So, what are your thoughts on the new Steam OS and Steam Machines? Personally, I am all for open source and linux so this will be interesting. 

If it brings 'AAA' titles to Linux, I'm all for it. Linux is a far better operating system than Windows, although the lack of software means I only use it on servers, and cannot currently use it on desktop.

If it brings 'AAA' titles to Linux, I'm all for it. Linux is a far better operating system than Windows, although the lack of software means I only use it on servers, and cannot currently use it on desktop.

Agreed.

Valve has already made a big step on bringing most of their games to Linux (Most of the source-games are now available). I use Linux Mint on my laptop, but as you say, servers is where the real power of linux lies. Yet. 

Yay(!) Yet another Linux distribution! What, have they given up on compatibility with only Ubuntu, and decided to make their own?

Linux will never become a proper platform for gaming if devs don't support more than just Ubuntu. Only independent developers appear to comprehend that.

I use Debian and ArchLinux, and therefore expect to be treated like a Ford model T owner going for a MOT if I need tech support from them. That is if the tech support chimp has even heard of Linux.

So, what are your thoughts on the new Steam OS and Steam Machines? Personally, I am all for open source and linux so this will be interesting. 

It's not going to go anywhere any time soon barring the prospect that games Valve develop themselves will be on it alongside Windows. No point to it as I see it, as it's just another OS developers have to program and debug for which lengthens development times and segments the gaming communities even further. Not to mention that they're going to have to either work really hard to modify a version OpenGL that looks comparable to DirectX, or use OpenGL as is and let the graphical quality never be up to par. They will also likely have to sell pre-built computers, or devices or whatever this OS is designed to run on, as people who've never installed an non-Windows OS on a computer (god forbid if it's a self built one) before aren't going to know what to do. This isn't mass marketable, and I think Valve is wasting their time when they should be spending time and financial resources on more important things, like developing games. Sequels to their biggest games are all long overdue with the exception of Counter Strike, and their newest game engine has taken an incredibly long time to develop. Smaller companies are churning out new gamine engines every few years that raise the graphical bar, which yet again, non-Windows OS's won't be able to meet in the foreseeable future.

Anyway, yeah. Waste of time.

Edited September 25, 201312 yr by unr3al

I think what people are thinking of when they see "OS" (or Operating System) is something like Windows on a computer...I'm pretty sure they mean it's going to be something like the console operating systems. If you look at Big Picture mode on Steam, that's basically what I think it is, but it's going to be running on "SteamMachines" as they call them. It will be able to be downloaded and it is open source, but it isn't meant to be a replacement to Windows or MacOS or whatever on a computer.

 

SteamOS is the operating system SteamMachines will be running on. You can stream games on your TV through your SteamMachine from your computer with your Steam client. The SteamMachines will be prebuilt by different manufacturers and will have multiple different setups. You can also change any of the hardware in it at any time you want.

It's not going to go anywhere any time soon barring the prospect that games Valve develop themselves will be on it alongside Windows. No point to it as I see it, as it's just another OS developers have to program and debug for which lengthens development times and segments the gaming communities even further. Not to mention that they're going to have to either work really hard to modify a version OpenGL that looks comparable to DirectX, or use OpenGL as is and let the graphical quality never be up to par. They will also likely have to sell pre-built computers, or devices or whatever this OS is designed to run on, as people who've never installed an non-Windows OS on a computer (god forbid if it's a self built one) before aren't going to know what to do. This isn't mass marketable, and I think Valve is wasting their time when they should be spending time and financial resources on more important things, like developing games. Sequels to their biggest games are all long overdue with the exception of Counter Strike, and their newest game engine has taken an incredibly long time to develop. Smaller companies are churning out new gamine engines every few years that raise the graphical bar, which yet again, non-Windows OS's won't be able to meet in the foreseeable future.

Anyway, yeah. Waste of time.

DirectX and OpenGL are just graphics APIs to access the underlying graphics hardware. OpenGL has been in production and is heavily tested. Linux and OpenGL are heavily used on both Apple and Android mobile and tablet devices. GTA 3 and Vice City have been ported to OpenGL and are available officially from Rockstar through the Android and iOS app stores.

