Quoting: GuestI hope that helps explain it a little bit.

Dunno about anyone else, but it was useful as all get out to me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest(I know people will knee-jerk and think I'm trying to say there shouldn't be more users, but no, I'm saying there shouldn't be more for the sake of more - there should be more in tandem with technical efforts to properly handle more).

I understand what you're saying and it's defensible. But I have to say I do think I disagree even with what you're actually saying. There should be more for the sake of more. Heck, I don't even like having to say that, but it's the brutal reality. From both a technical and social/political perspective, it's really important that there simply be more Linux users.

From a technical perspective, Linux will never get the love and support it needs at 1-2%. I would be willing to bet that even now, there's a huge difference in how well Linux supports primarily desktop/gaming hardware and how well it supports server-oriented hardware. Server-oriented hardware Just Works on Linux, you can bet, because Linux has a huge server marketshare. If there was a thing like Flash in the server space, it would run on Linux or it would disappear. Server-oriented software supports Linux or it loses to offerings that do. Same same with cloud stuff and mobile stuff and IoT stuff and so on. But stuff that's needed for the desktop or for gaming languishes, simply because there are too few of us.

The software end starts to shade into the social/political side. If Linux was at 20%, there would be no debate or worry about whether Vulkan would catch on or whether Microsoft would manage to lock everyone into DX12; nobody would be willing to lose that market by picking DX12 over Vulkan. If Linux was at 20%, Apple might even be playing ball instead of rolling their own. But there are other sorts of things--anyone remember libdvdcss? Think nobody will ever come up with a scheme like that again and leave Linux out in the cold? I think it's impossible to make such schemes bulletproof, but they can and have made it illegal to circumvent them. And they can shut Linux out of them because Linux users are few; it is politically possible to systematically marginalize Linux because Linux has few users, making it politically vulnerable.

There's another technical perspective. Much software on Linux, and Linux itself and its graphical environments and such, are Free Software. That means more developers using Linux implies more software development of Linux. Now, Linux users skew technical currently, and much Linux development happens because of non-desktop Linux anyway. So multiplying the Linux desktop and gaming user base by 10 wouldn't multiply the developer base by 10, or anything like it. But I'm sure it would at least double the desktop/gaming relevant development. A lot of what's wrong with Linux IMO is simply that there aren't quite enough developers to get the software really solid and competitive. A massive increase in the user base would bring a big impetus to polish up the Linux desktop and its open source desktop software ecosystem. Gnome, KDE, Cinnamon, Mate, LibreOffice, the Gimp, etc. would benefit hugely. Wine itself--it's often been said that Wine can never become really good and reliable because Windows is a moving target. Recently with a bunch more development on Wine and Wine-related stuff, it seems to be turning out that if you have more developers you can move significantly faster than Windows and its "moving target" status don't matter so much any more.

So yes, there should be more for the sake of more. More users is not just a valid target to aim for, it is one of if not the most important target to aim for. Most other remaining Linux problems cannot really be solved without, but will shrink to minor obstacles or disappear entirely with, a larger user base.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Meh, whatever. I doubt this is about anything much. 147,000 euros is plenty to me, but to Valve it's a rounding error on a rounding error on a rounding error. If the French were really mad at them it'd be in the multi-digits of millions.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Salvatos

Quoting: Purple Library GuyHis ideal it seems would be a Linux that continually improved in quality and which was treated as a first-class OS citizen, but without actually growing much in number of users so as to stay a congenial group of communities.

That's not what I perceived from your quoted text. The idea isn't that we shouldn't grow much, but that we shouldn't grow too fast. Notice, in particular, "work to artificially inflate the userbase" and "create a more attractive platform" (emphasis mine of course). I think his point is that if you just invest on putting a half-baked product into more people's hands to inflate your numbers, you'll ultimately shoot yourself in the foot by showing potential returning customers a bad experience. Whereas by prioritising your product's quality, you may not get as fast a short-term adoption as with an equivalent marketing budget, but your retention rate will be much better and favor steady growth.

We don't want everyone to use Linux so we can make it better.
We want to make Linux so good everyone wants to use it.

Yeah, maybe, but it's still a naive perspective. It implicitly buys into the idea that every platform has, or will ultimately have, the number of users it in some sense deserves. Either a belief in the efficient working of markets or of the efficient workings of the "marketplace of ideas". Neither of these work in real life.

Linux doesn't have few users because it's poor quality. For one thing, it's quite good quality. But to the extent that there are de facto quality problems in Linux, the causality runs the other way--graphics and other device drivers, for instance, are poor or lag in time because Linux has few users; if it were a platform big enough that vendors had to support it, those problems would vanish like the morning dew. But that's not the problem. Linux has few users because other platforms have locked up preinstalls, so they come with the computers people purchase. It has not grown because of various engineered barriers to entry--advertising budgets, engineered incompatibilities, payola-dominated sales channels, et cetera et cetera. To think all we have to do is build it and they will come as we contemplate the wonders of the perfect platform under the shade of the bodhi tree is unrealistic. We are the underdog here, the big boys are fighting with every dirty trick going and have been since the 90s, and Cheeseness is saying taking one hand out from behind our back would be "artificially" inflating the user base. No, sorry, the whole basis of who uses what OS is "artificial" by Cheeseness' standards and has been since Bill bought QDos, or before.

