Originally Posted by deanjo
"No comment" is what you'd use if you didn't want to quash rumors running rampant, whether or not they were remotely true or not. It should be noted that people will leap right to the conclusion you ARE doing something of what you're being asked if you come back with "no comment". It's not like you're pleading the Fifth when you do that- inferences can and will be made and you've inadvertently leaked information after a fashion. No, you didn't directly say anything, but you did still give out something all the same.
"Not working on it at this time" is what you'd use if you had been doing something or had it in the plans, but wanted to quash the rumors running about without promising anything. It's int he present tense, yes, but it's NOTHING definitive like you're making it out to be. It could be that they've got something but aren't working on it right now. It could be that they've got just prototype stuff (based on what we DO know right at the moment...) and they're holding off on working on it. And the list goes on and on. Nothing at all definitive about the statement other than they're not working on it right now.
If you want definitive, you'd have to say "No, we're not working on it and have no plans in the forseeable future either," or something like it for the negative and "Yes, we're working on it and plan on shipping it soon," for the positive.
"No, we're not working on it and have no plans in the forseeable future either," and "There’s no Linux version that we’re working on right now." are saying the exact same thing. Neither one rules out the possibility of a version in the future since nobody can see the future. "No comment" is exactly not commenting on a subject. If anything more is read into it then that is done from pure speculation of the audience with no substance of fact. It neither confirms nor denies anything on the subject. Reading anything else into the phrase "There’s no Linux version that we’re working on right now." is again nothing but pure speculation based on no fact given from the statement. No means no.
Originally Posted by Svartalf
"What truth is there to rumours that you’re also working on a Linux version of Steam?"
"There’s no Linux version that we’re working on right now." and ""No, we're not working on it and have no plans in the forseeable future either," are all present tense. Even saying "We will never support linux." is not a guarantee that plans won't change. The only thing you can say for sure is going by past or current situations. Valves answer gives a definitive picture of the situation at this time.
Yeah, it's quite possible that they put the matter on the table every now and then, even remotely possible that they have it takes the form of a vague plan, maybe even some not-really-working code if some individual happens to have interest and too much time (getting more and more unlikely here; I doubt Valve developers have that much slack on work time). But you can read into the comment that whether or not they plan to some day produce a Linux client, it's not being worked on now.
Originally Posted by deanjo
We know some for a steam client exists ( due to attempts to run it)
We know SOURCE has been ported to OGL (OSX version released)
We know there are still plans for SOURCE to come to linux (due to Postal3)
It was suggested that SOURCE/STEAM/... would be released for linux at the end of the summer from TheIndependant news article (non-confirmed by Valve, but it isn't the end of summer yet)
Now it is known that the ATi drivers are crap (better then they were but still crap), likewise it is known that OSX recently pushed out a performance boost to improve their drivers.
Likewise there have been some recent improvements to the catalyst drivers.
Maybe Valve holding back and giving ati some time to improve their drivers
Or like WoW for linux client it will never see the light of day.
Originally Posted by Naib
Tags for this Thread