Source titles don't rely heavily (or at all) on DirectX so should be proper native builds.
Taken from the WINE FaQ
"Wine is not just an emulator" is more accurate. Thinking of Wine as just an emulator is really forgetting about the other things it is. Wine's "emulator" is really just a binary loader that allows Windows applications to interface with the Wine API replacement.
With that inherent statement hinting at that at the core of it, WINE is an emulator with additional bells and whistles attached.
The problem with using Wine wrappers for Steam games is that a large percentage of those Steam games use DirectX. Wine as far as I understand has to convert those DirectX commands into OpenGL before the system can do anything with them which creates overhead. Wine also only supports OpenGL 2.1 which isn't fully capable of replicating all of the features of DirectX 11. Anecdotally, from what I've seen on the AppDB, when a Windows game has both a DirectX mode and OpenGL mode and is run on Linux through Wine, the OpenGL version can render up to 50% more frames per second than DirectX.
PS. Can API developers please stop giving their creations names with sporadic capitalisation?
You have to sign in via Steam to enter anyway, which is more a barrier to entry!
That said, you could be using WINE to run Steam (as many do, as it's very well supported), or on a Mac.
But getting "beta testers" who don't know how program is even supposed to work on Windows is a bit more tricky
I was hoping this would get as little publicity as possible to give me a better chance of getting in! :-p
The survey's a little flawed, though. They say they want as many hardware variations as possible, then only allow you to specify one in your response. I've got at least half a dozen machines I could test on, various form factors and powers, but I could only specify one.
In case you missed the memo, almost all the indie games released lately are released on Linux at launch too. Cross platform development is the norm and hasn't ever been easier (and if you're intending to sell - as a lot of games do now - on Windows, Mac, Android, Wii, PS3, Xbox 360, iPad, etc. then adding another Linux platform is nothing).
Not everything is about the latest FPS - but, hell, just Half-Life 2:Episode 3 on Linux one day early would make me install it just for that!.
All Valve titles, plus a ton of existing indies (and indie doesn't mean "homebrew game" any more but things like Trine 2, Magicka, etc. as well), for how much effort exactly? A recompile of a codebase already multi-platform, changing the Source engine *once* (which has historical roots in Quake-based engines that were already cross-platform) and hitting performance gains of magnitude enough to interest "gamers" (which provides sufficient impetus behind gaming hardware enough to even attract sponsorship from various graphics manufacturers etc. to "optimise" their code for a particular combination), adding in another platform to the database instead of just Windows / Mac, and porting the Steam client code... not a lot compared to, say, a few hundred thousand purchases of a dollar each just to start. In fact, it's profit before you start just by the initial publicity if you have the momentum that Steam have.
Lee if you think making your app work on another platform is as simple as hitting "recompile", even if you write it with cross-platform in mind, you're sadly mistaken. Even Java doesn't work that smoothly!
And then you probably need to rewrite ALL your shaders to GLSL from HLSL.
JDX: If you're a professional programmer, using proper techniques, established libraries, and standardised code, the cost of the platform-dependent parts is absolutely minimal compared to the rest of the project.
My point is not that the "second" platform you add to a program is cheap, but that once you have the first, second, third, fourth and fifth already, the sixth *IS* literally just a recompile and you're done.
And Java is the same - so long as you know what you're doing. It doesn't matter the language, actually, it's the way you program that determines that.
But a game, written to run on tablets, iPads, phones, PC's and Macs? Linux compatibility is a couple of weeks work at most and if you're good probably comes for free with a compile option or two. That's *why* the indie bundles are full of multi-platform games - it's literally fire-and-forget if you started off with that in mind.
Linux isn't used on the desktop
Explain the popularity of Ubuntu then.
it barely has working sound
I recorded a sixteen track song in Ardour running on a Linux box last night. I didn't have to do anything special to get it working - I just installed the Ardour package itself from the Debian repository.
graphics acceleration doesn't really work
Valve's work on Steam for Linux would seem to prove otherwise.
Beyond a few neckbeards sat in their mom's basement, no one is going to use this.
I've never had a beard, live in my own home and have a wife. Judging by the IT departments I've worked in, that's the norm for my fellow Linux users as well. And I'm really looking forward to using Steam on Linux.
