OH ****. THEY ANNOUNCED IT JUST MINUTES AGO.
This thread is no longer needed.
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/forum/off-topic/steamos-valves-linux-based-operating-system-25199
This thread is no longer needed.
http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/forum/off-topic/steamos-valves-linux-based-operating-system-25199
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
Not that I am like the 12y old who get totally swiped by the presentation even while the content is completely BS (XboxOne etc)
But srsly... they just SCREAM that this is sth only Linux"geeks" will buy.
Already said that SteamBox isn't going to be anywhere near XBox,PS or even Nintendo thanks to PC+TV being a well used combination already with more benefits and the exclusive rights of current consoles.
Not to mention that Linux isn't designed for the greater mass to actually evolve from being niche.
But srsly... they just SCREAM that this is sth only Linux"geeks" will buy.
Already said that SteamBox isn't going to be anywhere near XBox,PS or even Nintendo thanks to PC+TV being a well used combination already with more benefits and the exclusive rights of current consoles.
Not to mention that Linux isn't designed for the greater mass to actually evolve from being niche.
There are so many things wrong with this, I'm not sure where to start. But I guess I'll give it a shot.
Not to mention that Linux isn't designed for the greater mass to actually evolve from being niche.
I mostly wanna' tackle this. 'Cuz this is... Like. Really ****ing stupid. Seriously.
Linux is designed for people who are used to Linux. Mac OSes are designed for people who are used to Mac OSes. Windows is designed for people who are used to Windows. (All statements only true for a specific version of said OS.) More people use Windows than Mac OSes or Linux OSes. This is the only reason that Windows is designed for more people than either Mac or Linux OSes.
The reason that Windows currently has a larger market share than Linux or Mac has absolutely nothing to do with their objective merits as operating systems. Windows has a huge market share for two main reasons.
First, most people are used to it. Learning a new operating system is hard. It sounds like it'd take work. And people really don't like work.
Second, Microsoft Office. Period. Full stop. Back when a lot of people were just starting to use computers, in the '90's, Microsoft Office was the standard for basically all businesses everywhere. And it was only available on Windows computers. So everyone learned to use Windows. See also the former point.
You'll notice that neither of those points have anything to do with Windows. Sure, they might have things to do with Microsoft, but not Windows.
Now, I'm not going to deny that Linux can be really hard to use. And I can explain that, too. You see, Linux was designed back around the time that the old Windows and Mac OSes were designed. And back then, there wasn't such a thing as a "user friendly" OS. They were all ****, by modern usability standards. You had to know your way around a computer to get pretty much anything done. Including basic stuff, like installing programs. Or opening programs.
Now, much more recently, largely in the 21st century, companies decided that usability is important, because people are really stupid and don't know how to work computers. So Microsoft and Apple have been working to make their OSes more user friendly. And given that they both have larger market shares than Linux, they've got the money and impetus to do so. Linux, not having that market share, is less able to justify the expense of making itself extremely "user friendly", because it probably wouldn't actually matter to Linux whether or does or not anyway.
So, to recap. Some **** happened, and now we are where we are. None of this has anything to do with how any current operating systems have to be designed. We got to where we are because of history, economics, sociology. Not OS design.
So don't point at the current state of Linux as some kind of statement about its intrinsic qualities. OSes don't have intrinsic qualities. And their current state is only a fixed point in history.
And now I am going to go to bed. I might deal with some of the other intellectual missteps in your post tomorrow. Suffice to say, for now, that you are really missing the point of why a SteamBox is important.
Darcurse wrote:
Not to mention that Linux isn't designed for the greater mass to actually evolve from being niche.
I mostly wanna' tackle this. 'Cuz this is... Like. Really ****ing stupid. Seriously.
Linux is designed for people who are used to Linux. Mac OSes are designed for people who are used to Mac OSes. Windows is designed for people who are used to Windows. (All statements only true for a specific version of said OS.) More people use Windows than Mac OSes or Linux OSes. This is the only reason that Windows is designed for more people than either Mac or Linux OSes.
The reason that Windows currently has a larger market share than Linux or Mac has absolutely nothing to do with their objective merits as operating systems. Windows has a huge market share for two main reasons.
