Steam Linux - Beta Late Than Never - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37818720]Exactly, which is why they should have made it package manager independent or release packages for all major distros. Do you know anything about what I'm trying to say?[/QUOTE] They're just doing this as a stable initial test bed. They didn't want to bog themselves down with trying to accommodate every environment at once as they made it. Not to mention the fact that Ubuntu is very user-friendly, so saying it is made for Ubuntu is a good way to get people in to Linux. It'll still support everything even if it doesn't come with .rpm versions or generic .run or .sh installers. [editline]27th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=S31-Syntax;37818729]I've disabled updates because they keep breaking things and I'm tired of swmming through prompts every two days to fix new errors from the latest kernel build. as long as it doesn't break anything then I'm fine. [editline]27th September 2012[/editline] They're trying to make it somewhat easy to install and test the ease of install. Giving people a tarball is going to make a bunch of users go "uhwtf"[/QUOTE] Good lord, man, just upgrade your distro version (or better yet, back up data and do a fresh install) and save yourself the headaches. Install MATE if you must have a Gnome 2.3x-ish environment.

I guess that makes more sense. But I don't think user-friendly works well in Linux as alot of shit requires using the terminal. Which is why alot of Windows people will think down on Linux because they can't be bothered to learn some basic commands and syntax.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37818788]I guess that makes more sense. But I don't think user-friendly works well in Linux as alot of shit requires using the terminal. Which is why alot of Windows people will think down on Linux because they can't be bothered to learn some basic commands and syntax.[/QUOTE] If you're going to say anything, please do some research.

[QUOTE=danharibo;37818793]If you're going to say anything, please do some research.[/QUOTE] Where was my opinion "wrong"?

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37818799]Where was my opinion "wrong"?[/QUOTE] As far as I'm aware, nothing the average user needs to do (Installing a .deb for steam for example) requires using a terminal.

[QUOTE=danharibo;37818812]As far as I'm aware, nothing the average user needs to do (Installing a .deb for steam for example) requires using a terminal.[/QUOTE] "If you're going to say anything, please do some research." The last time I used Ubuntu (version 9) required quite abit of terminal usage to get basic shit done because the GUI applications were too basic to be used for advanced tasks. Alot of people end up quiting Linux because they dont know how to get shit down as they're used to everything being done by GUI in Windows. Anything outside a package manger usually requires some quick commands in terminal.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37818833]"If you're going to say anything, please do some research." The last time I used Ubuntu (version 9) required quite abit of terminal usage to get basic shit done because the GUI applications were too basic to be used for basic tasks such as installing a driver provided from a manufacturer. Alot of people end up quiting Linux because they dont know how to get shit down as they're used to everything being done by GUI in Windows. Anything outside a package manger usually requires some quick commands in terminal.[/QUOTE] > Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic Koala), released on 29 October 2009 Are you for real? Stop spreading FUD, *buntu is perfectly usable.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37818833]"If you're going to say anything, please do some research." The last time I used Ubuntu (version 9) required quite abit of terminal usage to get basic shit done because the GUI applications were too basic to be used for basic tasks such as installing a driver provided from a manufacturer. Alot of people end up quiting Linux because they dont know how to get shit down as they're used to everything being done by GUI in Windows. Anything outside a package manger usually requires some quick commands in terminal.[/QUOTE] apt-get is simple enough once you use it a couple times, the problem is when the shit you're trying to install has to be compiled or is packaged for a different distro (Why the fuck does every single distro have it's own package system? It's retarded.).

Because they're engineered by people with completely different views on how tasks should be accomplished and what is more userfriendly etc. The only package manager I ever liked was yum because it was so configurable.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37818720]Exactly, which is why they should have made it package manager independent or release packages for all major distros. Do you know anything about what I'm trying to say?[/QUOTE] Get that Swedish pinewood forest out of your bum already. You seem to whine about [B]EVERYTHING[/B] that isn't 100% the way you like.