Conclusion: you're a troll.
I think 1% of users choosing to build there own machines ( as I do ) or installing LInux over Windows or as a dual boot is an extremely good percentage as probably 90+% of users never think about it all as their machines are either provided by the company or already have Windows installed when they buy them.
(no I don't build my own laptops but I've netbook that has never seen Windows and a laptop that was recycled from a relative that gave up on it after a Windows update trashed the hard drive)
Because obviously Valve decided to do this on a whim and did absolutely no research on the subject.
To be honest though, I don't think Valve is expecting a big increase in sales at all. I really think this is one of those moves that's more about making existing users happy (lots of people have been wanting this for years) rather than attracting new users from a different corner of the market. I believe they are expecting that gaming in general is breaking away from the Windows platform (the number of games for OSX has been increasing steadily lately, indie games from Humble Bundles always work on Linux and OSX) and they're jumping ahead to establish Steam as the standard gaming solution on Linux.
I have Windows installed on my desktop for the sole purpose of playing games. If the games I play the most were available for Linux, I'd drop Windows entirely. I don't think I'm the only person who's like this and Steam for Linux is the first big step in that direction.
Dear neckbeard,
1. Ubuntu *IS NOT* popular. The install base of Linux versions added together doesn't even reach 1% Get over it.
2. Just because you are a highly experienced IT professional and get run Ardor etc, does not change the fact the sound and graphics on Linux are a joke. Bought a new laptop? Your graphics card won't work because Linux doesn't support it. Want to watch a Blu-Ray? Whoops! Linux doesn't support that either.
3. Releasing anything on a different platform is not just a magic button press away, not matter how well your delusions of grandeur make you think you can code. At the very least you need a few test runs and that costs money. Money you won't get back from the piddling Linux market.
4. Just because a few no-name software housess release a game that runs on Linux in a desperate bid to earn an extra cent, doesn't mean Linux is a gaming platform (see above).
5. When you have to call in the hardware maker to write you custom drivers, of course you can make it work. And that is how bad Linux support is - if you want something done you have to run begging to the likes of Intel.
And finally, are legions of gamers going to run out an buy new rigs just for Linux? And they'll need new rigs because Linux won't support their current one. No. Are they going to squeal with glee every time they use a command line like you neckbeards? No. They want to play their game, and on the desktop that means using *THE BEST* gaming OS *BY FAR* which is *WINDOWS*. It supports all your hardware and *JUST WORKS*. This is why it is w-a-y more popular than an version of Linux (or all added together even).
Enjoy your sub-1% popularity.
"2. Just because you are a highly experienced IT professional and get run Ardor etc, does not change the fact the sound and graphics on Linux are a joke. Bought a new laptop? Your graphics card won't work because Linux doesn't support it. Want to watch a Blu-Ray? Whoops! Linux doesn't support that either."
Congratulations on confirming that you have no clue at all about what you are talking.
"Congratulations on confirming that you have no clue at all about what you are talking."
Oh? Here are the instructions for the "popular" Ubuntu: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats/BluRayAndHDDVD
Seriously...that's the kind of crap you neckbeards this is easy to use and qualifies as support? On a proper OS, you put in the disk and press play. That's it. No wonder no one uses your little OS.
"Oh? Here are the instructions for the "popular" Ubuntu: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RestrictedFormats/BluRayAndHDDVD"
You picked one extremely locked down format as your example? Hell even OSX can't play BluRay without third party software. As for every other restricted format, you should be offered an option during the initial OS install, you can install them via the admin menu, or you could go here and click the install hyperlink.
"2. Just because you are a highly experienced IT professional and get run Ardor etc, does not change the fact the sound and graphics on Linux are a joke. Bought a new laptop? Your graphics card won't work because Linux doesn't support it. Want to watch a Blu-Ray? Whoops! Linux doesn't support that either."
Yes I did just buy a laptop thanks for your interest, and indeed I booted into Mageia v2 and sound, graphics, and bluray all worked. Thanks for your interest in my laptop though
That's strange because it's supported all the laptops I've ever installed it on (~6)
I'm up to more like 40...
