Quoting: hardpenguinLinux desktop needed immutable desktop since forever. To definitively close the issue of system-breaking updates. This could help Linux adoption in the long run.

I guess system-breaking updates is something that happens if you're, I dunno, not using Mint?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mountain ManI enjoyed the few hours I played in the beta, but $70 is a lot to ask for a game.

$70. Seven zero. And we're not talking Australian dollars here, are we? Damn.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: NumericAt the core of it, the people I work with want to know very little about their PC (for a variety of reasons). Majority never even change the desktop wallpaper. They push the power button, then expect everything to work and be up to date. The younger ones do some customization, but defaults are king. Their systems take care of themselves and manual interaction is only performed when forced by system prompts.

I'm not quite at this level, but I'm close. I understand some things about computers in theory, but I'm not a tinkerer in practice. And I don't see why an immutable OS helps with this. I don't think it would cause a problem either, but I mean,

Case 1: Immutable OS. System guts cannot be changed, so they don't get changed. This means they remain as push-button user friendly or user unfriendly as they were when first installed, but does not imply anything about what that initial state is like.

Case 2: Non-immutable OS. System guts can be changed, but that never happens because I don't change them. Because, like, why would I? I'm not a tinkerer. Result, exactly the same story as case 1.

So I don't see why or how an immutable OS leads to the situation you describe of simpler more push-a-button functionality. I'm sure it has use cases, and as I say I can see it being about as good for a simple end user so it's not like I'd never try one, like if it had other features that were desirable, I just don't see why "being immutable" would in itself be a feature that would make my life better.

(The one thing I'm actually a bit uncertain about is the side effect where it seems like often immutable OSes want everything I can install to be Snaps or Flatpaks or stuff. I dunno, I think there's a lot to like about traditional package management; I don't mind a few Flatpaks for particular things, but . . . I dunno.)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

In the trailer, I don't think I saw any towers defending anything. Maybe I missed that part in all the colorfulness?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Fun story.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: adolsonAgain, this is all pretty theoretical at this point, and even with Steam Deck, the numbers are abysmal - as they have always been. I'm still not seeing anything to celebrate at this point in time.

This is the one thing you've said I can't argue with--partly because it's true, growth is there but not that high yet, and partly because what kind of numbers are exciting is pretty subjective. I can't tell you what you should be excited by.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: adolson

Quoting: Purple Library GuySteam Deck users do represent Linux adoption

Not knowingly, in most cases, which was my point.

Whether it's knowingly or not doesn't matter much. If they add to the market they add to the market. Your analogy, Android, do not. Steam Decks do.

Although it has surprised me how many people do seem to be aware of it. So for instance, I was amazed that in an article I looked at about the new Samsung Steam-Deck-like-thing that was not on a Linux site, comments about how it would work worse than the Steam Deck because Windows is crappy at doing that kind of thing were quite prevalent.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: adolson

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe likelihood of at least game software being made to target Linux does grow with the number of Steam Deck users

Time will tell. It's still early days, but so far, we're seeing the opposite effect due to Proton. Which, by the way, was the worry back in the Loki/LGP days (when I switched to Linux) with Wine/WineX and later on, Cedega.

So, first, as CatKiller points out, we are not seeing the opposite effect. I myself assumed that Proton effect would exist, but it does not seem to be happening.

Second, that's a separate argument. Assume Proton reduces the chance of games being released for Linux. Market share still increases it--Linux with Proton at 10% would get more releases than Linux with Proton at 3%. And, the Steam Deck still represents Linux market share in the game market. So counting Steam Decks as Linux users still is not at all the same as counting Android users as Linux users. So even if this point were accurate (which, to my surprise, it does not seem to be), your original claim would still be wrong.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: adolsonCounting Steam Deck as Linux users is reminiscent of people trying to say Android device users count as Linux users. I bet the majority of people buying the Steam Deck don't know anything about Linux and don't care, they just want Steam on the go.

No, it really isn't, for fundamental reasons both technical and strategic.

Starting from technical: Steam Decks use a fairly standard Linux distribution on which one can run normal Linux software. You can load LibreOffice or the GIMP or whatever onto SteamOS and they will run. SteamOS has a normal Linux kernel, a normal GNU toolchain, and a normal desktop environment (KDE). So technically, a Steam Deck user simply is a Linux user, whether they happen to realize it or not (lots of Windows users don't realize their OS is Windows). Android, on the other hand, has Linux kernel, but no GNU; it is Linux, but not GNU/Linux. And it won't run Linux software.