[QUOTE=Van-man;37818942]Get that Swedish pinewood forest out of your bum already. You seem to whine about [B]EVERYTHING[/B] that isn't 100% the way you like.[/QUOTE] "seem to", could you actually present something instead of going on about how I complain so much.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37818960]"seem to", could you actually present something instead of going on about how I complain so much.[/QUOTE] You just whined about something rather trivial whilst also being wrong about it to begin with.

I'm not wrong because I see it differently then you do. From my point of view you're extremely overreacting over one comment I made about Ubuntu.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37818889]Because they're engineered by people with completely different views on how tasks should be accomplished and what is more userfriendly etc. The only package manager I ever liked was yum because it was so configurable.[/QUOTE] yum owns. apt-get is a big turd.

Yum is better than aptitude, but everybody knows that pacman is the master race. It's just so versatile and human-readable.

Portage users represent.

[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;37819037]Yum is better than aptitude, but everybody knows that pacman is the master race. It's just so versatile and human-readable.[/QUOTE] sorry pacman is just as hard to read the output of as apt-get. eh, maybe a little better, but still a clusterfuck.

they all perform the same basic function and there is no point in arguing which is better 'readability' is subjective Also, I hope Big Picture Mode is available. got #! on my HTPC and I want to throw that on there beside XBMC

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;37819004]yum owns. apt-get is a big turd.[/QUOTE] apt-get? Pfft. $sudo synaptic I don't use apt-get unless its installing a specific package. if I'm looking for a package? Synaptic.

Yum or pacman are best imo. Sometimes I wish there were a standard package format.

[QUOTE=FalseLogic;37819783]Yum or pacman are best imo. Sometimes I wish there were a standard package format.[/QUOTE] I'm sure some clever guys will repackage it.

You can often choose to install alternative package managers, though they are normally a little useless on the wrong distro.

You don't need to do that. You can change packages from one format to another, usually without trouble.

This is one thing that windows users will never have: Long, heated debates over which one out of group of very similar programs is the best.

so, why is chenarus disagreeing with every post here? "NO. you can't install other package managers!" "NO. Synaptic doesn't work!" what are you trying to say here dude?

[QUOTE=The Baconator;37815226]So I wonder what is Valve's plan to encourage developers to make games for Linux Judging by Gabe's comment about wanting to make it as easy as possible to run all 2500+ Steam games on Linux, it looks like Valve might be contributing to Wine. Either way Linux has to become a viable atlernative to Windows for gaming, Windows is just so behind and outdated, Windows 8 is just barely adding some features thant other OS's like freeBSD, Mac OSX, and Linux has had for [I]ages[/I] now.[/QUOTE] The fact that steam runs on Linux does not linux a viable alternative make. Once linux runs at least 30% of the most popular games released on windows with comparable performance, we can begin talking about viability. Until then, it's a nice gesture that's probably happening more thanks to valve releasing an OSx client and an OSx based version of the engine utilising OpenGL more than anything else.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;37819699]apt-get? Pfft. $sudo synaptic I don't use apt-get unless its installing a specific package. if I'm looking for a package? Synaptic.[/QUOTE] Synaptic is actually a graphical front-end for APT :v:

[QUOTE=Wormy;37820649]Care to explain what that means? I have no clue.[/QUOTE] [T]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Pine_forest_in_Sweden.jpg[/T] A pinewood forest in Sweden.

[QUOTE=Lomme;37820535]Synaptic is actually a graphical front-end for APT :v:[/QUOTE] Just as Yumex is a front end for Yum, I am aware of this. If there is a gui that serves just as well as the command, I'll usually pick the gui. However i make sure I am well versed in the command so that I may swim in terminals to fix broken stuff.

apt-file + apt-get works for me, but let's not derail this thread even more. I am sure that someone will repackage into an rpm, put it on different package repos and include the dependencies, it's not that hard to port a package from distro A to B.