Just ignore the tool. He's doing the usual "I can't understand Linux therefore it's shit" ranting that I've heard a million times and still don't give a flying goat's knacker about. Let's play Gaming For Retards:
1) Linux attracts nerds. Lots and lots and lots of nerds.
2) Nerds fucking love video games. Especially RPGs.
3) Linux users pay more for software more willingly than anyone else. Your brain will reject that immediately because you haven't thought about how Linux works.
4) Plenty of people dual-boot or keep Windows around (bumping its market share) because they want to keep gaming. I'm one of them.
Several of my friends have already said that if gaming comes to Linux properly, they're ditching Windows on the spot. I wonder what an untapped market looks like...
@Ian Yates - I have. That link was to the *current documentation* for the "user friendly" Ubuntu and it is a sad joke. The average user cannot be expected to jump through those hoops just to watch a movie they bought.
It amuses me so much that you neckbeards don't see a problem when it is shown to you "Works for me! You need to learn how to use a computer! RTFM!" Well that doesn't work in the real world and it certainly doesn't work when the "M" contains crap like I linked to.
sub-1% penetration: there's a reason for that y'know.
Coming back to a topic a day later to continue trolling? I applaud your dedication.
Oh, as to your point on "New laptop? Linux won't support the hardware" you're correct, on my laptop Linux didn't support all the hardware, until I updated and WHAM full support.
The windows 8 disk I have though? Yeah Installed it, even less of my laptops hardware worked, as in it made my laptop unusable (and not just because of the interface). And since the windows 7 disk no longer exists, my laptop is now 100% Linux.
"It amuses me so much that you neckbeards don't see a problem when it is shown to you "Works for me! You need to learn how to use a computer! RTFM!" Well that doesn't work in the real world and it certainly doesn't work when the "M" contains crap like I linked to.
sub-1% penetration: there's a reason for that y'know."
Where to begin......
After finally deciding I would like to get a Linux distor working, having never used it before, it was quite possibly the easiest thing I've ever done.
My first step was getting an ISO to burn, and the ISO I got was from a mirror that was unmetered from my ISP. After all of 3 minutes of downloading and burning and but 2 clicks of user interaction I rebooted my computer and began the install process.
Before installing though, the disc prompted me if I would like to "Trial" Ubuntu before continuing, this feature was nice because it gave me time to adjust and quickly find out if *RANDOM FEATURE* did actually work. After deciding it would an icon on the desktop was all I needed to click and it started installing.
The install process, for a noob, can be summarized in the "Enter" key. The disc auto detected pretty much everything, much like windows or osx.
Once it was finished, I used the Ubuntu Software Centre to install a couple of games and some other programs. And without realizing it, the drivers required for my hardware were auto installed and didn't require my attention.
All in all I never touched a terminal, untill I decided I wanted to. And OMG it was so much fun. I learnt how to use APTGet and instantly dump the Software Centre. Then learnt about other window managers and found OpenBox and decided that it was the single best bit of software ive ever used.
So, no, you don't need to touch the terminal, just like in windows you don't need to touch the Registry or .plists in OSX. But when you want to, it's there and fun can be had by all.
When Valve announced Steam and Source for Linux I did flips in my chair, promptly followed by a "Bout bloody time!". Now can I not just dump the insecure and massively overpriced bloat ware that is Windows. Now I can play my games on an OS that I have not just free roam to customize what ever I want, but also have a massive support base to help me.
So to you comments, all I see is someone who hasn't experienced the joy of setting up a Linux box.
Oh, and FUCK YOU
Well, your final sentence just goes to show you've truly joined the Linux community. Not to mention paragraph after paragraph gushing about installing an OS, of all things. Using the word "noob" - classic sign of someone who's used Linux for about a week. Sad. So very, very, sad. But not in the way that implies you deserve pity rather than contempt :)
^AC above is just butt hurt because he's too retarded to install an OS on his own. He probably went out and bought an entirely new PC when windows 8 came out because he was too inept to install the OS on his current system without somebody holding his hand.
It's pitiful really but then again, that's what years of inbreeding will do to ones intellect.
Looking for experienced Linux jockeys? At some point they'll need to see if Steam Linux can be installed by people who can just barely install Linux itself but will just stare blankly at you if you mention the terminals, sudo, man pages etc.