First, most people are used to it. Learning a new operating system is hard. It sounds like it'd take work. And people really don't like work.
Second, Microsoft Office. Period. Full stop. Back when a lot of people were just starting to use computers, in the '90's, Microsoft Office was the standard for basically all businesses everywhere. And it was only available on Windows computers. So everyone learned to use Windows. See also the former point.
You'll notice that neither of those points have anything to do with Windows. Sure, they might have things to do with Microsoft, but not Windows.
Now, I'm not going to deny that Linux can be really hard to use. And I can explain that, too. You see, Linux was designed back around the time that the old Windows and Mac OSes were designed. And back then, there wasn't such a thing as a "user friendly" OS. They were all ****, by modern usability standards. You had to know your way around a computer to get pretty much anything done. Including basic stuff, like installing programs. Or opening programs.
Now, much more recently, largely in the 21st century, companies decided that usability is important, because people are really stupid and don't know how to work computers. So Microsoft and Apple have been working to make their OSes more user friendly. And given that they both have larger market shares than Linux, they've got the money and impetus to do so. Linux, not having that market share, is less able to justify the expense of making itself extremely "user friendly", because it probably wouldn't actually matter to Linux whether or does or not anyway.
So, to recap. Some **** happened, and now we are where we are. None of this has anything to do with how any current operating systems have to be designed. We got to where we are because of history, economics, sociology. Not OS design.
So don't point at the current state of Linux as some kind of statement about its intrinsic qualities. OSes don't have intrinsic qualities. And their current state is only a fixed point in history.
And now I am going to go to bed. I might deal with some of the other intellectual missteps in your post tomorrow. Suffice to say, for now, that you are really missing the point of why a SteamBox is important.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
Giving a completely vague statement, which can be totally legit depending on the perception, and what happens?
A Linux geek tackles me giving a speech about how Linux is the reason god created earth and why every other system has a pact with satan amd some other BS.
Not that "Isn't designed for the greater mass" perfectly described something in 3 secs you used like 3 hours on.
Don't try to correct sth which isn't wrong.
A Linux geek tackles me giving a speech about how Linux is the reason god created earth and why every other system has a pact with satan amd some other BS.
Not that "Isn't designed for the greater mass" perfectly described something in 3 secs you used like 3 hours on.
Don't try to correct sth which isn't wrong.
Darcurse wrote:
A Linux geek tackles me giving a speech about how Linux is the reason god created earth and why every other system has a pact with satan amd some other BS.
What the actual ****, Darcurse. What the actual ****ing ****. If you want to come on this forum and make vague statements, be willing to ****ing back them up. Hyperbole, straw-manning, and name-calling aren't going to get your anywhere.
Anyway. I don't get the feeling that you read what I wrote. Since, you know, you don't seem to be responding to a single thing actually in my post. Don't you ****ing dare try to belittle me for using my brain when you aren't even willing to read a few measly paragraphs.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
Darcurse wrote:
Not that I am like the 12y old who get totally swiped by the presentation even while the content is completely BS (XboxOne etc)
But srsly... they just SCREAM that this is sth only Linux"geeks" will buy.
Already said that SteamBox isn't going to be anywhere near XBox,PS or even Nintendo thanks to PC+TV being a well used combination already with more benefits and the exclusive rights of current consoles.
You're making no ****ing sense, bro.
PC really doesn't have much of a foot in the 'couch market'. Consoles rule that market for a good reason and SteamBox is meant to compete with them. And I think it has a fantastic chance to do so.
Quoted:
Not to mention that Linux isn't designed for the greater mass to actually evolve from being niche.
It's blatantly obvious that you have no freaking clue of what Linux is from this statement alone. I'm not even sure this deserves a response..
Darcurse wrote:
Giving a completely vague statement, which can be totally legit depending on the perception, and what happens?
A Linux geek tackles me giving a speech about how Linux is the reason god created earth and why every other system has a pact with satan amd some other BS.
Not that "Isn't designed for the greater mass" perfectly described something in 3 secs you used like 3 hours on.
Don't try to correct sth which isn't wrong.
