Quoting: BielFPs

Quoting: AussieEeveeIt's more than just an opinion.

I don't doubt that he truly thinks Linux it's better (even Microsoft knows this), my main point is that Valve in the end of the day it's a company, and their main goal is to make money, so it's different to us (as users) who truly wants to support Linux for personal preferences.

Valve is contributing a lot to Linux and this is a fact, it's just that they're not doing this for ideological reasons like some people in the Linux community thinks so.

Don't forget valve is not a publicly traded company. It's not a company with a million anonymous shareholders, but with a limited number that knows each other.
For a publicly traded company, the sole common goal of shareholders is a desire for profit. This may not apply to a private company. In principle, Valve's goal is whatever shareholders make up their mind about.
- It could just be profit.
- It could be revenge on MS if they've ever had a fight with them.
- They can just be really big Linux fans.
- It could also be an effort to make the world a better place.
...

And from the beginning of the effort to port Steam to Linux, they could move from any category to another.
I acknowledge that profit is represented in the operation of Steam itself. As far as linux efforts go, it can be a profit, but I'm not sure.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: DerpFox

Quoting: CatKillerSo now all Valve need to do is keep this device highly desirable, and sell enough units that it represents a significant number of users rather than a potentially significant number of potential users.

EZ.

That will be a big problem if Valve keep selling their hardware exclusively on Steam and not in the usual store circuit. Particularly for the Deck, whatever people say it's not just an ultra-mobile gaming computer it's a handheld console. And console sell way better when you can found them everywhere.

They're sold out for six months. If they start selling it outside of steam, it'll be when they meet all the demand from Steam. If you look at index, you will find that constantly some variant of is out of stock. From this I conclude that even the Index is not yet able to produce in sufficient quantities.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So, it's opt-in for developers. It's new, there are possible bugs in it and developers can fear army of linux cheaters if there are some corner cases. I hope they remove opt-in, or change it into opt-out in future, but right now it is understandable solution.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SalvatosIf it works anything like the shader pre-caching, I’m not looking forward to it. 2+ hours of processing for no noticeable gains and it has to do it again every time the client is updated (or whatever the actual trigger is)? No thanks.

Though to be fair, that last part seems to have gotten better with the implementation of their new Downloads page.

I think pre-caching is triggered everytime when are shaders updated. Probably its when are updated GPU drivers or if game update changed shaders.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: skinnyrafDo we like software patents now, because Valve submits them and they serve Linux gaming community? :whistle:

We still don't like patents, but what can be achived with this patent look promising.

Another think is, if somebody else submit this and Valve begin use it, they can be sued for patent infringement. So we don't know why they have this patent. They can have this only for protection and for bargaining if somebody else sue them for another patent infringement. That is valid use from my perspective. I'm not ok with this, if they have it for attacking others.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So, theoreticali if game is bundled with multiple texture resolutions, with this only one in use stay on disk? So even 64 GB steamdeck is little more useful even without SD card :-)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: wvstolzing

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: LanzI know it's popular online to be a rabid leftist, but Thatcher was a remarkably talented woman who deserves our respect, not mockery. This is tasteless.

I really hope that comment is an attempt at satire.

Which one? Mine (right above yours)?
No it's not; what am I, Dinsdale from the Piranha Brothers? I think the Cyberdemon deserves better.

Why would you think it was about you when I quoted someone else?

Quoting: Arten

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: LanzI know it's popular online to be a rabid leftist, but Thatcher was a remarkably talented woman who deserves our respect, not mockery. This is tasteless.

I really hope that comment is an attempt at satire.

Why? What i know Thatcher is one of good politicians (not best possible, she has been to much on lift side of spectrum). Problem is leftist propaganda blaming her for result of leftist policy.

Okay you have to be trolling.

No, i just have different political ideology.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: LanzI know it's popular online to be a rabid leftist, but Thatcher was a remarkably talented woman who deserves our respect, not mockery. This is tasteless.

I really hope that comment is an attempt at satire.

Why? What i know Thatcher is one of good politicians (not best possible, she has been to much on lift side of spectrum). Problem is leftist propaganda blaming her for result of leftist policy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Arten

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: slapinAs I understand new world, corporations split the "markets" between them and became upset someone got to their territory. The claims is so anti-market and anti-capitalistic as whole so I wonder what is going on.

Anti-market perhaps, although markets have always had a lot less of the whole freedom fairy dust than many people are led to believe. Anti-capitalistic, no. We think of markets and capitalism as being near-identical, but they aren't. Capitalism as such has little to do with markets, let alone free ones--monopoly is the objective of every capitalist who gets far enough. The fundamental points that make capitalism a system distinct from other systems is private individuals invest money (capital) to get a profit, employing wage labour to cause the profit to happen. Usually, that involves selling something to someone in something you could call a market, but sometimes it involves outright stealing, sometimes it involves direct selling solely to government as in US defence procurement, sometimes it involves the company store in the company town, where the miners or whoever buy your stuff at your price or they starve. All still capitalism, just not very markety. You can definitely have both markets without capitalism, and capitalism without markets.
(You can also have capitalism without the limited liability corporation)

You (same as politicians) mixing capitalism - private ownership, free market with corporativism - that think you talk about. Its distict thing.

As far as I can figure out what you're saying . . . no.
This isn't really up for debate. Economics has a history which involves various ideas and terms being defined. Economics itself is often bogus in that they do bad logic to get false results while using the terms, but the terms are still defined in a particular way. Going Humpty Dumpty and having you or your political faction redefine the terms to mean something else is like deciding you want "acceleration" to mean something other than "change in velocity over time". It's just wrong.

I explained a bit about what a couple of terms mean. That is in fact what they mean, because that's what the classical economists who invented them used them to mean, and the economic tradition, when it still pays attention to them seriously, still uses them to mean that. Confusion happens because they get used loosely a lot, or for propaganda purposes. People also redefine capitalism a lot to try to wiggle out of cognitive dissonance: "Capitalism is great . . . but the economy is vile . . . how to reconcile?! --> capitalism must be something we're not doing!"

Sry, i don't know where in past i need to get definition of capitalism for not going humpty dumpty. Even Adam Smith defined cpitalism with markets, so he is clearly going Humpty Dumpty too.

"Therefore, according to Adam Smith’s understanding, capitalism is a system that encompasses the following sets of behavior: “market which is characterized by commodity production”; “private possession of factors of production”; “large section of population that cannot exist independently unless it sells its skills in the labor market”; and “idiosyncratic, materialistic and maximization behavior of most of the individuals in the economy” (Heilbroner, 1987)."

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: slapinAs I understand new world, corporations split the "markets" between them and became upset someone got to their territory. The claims is so anti-market and anti-capitalistic as whole so I wonder what is going on.

Anti-market perhaps, although markets have always had a lot less of the whole freedom fairy dust than many people are led to believe. Anti-capitalistic, no. We think of markets and capitalism as being near-identical, but they aren't. Capitalism as such has little to do with markets, let alone free ones--monopoly is the objective of every capitalist who gets far enough. The fundamental points that make capitalism a system distinct from other systems is private individuals invest money (capital) to get a profit, employing wage labour to cause the profit to happen. Usually, that involves selling something to someone in something you could call a market, but sometimes it involves outright stealing, sometimes it involves direct selling solely to government as in US defence procurement, sometimes it involves the company store in the company town, where the miners or whoever buy your stuff at your price or they starve. All still capitalism, just not very markety. You can definitely have both markets without capitalism, and capitalism without markets.
(You can also have capitalism without the limited liability corporation)

You (same as politicians) mixing capitalism - private ownership, free market with corporativism - that think you talk about. Its distict thing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments