Valve's Gabe Newell Really Hates Windows 8

[kraftman]

Pure non-sense. The "Windows on top of DOS" model was last implemented with Windows ME in 2000, about 12 years ago. After that all newer versions were built on top of the NT kernel, a modern kernel that has nothing to do with DOS at all and needed in its first versions at least a 80386 to work (same as Linux). All modern versions have a very good security model, more advanced than the pure UNIX permission system. It is more something that you can compare with SELinux. The problem is that Microsoft disables most of it by default on consumer versions of Windows, for a very simple reason: most users don't want it. They disable even UAC, because they don't want to make one extra-click i exchange for being more secure.

If you want to compare two OSes then make some serious research before posting such BS, otherwise you just sound like a trollish Linux zealot.

That's a whole of bullshit. Windows 7 is also using parts from DOS and this is proven. The answer lays in the vulnerabilities that comes from... DOS! Don't make me laugh saying about it's crappy security model, because it's just ridiculous:

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...x-1632632.html

According to Google developer Chris Evans, Chrome 20's native 64-bit Flash plugin is, at least in the current Ubuntu 12.04, isolated within a seccomp sandbox. It thus complements the Pepper Flash sandbox in what Evans refers to as "double bagging". Because the Windows sandbox essentially relies on the integrity levels introduced in Vista and therefore permits processes to read whatever they like, the doubled-up Linux sandbox is – leaving aside external wrappers such as Blitzableiter – probably currently the safest method for executing Flash content in a browser.

Btw. where the hell comes from messed up question: Abort, Retry, Ignore? :>

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/w...0-c0811e2223ae

Btw2 some poor people think it's, because of a... virus!

http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...re.-(201)-HELP

[kraftman]

Huh? What the hell is a single user kernel? NT is clearly a multi-user system, with several different system users running at the same time.

This just proves you have no clue. It's a single user system that tries to transform into multi-user one. However, it's security suffers badly from it's origins.

No, they do it because they don't know what they are doing.

UAC is broken mess:

http://www.istartedsomething.com/200...vulnerability/

Ubuntu is not all Linux. Yes, there are some distros that make it actively harder to run as root all the time, but none of them makes it impossible. It is in fact very easy to circumvent such restrictions and many users that come from Windows actually want to do that, because they don't know what they are doing.
Distros that assume that the user knows what he is doing don't have such restrictions at all, it is no problem to run Arch, Slackware or Gentoo as root all the time. This is not something that is magically different on Linux. The first thing that makes your system secure or insecure is the user, not the OS.

This has nothing to reality. Linux has proper security models while Windows has broken ones. Windows is also using much less restrictive security model and IE is its integral part that makes it security mess.

So now you are changing from "NT is shit" to "NT's users are shit". Why is a kernel shit because it is used by dumb users? If I run Linux as root all the time does that make Linux shit?

It's shit, because they made it like that. Users can't do much to protect themselves. It's not about running it as root, but it's about bad design.

In short: The Windows security model is not bad per se, in fact it is pretty good. What is bad is the users that don't want to give up some convenience for having a secure system. But that is not the fault of the kernel.

In short: saying Windows "has" security model is ridiculous and if we agree it has something like that it must be said it's a broken mess.

[Kano]

I don't think that linux desktops are more secure than win by definition. at least with physical access you dont need a livesystem to get full (root) access to user data - btw that works on os x as well. So lets think about remote access, there you are as save as the apps you run. Every app has flaws, most important for home users are most likely all web browsers, mail clients, instant messaging or office apps. Faults in those apps are used to install malware - currently mainly on windows because of much more users - but do you want to say that flash/java is more secure when you use firefox on linux than on win? You are just lucky that the malware authors target win in most cases, same for os x users. You see that same on android, every system that is popular has got lots of malware (often hidden in pirated apk). Currently you are usually save enough without any anti virus tool in the background - but you can be sure in the case that linux desktops are more popular this will change.

For web servers you already have got lots of attack vectors, mainly because of wrongly parsed vars. Most likely you don't read news about stolen passwords/sql databases. Do you really want to say all those systems run windows? Basically it would not matter much, the most exploited bugs are not inside the os kernel. Of course when you have got already a remote shell you want more, like root access...

[AJSB]

No this do not work for firefox and opera because microsoft earn money in a direct way for the IE and they earn money on ads but firefox and opera only do have a market share with that antitrust kindergarten because they give away the software for FREE and they only earn money on ads.

Microsoft won this battle again! because they earn money on selling IE with windows and they earn money on "ads" and they do have the biggest market share.

Sorry but English is not my natural language and i don't think i understand what you mean....

MS earns money in a *direct way* from IE ?!?

How is that possible ?!?

IE is also free of charge and i remove it from any PC with Windows....so, if it's NOT INSTALLED and didn't paid for it, how does MS makes money from it directly ?!?