Unless they can't get Steam to run on Linux and are looking for help?[/joke]
" At some point they'll need to see if Steam Linux can be installed by people who can just barely install Linux itself"
At some point yes, but experienced Linux users are better at diagnostics and bug reporting, which is more important at the moment. Once testing is complete, I'm sure they'll get the client added into the distro's repositories making it installable via the Ubuntu Software Center/package managers etc.
Why the hell is it Ubuntu only? What's with that? I mean if it requires new dependencies, or unique programs or whatever, can Valve not create a separate RPM package repository alongside the Advanced Packaging Tool's respective packages? For a commercial company betting a lot, and I'm sure a career or few, on this being a success, this so-called "beta" is sorely lacking. So why only target one Distribution and what amounts to one Desktop Environment?
But really, wouldn't you want to beta it across distributions and environments to find bugs? I mean, damn, what about people using Mint? Or Fedora? or openSUSE? There are alot of them, and Valve is basically saying "Fuck them. Not important". Linux ain't Windows. Its not homogenous. At all.
Not smart on Valve's part if you ask me, unless they want a controlled environment to make dumb advertising claims. Or I guess money from Canonical and/or Amazon. Same thing anymore kind of.
Why the hell is it Ubuntu only?
Dude, chill out. They partnered with Canonical on this. Of course Ubuntu gets it first. The others will follow, but they went first with the popular desktop distro that's officially supported by both nVidia and AMD. How long do you think it will take after this comes out for the ports to appear? Don't be daft.
For JDX:
1) Sorry, nope, I shaved this morning.
2) Damn, Yes I did get a call last night from Incident folks after a storage array pitched a fit, the cluster is back up and running now.
3) Oh right, I still have an alias out there in the intertubes that has been known to put in patches.
4) I've been a GM on a certain popular blizzard game. Still play when I have the time.
5) both of my teenage boys will be signing up.
And if Valve gets steam right , EA will dive in with them, I'm quite sure. At that point my wife will happily convert.
Oh - and -- right -- my work laptop? Officially sanctioned linux flavoured distro from the company. Which will be converting quite a few users to linux.
(ps, fastest way to recover a pooched windows installation on ANY hardware? wanna guess?)
(Tux - linux for almost 20 years now and damned proud of it, converting windows users weekly)
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with me, or which of my comments you might be referring to? All I can guess is that because you personally know several people using Linux you think that makes it popular. Hmm, no. If I go into Starbucks I'd conclude Mac is the dominant laptop seller. That's not true either.
And can there be anything more pathetic than a man who evangelises an OS because he truly believes in his very soul that he's saving people from MS?
This post has been deleted by its author
Don't worry about that, there's been a lot of discussion on the steam forum about using other distos. I think the main things are support and debugging. Canonical is working with Valve on this, so they'll get support from that side and systems would be as uniform as a Linux set up could be for debugging side of stuff.
for me at least. Dual boot. A production OS on one partition, either windows or ubuntu. And on the other partition a minimalist Linux distro, Arch Linux perhaps. Nothing on there except what's needed for steam.
negligible OS overhead, access to the maximum amount of available resources. It's the closest thing to a games console OS setup you could get with a PC.
Dual boot is very 90's.
Personally, I'll have whatever gaming-OS I consider to need full direct access to the hardware as the VM host, hosting VM's of whatever other OS I want to use.
Modern computer with virtualisation instructions in the processor - zero impact. VM visible interface - zero if you use the right software.
Just installed Windows 8 in a VM on my machine (about the 4th / 5th that I've got running on my new laptop). Will use that for work (with VM encrypted with Truecrypt to protect work data), base OS for games and home, and have other OS available at the click of a button for testing / user support.
This is coming from a man who once had a 2000-line long AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS to select from any of dozens of custom, hand-tuned DOS setups, Linux setups (syslinux, etc.) and other things back in the day.
Don't dual-boot. VM. And then you put the computer, the hardware and the security into the hands of a known and trusted OS, and can give things like Windows only what they need, sit them behind the Linux VM host firewall, and run them only when required.
io_uring is getting more capable, and PREEMPT_RT is going mainstream The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