No, your statement could not have been perceived as legit by any sane person that actually has knowledge on the subject..
YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT LINUX IS. So how the **** do you think you can spot a Linux nerd?
I'd like to believe that you're trolling, but considering the things you've posted in the past I just don't know..
lifebaka wrote:
Linux is designed for people who are used to Linux. Mac OSes are designed for people who are used to Mac OSes. Windows is designed for people who are used to Windows. (All statements only true for a specific version of said OS.) More people use Windows than Mac OSes or Linux OSes. This is the only reason that Windows is designed for more people than either Mac or Linux OSes.
I disagree.
OSes are designed to appeal to as many people as possible, both in looks and functionality. Linux-based OSes though, can afford to be more niche than others, because anyone can make theirs and distribute them freely for anyone to use. Windows and Mac are both driven by profit and both have one de facto version that is meant to appeal to as many groups of people as possible.
There are Linux distros that try to do that too, and some have succeeded in making a good OS. But sadly there is of course no direct correlation between value and popularity.
You're using Linux wrong too. Linux isn't an OS, it's a kernel. The kernel is just the core of the operating system; the code deep, deep down that is talking to the hardware itself. Linux really doesn't say anything about an OS other than the fact that it has a solid kernel.
There are Linux-based OSes that focus on usability and wide appeal (Ubuntu, Mint) and there are those that are as down-and-gritty as they can get (Arch Linux). Linux-based OSes honestly vary too much to use an all-encompassing label.
Quoted:
The reason that Windows currently has a larger market share than Linux or Mac has absolutely nothing to do with their objective merits as operating systems. Windows has a huge market share for two main reasons.
First, most people are used to it. Learning a new operating system is hard. It sounds like it'd take work. And people really don't like work.
Second, Microsoft Office. Period. Full stop. Back when a lot of people were just starting to use computers, in the '90's, Microsoft Office was the standard for basically all businesses everywhere. And it was only available on Windows computers. So everyone learned to use Windows. See also the former point.
You'll notice that neither of those points have anything to do with Windows. Sure, they might have things to do with Microsoft, but not Windows.
First, most people are used to it. Learning a new operating system is hard. It sounds like it'd take work. And people really don't like work.
Second, Microsoft Office. Period. Full stop. Back when a lot of people were just starting to use computers, in the '90's, Microsoft Office was the standard for basically all businesses everywhere. And it was only available on Windows computers. So everyone learned to use Windows. See also the former point.
You'll notice that neither of those points have anything to do with Windows. Sure, they might have things to do with Microsoft, but not Windows.
Well put.
And a big reason Windows and Office are and have been staying dominant lies in their anti-competitive decision-making.
Windows and Office have time and time again chosen to lock their users in rather than sticking with a standard.
"Well, basically you should treat me like a prostitute." - TotalBiscuit
SkidmarkD wrote:
Why Windows is the major OS atm is something which can be answerred with Darwin's theory of natural selection.
You gotta be ****ing kidding me.
If you're taking that route I'm just gonna go ahead and throw it back in your face:
Why Linux is the most used KERNEL (it's a Kernel, not an OS, nab) atm is something which can be answerred (sic) with Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Because, as you probably don't know, Linux is used EVERYWHERE. The ONLY platform that doesn't have the Linux kernel in the majority is desktop computing.
The great majority of super computers run Linux.
80% of phones sold today run Linux. (Android uses Linux as kernel)
The majority of tablets sold today run Linux. (again, Android)
I mean, ****, there are even refrigerators and toasters that run Linux for **** sake.
So yeah.. Linux is clearly the inferior choice here...
"You can't have your privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated." - Mike Rogers, U.S. Representative for Michigan's 8th congressional district, 2013
I.e: Mike Rogers doesn't think it's rape unless the victim knows (s)he has been raped. Sounds legit.
I.e: Mike Rogers doesn't think it's rape unless the victim knows (s)he has been raped. Sounds legit.
You need to log in before commenting.
STEAMBOX INCOMING PEOPLEZ
GET HYPED
Edit: well, ****. Title cuts off. There's supposed to be an announcement for it THIS WEEK.