(FWIW, i also remove Outlook, Windows Media Player and all that c**p)

[Naib]

Back on topic...


here is more to this than Valve/Gabe are letting on. Why would they suddenly back linux with such vigour?
I mean they pulled in intel to sort out intel drivers, mesa as well as sources ogl stack can't be just abt gabe going batshit mad over win8
gabe/valve are hoping something from this gambit, a 5% marketshare from linux (tops and even then they all won't be gamers) isn't much, do they really think they can increase linux marketshare to really scare ms? or is the threat of the possibility enough for ms todo whatever it is that valve want but are not saying

valves reasons are "for the little guy" and the win8 app store. again diversion away from whatever is their real reason.
The appstore is basically a direct competition to STEAM but there are already other competitors. Sure having the store on every machine by default screams of the IE forcing back in the original anti-trust case, but to jump to linux with such vigour?
They recently had intels gpu driver team out to visit to sitdown to improve L4D2 (ie source...) performance with the opensource drives.
They fixed a load of things in the drivers, in mesa and in source. they are proactively helping which is what is confusing, this is ALOT of effort to bring support to a small percentage part of a small percentage marketshare..

love if this comes true and support stays (I miss playing l4d, l4d2, css, hl2 and dota2 - cant be arsed to boot windows...) but there is a part of me that are really questioning the motives


This seems more politically motivated than it is economically motivated (especially about how much noise is being made even before win8 store is even seen to be viable...). Divesting is always good if there is a decent amount of profit to be made. Linux marketshare is what? between 1% and 5%. WHAT percentage of that will actually play games? that is a VERY small percentage sure support games on linux to drive up the numbers by ppl converting but enough to offset any potential loss to win8 app store? hence my statement this is more than just about economics. ValveGameStation is a possibility


with win8 out in october I guess a good estimate for initial steam release would be around there, steal some thunder and all, show that the alternative is viable

[maldorordiscord]

Sorry but English is not my natural language and i don't think i understand what you mean....

MS earns money in a *direct way* from IE ?!?

How is that possible ?!?

IE is also free of charge and i remove it from any PC with Windows....so, if it's NOT INSTALLED and didn't paid for it, how does MS makes money from it directly ?!?

(FWIW, i also remove Outlook, Windows Media Player and all that c**p)

You do a big mistake IE is not FREE-Beer you pay REAL money in a direct way for the IE because of your WINDOWS license costs.
Compared to that fact the Firefox do not get money from the Windows-License sale.

"so, if it's NOT INSTALLED and didn't paid for it, how does MS makes money from it directly ?!?"

Its simple Microsoft calculate the costs of IE in the windows license this means without the IE windows would be cheaper but they bundle it this means windows is more expensiv because of IE.

"(FWIW, i also remove Outlook, Windows Media Player and all that c**p)"

You are naive because microsoft don't care you pay the bill because you buy the windows license if you use IE,Outlook,Windows-Media-Player or not.

Microsoft earn money on IE even if you use the Firefox only because of the windows license sales.

[Figueiredo]

Back on topic...


here is more to this than Valve/Gabe are letting on. Why would they suddenly back linux with such vigour?
I mean they pulled in intel to sort out intel drivers, mesa as well as sources ogl stack can't be just abt gabe going batshit mad over win8
gabe/valve are hoping something from this gambit, a 5% marketshare from linux (tops and even then they all won't be gamers) isn't much, do they really think they can increase linux marketshare to really scare ms? or is the threat of the possibility enough for ms todo whatever it is that valve want but are not saying

valves reasons are "for the little guy" and the win8 app store. again diversion away from whatever is their real reason.
The appstore is basically a direct competition to STEAM but there are already other competitors. Sure having the store on every machine by default screams of the IE forcing back in the original anti-trust case, but to jump to linux with such vigour?
They recently had intels gpu driver team out to visit to sitdown to improve L4D2 (ie source...) performance with the opensource drives.
They fixed a load of things in the drivers, in mesa and in source. they are proactively helping which is what is confusing, this is ALOT of effort to bring support to a small percentage part of a small percentage marketshare..

love if this comes true and support stays (I miss playing l4d, l4d2, css, hl2 and dota2 - cant be arsed to boot windows...) but there is a part of me that are really questioning the motives


This seems more politically motivated than it is economically motivated (especially about how much noise is being made even before win8 store is even seen to be viable...). Divesting is always good if there is a decent amount of profit to be made. Linux marketshare is what? between 1% and 5%. WHAT percentage of that will actually play games? that is a VERY small percentage sure support games on linux to drive up the numbers by ppl converting but enough to offset any potential loss to win8 app store? hence my statement this is more than just about economics. ValveGameStation is a possibility


with win8 out in october I guess a good estimate for initial steam release would be around there, steal some thunder and all, show that the alternative is viable

I bet on the SteamBox rumor.

Fisrt of all the is the equasion:

10' interface (confirmed) + steam on linux (confirmed) + working on new input methods (confirmed) = ?

Does anybody really believes that all these effords are not directly correlated to each other?

Valve knows that the desktop is going away (talking about long term here, not tomorrow). Anybody who wants to get some work done can use a notebook or a all-in-one, but it can't be better gaming in front of a desk, all by yoursef than in the living room with your family and friends. New HID's that are being created for consoles (wii, kinect and so on) do not work well on the desktop either. Valve is not simply abandoning windows, they know they have to abandon the keyboard/mouse and the hole desktop model (remember I said long term). As Gabe himself said, they have been with us for over 25 years, it's time for something new.