I was trying not to come down too hard on that perspective because in general I really respect Cheeseness, but I just can't. It's not just wrong, it's not even just dumb, it's dangerous. It's like we're headed to a gunfight and Cheeseness is saying "Put that thing down and bring this pair of garden shears instead" because for some reason he thinks it's about trimming a hedge. You do not defend yourself against the mafia by showing the world that your garden is more beautiful than theirs. I'm in favour of the garden being beautiful, don't get me wrong, it's just not a good reason not to try to win.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The Cheeseness article is interesting. Lots of good information and some interesting (and worrisome) perspectives.

But I think he is a bit too cavalier in dismissing the issue of sheer quantity of users. He sets out the possible good things from Steamplay/Proton like this

Assuming that more developers supporting Linux natively, and treating Linux users as equally valid/valued customers are the most positive outcomes, let's consider a few of the possible ways that something like Proton could be used to leverage that.

Note that more Linux users is not in there. I'm pretty sure that one of Valve's major objectives in all this is to facilitate more people playing games on Linux/SteamOS, one way or another--whether through adopting Linux as their PC desktop or via new Steam Machines or in some other way as yet undreamed of, the point is to remove a barrier to adoption. Cheeseness doesn't so much dismiss that idea as simply not consider it a desirable objective.

Beyond this, chasing a higher userbase is a flawed goal in and of itself. It is far better to focus on increasing the quality, accessibility, and robustness of experiences, and in that way create a more attractive platform, than work to artificially inflate the userbase in the hopes of hitting some kind of critical mass. The alternative results in skewed priorities that revolve around things that don't really benefit any users or the platform in tangible ways.

His ideal it seems would be a Linux that continually improved in quality and which was treated as a first-class OS citizen, but without actually growing much in number of users so as to stay a congenial group of communities. Unfortunately, I think that ideal is a bit naive. Numbers count. If you don't have the sales you won't be treated as a first-class citizen. Network effects are important, and we also live in a time dominated by large corporations with weak antitrust enforcement where big commercial concerns are predatory on small. Open source acts as something of a hedge against this, and has allowed Linux to survive in a hostile environment where an equivalent proprietary offering would have died. But ultimately, many of the objectives Cheeseness wants cannot happen without a bigger slice of the pie. Ignoring Proton's potential impact on growth in Linux use ignores the main issue and makes the rest of his analysis a bit moot.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I dunno. Looking at the trailer, it's not an aesthetic that really grabs me. If it's all about the looks and I'm not into the look then it probably isn't for me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: Purple Library GuyUhhh . . . are you trying to say that it's not possible, or somehow incredibly difficult, to type without your eyes on the keyboard if your keyboard is qwerty?

It's hard to unlearn 20 years of habit.

Ah, wait, wait, I think I miscommunicated something. I was never suggesting that you personally switch. I was just saying that there was now less reason for people to take it up and that there were reasons why the Dvorak project in general might have lost momentum.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: EhvisThe game has a few bugs though. Binding the comma key messes up the input configuration. Not nice for those on dvorak keyboards.

Dvorak keyboards, huh? So yeah, I guess good keybinding is a major issue.

Haven't heard anything about them for a long time, though. I feel like the technological impetus for them is gone, or at least greatly attenuated. I mean, the point of Dvorak keyboards is that if you need to type an awful lot really fast, they're more efficient. Or rather, I guess they're more efficient period, but it matters if you need to type an awful lot really fast.

It matters if you want to learn to type without constantly having your eyes on your keyboard. Which is very useful in itself.

Uhhh . . . are you trying to say that it's not possible, or somehow incredibly difficult, to type without your eyes on the keyboard if your keyboard is qwerty? Because that's really not true at all. I got a C- in typing class in grade eight, 40 years ago, and I don't look at the keyboard while I type. Dvorak is by all accounts superior, but let's not make up stuff that isn't real. Dvorak reduces finger travel, it's not magic.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: callcifer

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI dunno. You make it sound like there's no such thing as actual pretentiousness, or at least that it's very rare. I don't think that's true. There's an awful lot of people out there, whether in business or academia or the media, trying to dress up little or nonexistent ideas to sound big and significant.

While I agree that using big words to cover up for weak arguments exist in the wild, I don't classify that as pretentiousness. Grandstanding might be a better fit. So yes, I do believe pretentiousness pretty much doesn't exist.

Well, if you redefine the word to mean something that doesn't exist, then I guess it doesn't exist, but you're going to end up in arguments with people who use the dictionary definition. So what do you think pretentiousness means?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Beamboom

Quoting: ShmerlI rarely care about reviews of "professional critic" sites. I'm more interested in opinions of fellow gamers.

To be honest I think you then misunderstand the value of a professional review. Why trust random anonymous Joe more than a person who's dedicated his professional life on reviewing that particular type of products? There's no rationality behind that.

Reviewing is a profession, like other professions. It requires experience and insight, and an analytical mind. Not to say there are no bad reviewers, of course there are, but the work of a professional do distance itself from an amateurs work, also on this area.

Mmm . . . I do think there are advantages to the reviewers' focus and professionalism. But there are systematic disadvantages as well. Reviewers by definition become jaded; their perspective becomes distinct from that of the typical gamer (or moviegoer or whatever) in the sense that they've seen it all before, many times. Thus they start placing more value on things like novelty, or particularly elegant approaches to certain problems or issues that they've seen crop up often before. Their evaluations will be skewed from those of a typical gamer, who may be more interested in questions like "Does it kick ass?" or, in more story-oriented stuff, "Does it tug the heartstrings?"
So I think it's a serious overstatement to say there's no rationality behind turning to someone whose perspective is closer to one's own, even if their skill is less.

View this comment - View article - View full comments