Moving on to strategic: Because the Steam Deck runs a fairly normal Linux distribution, most things, primarily but not exclusively games, that run on it will also run on desktop Linux. Because of that, they represent the same development target and market. So if my potential market has 1% desktop Linux users and 3% Steam Deck users, and I do the exact same things to target those two segments, they are in effect one segment of 4%. The likelihood of at least game software being made to target Linux does grow with the number of Steam Deck users, whereas it does not grow with the number of Android users.

In my opinion there is a knock-on effect from the games, in that if Linux is seen as a viable gaming platform, the chances of people adopting it for their desktop is higher.

Secondarily, the existence of the Steam Deck, running a fairly normal GNU/Linux distribution, also adds impetus to some aspects of Linux software development; companies like Valve have motivation to improve certain bits of Linux relating to graphics, KDE user experience, sound and so on.

So no, your parallel is false. Steam Deck users do represent Linux adoption in most important ways, whereas Android users do not.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: benstor214

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Mountain Man

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Mountain ManBut here is something to think about: countless works of art have been lost throughout human history, and will continue to be lost. Are we worse off as a species because of it?

Yes, we bloody well are. You know that old question, what would you do if you had a time machine and could use it just once? You have no idea how many people answer that question, "Would go and rescue the books from the Library of Alexandria"; although my mother leans towards "Would go stop the fire that burned down the building that held all the Anglo Saxon literature that was ever written down".

You say that we're worse off as a species because the Library of Alexandria was destroyed. I'm curious in what way you think we're worse off, and what your basis is for claiming so.

Getting into deep philosophy here. In what way or for what reasons can you say any person, let alone the species, is "better off"? Any basis you propose can be readily disputed.

I personally think it is better to have wisdom than lack it, better to have knowledge than lack it, better to have stories than lack them. Being better off is not just about how many calories you consume. Many works of great philosophers, many accounts of history and mythology, were lost. Just having the missing Aristotle stuff would probably make a surprising difference to our thinking, considering how foundational the stuff we do have is. And as I recall, we know there is missing Aristotle stuff because other people's commentaries have referred to it. It's not just in physics where new thinkers stand on the shoulders of giants; philosophical and political thought also builds on the ideas of the past, and if we'd had more of them to build on, our whole intellectual tradition would be richer.

The only reason I asked is because you can't possibly answer without begging the question. :happy:

I'll hop in here for my fellow GURPS player; Imagine as it were that the internet and all it's knowledge was one day erased. You could no longer look up answers on wikipedia, you could no longer search for stepsister pr0n. All knowledge of scientific discoveries were only kept in the brains of old people that would eventually die off.

The burning of the library of Alexandria is pretty much the ancient equivalent of that. People from all over the (known to the Old world) world would go to Alexandria to study everything about science, philosophy, religion, etc. The burning of Alexandria literally started what many historians refer to as 'the dark ages'. We didn't have anything similar until the renaissance. Now imagine if we were about 1400-1500 years more advanced than we are now... Granted maybe we would have destroyed ourselves 300 years ago :P

Funny. All of you have NO IDEA how the library of Alexandria got such a large collection of texts.
Basically every ship that stopped in the port of Alexandria got searched for texts (papyri etc.) and everything that was found was brought to the library where it was COPIED and the originals were given back to the ship.

Yes, the librarians of ancient Alexandria were FILTHY PIRATES. They should have been hanged for such a large scale operation in COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Good thing the library of Alexandria burned down! And a sad thing the criminals didn’t burn with it.

You realize that copyright laws didn't exist back then and the only way written words were passed onto each other was by way of copying the text by hand? Why do you think flat earth came about and keeps coming about? Uneducated idiots. People knew the earth was a globe in ancient times. Hell, they knew about the precession of the equinox. We would probably not be arguing constantly about how the pyramids were built if the Library of Alexandria had not burned...

You may as well accuse the Christian Monks of being filthy pirates, as they too would copy documents all the time.

I think you just ran afoul of Poe's Law, there.

View this comment - View article - View full comments