By supporting linux they save a lot of money developing a console from the ground up, since they only need to fix what's missing in the stack with the help of hardware makers, and developing hardware, which is already there and linux already runs on. Finally, if this move to cloud gaming really caches on (which I am a bit scheptical about), they would already have the games runing on linux, which is the the facto standart on servers anyway.

So, basically, by sticking to linux they have it covered from mobile, to living room to server/cloud.

Linux is probably never going to be popular on the desktop because there won't be a desktop in a few years. It is, however, popular on everything else. That is why I think Valve is so enthusiastic about linux.

[entropy]

Back on topic...


here is more to this than Valve/Gabe are letting on. Why would they suddenly back linux with such vigour?
I mean they pulled in intel to sort out intel drivers, mesa as well as sources ogl stack can't be just abt gabe going batshit mad over win8
gabe/valve are hoping something from this gambit, a 5% marketshare from linux (tops and even then they all won't be gamers) isn't much, do they really think they can increase linux marketshare to really scare ms? or is the threat of the possibility enough for ms todo whatever it is that valve want but are not saying

valves reasons are "for the little guy" and the win8 app store. again diversion away from whatever is their real reason.
The appstore is basically a direct competition to STEAM but there are already other competitors. Sure having the store on every machine by default screams of the IE forcing back in the original anti-trust case, but to jump to linux with such vigour?
They recently had intels gpu driver team out to visit to sitdown to improve L4D2 (ie source...) performance with the opensource drives.
They fixed a load of things in the drivers, in mesa and in source. they are proactively helping which is what is confusing, this is ALOT of effort to bring support to a small percentage part of a small percentage marketshare..

love if this comes true and support stays (I miss playing l4d, l4d2, css, hl2 and dota2 - cant be arsed to boot windows...) but there is a part of me that are really questioning the motives


This seems more politically motivated than it is economically motivated (especially about how much noise is being made even before win8 store is even seen to be viable...). Divesting is always good if there is a decent amount of profit to be made. Linux marketshare is what? between 1% and 5%. WHAT percentage of that will actually play games? that is a VERY small percentage sure support games on linux to drive up the numbers by ppl converting but enough to offset any potential loss to win8 app store? hence my statement this is more than just about economics. ValveGameStation is a possibility


with win8 out in october I guess a good estimate for initial steam release would be around there, steal some thunder and all, show that the alternative is viable

I agree - this is something I was also thinking about.
The "leaked" Linux Steam client some years ago, was obviously
something Valve _wanted_ to be found by someone to generate
media attention ("they're up to someting").
I'd say this worked out pretty well and supports the political aspect.

Maybe it's a bit of both, pointing out the upcoming issues with Steam and Windows 8
and testing out how far they can get with Steam on Linux from a technically side.
Also, the idea of an open-standard SteamBox doesn't seem too far fetched.

[PeterKraus]

I bet on the SteamBox rumor.
Valve knows that the desktop is going away (talking about long term here, not tomorrow). Anybody who wants to get some work done can use a notebook or a all-in-one, but it can't be better gaming in front of a desk, all by yoursef than in the living room with your family and friends. New HID's that are being created for consoles (wii, kinect and so on) do not work well on the desktop either. Valve is not simply abandoning windows, they know they have to abandon the keyboard/mouse and the hole desktop model (remember I said long term). As Gabe himself said, they have been with us for over 25 years, it's time for something new.

Not gonna happen. E-sports are here to stay, and E-sports means keyboard and mouse. And Valve has *just* committed with Dota 2....

[AJSB]

You do a big mistake IE is not FREE-Beer you pay REAL money in a direct way for the IE because of your WINDOWS license costs.
Compared to that fact the Firefox do not get money from the Windows-License sale.

"so, if it's NOT INSTALLED and didn't paid for it, how does MS makes money from it directly ?!?"

Its simple Microsoft calculate the costs of IE in the windows license this means without the IE windows would be cheaper but they bundle it this means windows is more expensiv because of IE.

"(FWIW, i also remove Outlook, Windows Media Player and all that c**p)"

You are naive because microsoft don't care you pay the bill because you buy the windows license if you use IE,Outlook,Windows-Media-Player or not.

Microsoft earn money on IE even if you use the Firefox only because of the windows license sales.

I'm not that naive , in that sense, yeah sure, i paid for it but if you go back to 1st versions of IE ever made , it wasn't part of the OS and it wasn't paid either (it was just like any other WWW browser that we could install, so, in that sense, it NEVER was paid and if it wasn't ever paid as an extra then it can be considered free)....but for me that is kinda of irrelevant because, IMHO, MS would charge same price anyway with or without IE in Windows (because it is indeed free of charge)

In fact, IIRC, i might be making a confusion, when MS was 1st attacked because Netscape and all, there was in at least a country where they sold a version of windows w/o IE....and they sold it at same price than regular version w/IE.