Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th May 2010 15:07 UTC
Games "Valve Corporation has today rolled out their Steam Mac OS X client to the general public and confirmed something we have been reporting for two years: the Steam content delivery platform and Source Engine are coming to Linux. This news is coming days after we discovered proof in Steam's Mac OS X Client of Linux support and subsequently found more Linux references and even the unreleased Steam Linux client. The day has finally come and Linux gamers around the world have a reason to rejoice, as this is the biggest news for the Linux gaming community that sees very few tier-one titles." This means Linux users can finally enjoy two of the best games in recent years: Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2. BOOMER!
Thread beginning with comment 424147
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
smitty
Member since:
2005-10-13

How dare we question the design philosophy of Linus and Greg K-H when Linux is such a resounding success on the desktop. Telling hardware companies to open source their drivers or f off has worked wonders.

Having a consumer desktop Unix with a stable abi is non-sense just as Greg famously claimed. Oh except for OSX which has over 10x the share of Linux in the US. But other than that, non-sense.


Are you seriously claiming that Apple's success is due to having a stable hardware API?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Heck, Apple doesn't even allow a lot of hardware to run on the OS at all - hence the hackintosh community that has sprung up. OSX is popular because of the user interface and the massive advertisement campaign they run, not because lots of hardware runs on it or because they are friendly to developers. (Ask any iPhone developer what they think about that)

Edit: Oh, and questioning is fine, but you don't seem to be doing much of that. What you're doing is declaring that you're right and they're wrong, without even putting out any argument other than "it's hard for companies with proprietary drivers so it must be bad". I assume you realize that everyone agrees that it's hard, and that some of us just think that there are other benefits to the non-stable API that outweigh the harm it causes.

Edited 2010-05-13 06:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Are you seriously claiming that Apple's success is due to having a stable hardware API?

Where did I claim that?

I pointed out that there is a successful Unix desktop that has a stable ABI. I said nothing about the reasons behind its success, just that one exists.

Reply Parent Score: 3

smitty Member since:
2005-10-13


Where did I claim that?

I pointed out that there is a successful Unix desktop that has a stable ABI. I said nothing about the reasons behind its success, just that one exists.


If all you wanted to do was prove that with enough money a stable API could succeed, you'd be much better off using Windows in your example.

If you were trying to prove that it was necessary to succeed, then I think your own example actually disproved that, given that OSX has less hardware support than linux does.

And if it didn't have any bearing at all, then why even bring it up?

Reply Parent Score: 2