Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Sep 2013 17:29 UTC
Games

As we've been working on bringing Steam to the living room, we've come to the conclusion that the environment best suited to delivering value to customers is an operating system built around Steam itself. SteamOS combines the rock-solid architecture of Linux with a gaming experience built for the big screen. It will be available soon as a free stand-alone operating system for living room machines.

Valve goes beyond just building a Linux distribution and grafting Steam on top of it. They are actually working very closely with hardware manufacturers and game developers, which has already resulted in graphics performance improvements. They are also working on reducing input latency as well as audio performance. In other words, they are very serious about upending Windows as the default PC gaming operating system.

In SteamOS, we have achieved significant performance increases in graphics processing, and we're now targeting audio performance and reductions in input latency at the operating system level. Game developers are already taking advantage of these gains as they target SteamOS for their new releases.

Valve also unveiled that it's working with the major game developers so that triple-A titles will be natively available on SteamOS. As for your existing Windows games - SteamOS will support game streaming from your existing PC so you can play them on your SteamOS machine in the living room (or anywhere else, of course). 'Hundreds of great games' are already available natively on Linux through Steam, too.

This is just the first in a series of three announcements, and it stands to reason that the second one will be a dedicated SteamOS machine from Valve. The third announcement? Well. It's got a three in it, so Half-Life 3 is pretty much confirmed.

Thread beginning with comment 572862
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
What "rock-solid architecture of Linux"?
by Kebabbert on Mon 23rd Sep 2013 18:06 UTC
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

I dont get it. What are they talking about? Has Linux ever been rock solid? Upgrade your kernel, and things breaks apart. Hardly rock solid.

Reply Score: -6

leech Member since:
2006-01-10

s/Linux/Ubuntu/

Reply Parent Score: 1

aligatro Member since:
2010-01-28

I dont get it. What are they talking about? Has Linux ever been rock solid? Upgrade your kernel, and things breaks apart. Hardly rock solid.


Never really had this problem on any of my linux machines. However, I don't compile my own kernels from the kernel.org. That might be why you have/had problems.

Reply Parent Score: 5

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

On fedora for example there is akmod nvidia drivers and kmod nvidia drivers and running one of those used to give you problems with kernel updates if I remember correctly.

There is post from ask.fedoraproject.org

https://ask.fedoraproject.org/question/9106/what-is-the-
difference-between-an-akmod-and-kmod/

This was not an uncommon situation. Catalyst drivers were a nightmare when I had to use them.

I am sure valve have a strategy for handling updates, but it has to be pretty solid.

Edited 2013-09-23 18:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Maybe you shouldn't attribute your own failures to the OS.

Reply Parent Score: 6

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Maybe you shouldn't attribute your own failures to the OS.

I am not talking about my own failures. I am talking about the Linux design; unstable APIs. Whenever Torvalds change something, you need to recompile all drivers. Frequently there will be problems after upgrading the kernel. Have you missed all the complaints on this?

How sane is it to have one driver tied to a kernel version? Kernel v3.1.23 runs this driver, and v3.1.31 runs another version, etc. Linux driver model is broken.

If you talk about LTS long cycle distros, they are not better. You want to install a software, which requires new version of a library. So you need to upgrade library too. And then other software breaks, so you need to upgrade them too, etc. It starts a chain reaction where you have upgraded everything, so you are not on LTS long cycle distro anymore.

How can this broken Linux driver design, be "my own failures"? No other OS has unstable APIs, maybe for a reason. My old WinXP drivers, still function fine on all WinXP upgrades, ServicePack1, SP2, etc.

Imagine the situation where Crysis is running fine on WinXP, but if you use a upgraded WinXP kernel with SP1 you need to patch Crysis. And patch yet again for SP2. etc. Is this sane? Is this the "failure of the Windows user", or is it a broken design? If Windows functioned like this Windows would be so bad mouthed by every nerd. But when Linux functions exactly like this - it is the "user's fault". Dont you see the problem? You dont acknowledge there is a problem in Linux driver model? No other OS functions like Linux, for a reason.

Reply Parent Score: -1