The PS3's graphics API itself, is based on OpenGL ES. OpenGL used to be, but is no longer, inferior to DirectX. Any programmer will tell you that DirectX is a nightmare.

Your claims that non-Windows' OS' will never be able to meet the graphical bar is completely unfounded. Valve's own testing shows that Linux is generally a lot faster for games. The Linux kernel is a lot more efficient and generally faster than the Windows kernel overall, which is why Linux powers nearly all supercomputers and servers in the world.

 

And yeah, of course Valve will make a device for it. The only way most people get an operating system on their computers is through the OEM.

 

 

OpenGL's strong suit is in it's name. It's open, and free for anyone to use. Direct X is not, hence why other devices use OpenGL. They have to. If Direct X was available for everyone to use, nobody would be gaming on a Windows PC. The PS3 uses a proprietary "CELL" CPU that by nature thinks differently than CPU's with standardized drawing and other multimedia technologies that have been used for years like 3DNOW or MMX, to throw a couple of names out there. Because OpenGL is 'open', it's adaptable for situations like these. OpenGL by design is a good API, but all major graphical innovations AMD and nVidia develop are on Direct X first. Direct X is a nightmare because it's proprietary and it's always changing. Something you learn this year won't be relevant next year because there will be different, supposedly more efficient way of doing it.

The 'graphical bar' I'm referring to is visual quality, and these again come from technological breakthroughs that Direct X gains first, then Open GL has to catch up to a year or two later, which is not unfounded. Even small version changes in Direct X carry some major improvements, like Direct X 11 to Direct X 11.1, as an example. To steal a line from Wikipedia that sums it up perfectly well (without resorting to nVidia or AMD propaganda):

"DirectX 11.1 is included in Windows 8. It supports WDDM 1.2 for increased performance, features improved integration of Direct2D, Direct3D, and DirectCompute, and includes DirectXMath, XAudio2, and XInput libraries from the XNA framework. It also features stereoscopic 3D support for gaming and video."

 

Linux software in general is more efficient, that's a well established fact. There's less overhead, and unlike Windows, quite a few distributions are built from scratch as opposed to being a giant mass of code dumped onto last decades version of the OS. Some of the computers that run the big billboards in Time Square New York run on Windows and others on Linux. Windows ones have to reboot every couple of weeks to avoid crashing, Linux ones can run for months at a time without a reboot or a crash. That being said, if you read a little further in the article you linked, you'll note that with a little sit-down time with AMD & nVidia, the manufacturers got some patches out the door which got their frame rate up to par on the same hardware. That to me sounds like a case of driver developers being lazy, as would fit with urban legend. AMD drivers have always been terrible and nVidia ones aren't always that much better.

I don't have a personal beef with OpenGL, but Direct X is the graphical standard right now, and it will continue to be so in the future, as both the XBOX One and even Sony's own PS4 use hardware that has heavy ties to it's PC counterpart, which will encourage continued development for it. As said before, I like Valve, but they're spending too much time experimenting with project that most likely won't go anywhere, or if they do, won't do an average consumer any favors. It will just be another device to buy and have in your house on top of your PC, your XBOX/PS4, your tablet, your phone, etc, etc etc. I'd like to stick to a couple of devices and leave it at that, and let the technology be similar enough to where you don't have to port anything over or if you do, spend a long time doing so.

Edited September 27, 201312 yr by unr3al

Hmm definitely interesting, I would have to say it would be pretty cool to see companies like Valve and others similar to them throw their weight at a Linux based operating system. Once you get a few major companies involved others will join in because that's just another operating system you can make money on. If companies invested in making a Linux based operating system into a real gaming one where you can actually play a real 3D game then I can see windows fading in the future. Personally I have Linux as my primary general use operating system on just about every computer in the house. The only reason I would really use Windows is for gaming, that's it. Once good games/future top titles make it onto Linux. Well then windows is being thrown off my computer lol.