Quoting: benmhallI'm a little surprised that none of these handheld gaming machines are giving a SteamOS option. Valve is developing it all in the open. There have even been community efforts to package up an installable ISO: https://github.com/HoloISO/holoiso [External Link]

Would it take some effort? Sure, but most of this hardware is pretty standard stuff anyway, so would work well with the kernel in SteamOS 3.5, and running Windows 11 on these devices takes effort, too.

I've flipped this around and have been using SteamOS on an AMD Ryzen-based laptop that I own. The experience has been great so far. SteamOS, as easily used on the Steam Deck, is a very interesting software project. I would love to see efforts in broadening it's use on other devices and form factors.

The hardware part is a fun new challenge for hardware vendors, but nothing they can't handle.
The software part is something they've outsourced for their entire existence.
They don't have the required talent hopping around.
They would need to integrate their own controls into their Linux(or bsd) distro, which is hardcore Linux driver development, which is really hostile and expensive territory.

Also they've a basic and grounded proprietary cooperate fear of open platforms.
To quote Extra History(youtube channel): "don't deal with people who want to install Linux on their Playstation." This was a reference to the Ps3 OtherOS reaction.
The Gnu/Linux community has understandably taken a very hardline approach to those harming the platforms they build.
The community is older and better resourced than most of these Vendors and they learned to be vicious.
Go onto the web and look for IANAL, fsf, OtherOS, GPL and SFC.

There're multiple markets build around minimizing open platform risks. From copyleft compliance firms, to adblock detection, to hardware ip security development, to security audit firms.
Microsoft learned the hard way and nowadays plays the game quite well.
Google has spend its entire existence in the danger zone.
Apple uses a hardline approach, which limits their choices and still results in clashes from time to time.
Nintendo seems to have accepted it as a form of rot.
Sony actively fights it, with varying levels of success.
Hardware developers play from a position of strength and still Nividia flinches every major Nouveau update.
Gaming vendors hide behind Microsoft.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BlackBloodRumI have to ask, how do people justify allowing a video game absolute total control over their computer at the kernel-level?

How does one justify that is a good thing to have? It is a rootkit.

Regardless if you use Windows, Linux or the other one it just sounds like a bad idea. I can't help but feel the reason these companies won't do this for Linux is simple: They know most Linux users would reject it, and refuse to use the game anyway.

But it still begs the question, why are some people accepting of this?

Ooh, Ooh, I know I read that somewhere on Reddit.
Principle of least privilege and ignorance.
Some argue that, since the game has to prevent cheating and cheating can happen at root level they need to be able to check it.

I disagree on multiple levels.
A. I don't think, it is worth it.
B. I don't think it's needed. I think it's possible to do without and I got ideas of how to implement it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: martinligabue"macOS version", ah yes, let's make an entire version, without the "good" anticheat on a platform near the 1.5% of the share, and not for one near 2%

Standard fear.
They consider Linux more dangerous, because of the more techie users and the larger user freedom.
They don't realize that Mac has a bigger cheating budget par user and that MacOS contrary to IOS has totally functional jailbreaks.
A fun, but hard way to fix this would be to expand Darling to run the Mac code and just use the Mac version.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualI agree with the sentiment that our public domain is not as valuable as it should be. As ever, OpenAI representatives write with the assumption that they are entitled to do whatever they want, regardless of the laws. Why do they feel the need to phrase it like that?

Quoting: EagleDeltaLLMs aren't going around storing articles, code, pictures, art, etc in its model. It is simply learning from those.... and all the benefits AND drawbacks that come with that.

Sure, but that doesn't mean OpenAI employees are now allowed to download millions of copyrighted works that have been distributed on trackers/DDL sites without permission from the copyright holder. If ChatGPT were only using Common Crawl, that's one thing, but we know they're not.

Supposedly ChatGPT's training content is carefully curated, FWIW.

A. Totally agree. We've to play by the rules or run. They've to play by the rules or run.
B. I would actually go further than that and call them unauthorized hosters of to the copyright holders choice copyrighted content or even of a derivative work of all copyrighted content in their training set.
i. Storing unauthorized copyrighted is illegal independent of whether or not you distribute it. This is how pirates were hunted at first until it proved too inefficient.
Alos copyright is format independent and it has been proven multiple times that training data can partly to fully be recovered from llms. The same has been successfully said of jpg, png and other data formats. Its just easier.
ii. It's a derivative work, because it has been made with the copyrighted data. Would've been different without it. Has been made to mimic properties of the copyrighted data.(The drawback of this argument is that it uses the same argument as the arguments against fan fiction, but they've held up in court and most fan fiction organizations tend to accept that they exist by the grace of their often pretty graceful authors.)
C. This's actually the main difference between the development method of of actual data available AI(often FOSS, not always) and proprietary AI like Bard and OpenAI. Source available AI aggressively curates their data, because it gives a great training speed advantage and requires less data. Proprietary AI tends to use lots of training layers with lots of parameters, due to the low development cost.

View this comment - View article - View full comments