We are excited to announce that Arch Linux is entering into a direct collaboration with Valve. Valve is generously providing backing for two critical projects that will have a huge impact on our distribution: a build service infrastructure and a secure signing enclave. By supporting work on a freelance basis for these topics, Valve enables us to work on them without being limited solely by the free time of our volunteers.
This opportunity allows us to address some of the biggest outstanding challenges we have been facing for a while. The collaboration will speed-up the progress that would otherwise take much longer for us to achieve, and will ultimately unblock us from finally pursuing some of our planned endeavors. We are incredibly grateful for Valve to make this possible and for their explicit commitment to help and support Arch Linux.
These projects will follow our usual development and consensus-building workflows. [RFCs] will be created for any wide-ranging changes. Discussions on this mailing list as well as issue, milestone and epic planning in our GitLab will provide transparency and insight into the work. We believe this collaboration will greatly benefit Arch Linux, and are looking forward to share further development on this mailing list as work progresses.
You must log in or register to comment.
Some extra fun details from the staff discussions around this: Valve is not interested in control of the distro, but are mainly interested in funding work on projects that are chosen by Arch staff, and are already things that Arch staff wants to implement. The projects chosen are indeed things that Valve also want to be part of the distro’s infrastructure, but the process has been totally in the hands of Arch staff.
I gotta say, it’s been really cool to see Valve go through the process of considering OSS as not just a useful tool or worthwhile target, but as a robust collaborator.
First, they build and maintain their client on Linux, and build their games to run natively on Linux, learning that things aren’t actually as difficult as it’s commonly made out to be, and the things that are more difficult than they need to be can be fixed by working with and contributing to the existing community.
Then they consider building their own hardware, but try the half-way approach of building SteamOS on top of Debian, and depending on existing hardware vendors to build machines with SteamOS in mind, learning that there’s a lot of unnecessary complexity around both of those approaches to that goal.
Then they learn how to develop and build 1st party hardware with the SteamLink and Steam Controller.
Then they put the lessons from the Steam Machine project into practice by dumping loads of time and effort into Proton, knowing that they won’t have the market unless they can get Windows games to run on Linux in a reliable and seamless way.
Then they put all that knowledge and effort together to do the impossible: unite PC gamers of both Windows and Linux flavors under the banner of the SteamDeck, a fully gaming-focused, high-quality, and owner-friendly piece of kit that kicks so much ass that it single-handedly pulls a whole category of PC hardware out of obsurity and into the mainstream.
And what do they do with that success? Literally pay it forward by funding work on the free software that forms the plinth that their success stands upon.
Good on Valve.
Valve is a Titan doing incredible work for the open source community and making money while doing so.
Successful open source software business model at work. Way to go.
Successful open source software business model at work. Way to go.
I don’t think FOSS represents a lot of how they make money, the money making is probably all closed source, so I don’t think it’s a good example. It’s more like a for-profit company also doing so good quality charity work on the side. It’s mostly good for their image and a way to tell Windows that they could go without them if they don’t collaborate.
I fully enjoy what they have been doing as a Linux only patient gamer for the past years, but I am realistic.In reality, it’s likely a self-preservation move. Microsoft made what appeared to be a monopolistic move to control the entire Windows ecosystem when they added their own app store and the locked down S edition of Windows. If Valve both hadn’t invested in Linux and Microsoft hadn’t halted going down that path, they would have been screwed.
I’d doubt that. Everyone hated S mode: Corporate hated it, power users hated it, newbies…probably ignored it. Even if MS continued down it, it’d just be like Digg v4.
Personally, I think the profit incentive is a way to improve SteamOS further for free.
I’m not sure that Microsoft ever did halt going down that path. My wife recently bought a PC that came locked down by default and required some fiddling to allow running unsigned apps. This was Windows 10, not sure about 11.
I think it could be more that broad compatibility with everything is their main selling point, and by doing so they were undermining their own ecosystem.
However, this is mere speculation on my part.
“Likely”, man I am pretty sure Gaben openly talked about this, they haven’t liked where windows was headed for a long time
deleted by creator
I think Steam does have enough influence to be able to pull a sizable chunk of users away from windows.
That’s a tough nut to crack. Even as a video game platform, they don’t write most of the software that they sell today. They would need to find some way to convince developers to write software for something that’s not the platform nearly all users are running.
They’ve more or less already done that with Proton and DXVK. Nearly all Windows games “just work” on Linux without developers needing to change anything. TBH whenever big studios develop Linux versions of games they’re usually not well-done anyway; for now it’s better if people develop with their comfy Windows tools and let compatibility tools take care of the translation. When the balance shifts to Linux dominance we can start pressing on them to learn how to use Linux SDKs.
Successful open source software business model at work. Way to go.
Their main product is a proprietary software launcher that for decades has pushed videogames and the whole industry into a closed environment making them billions. It’s good that they are now supporting linux and collaborating in open source projects but let’s not forget who they are.
Let’s also not forget how absolutely groundbreaking Steam was for digital distribution.
I really have a hard time accepting that they “pushed” the industry rather than that they offered a platform with features that were worlds beyond what was available at the time for game developers and publishers. No one was bribed. There were no shady backroom deals. No assassinations of competitors (in fact the opposite, doing experiments with cross platform purchases with the PS3 and with GOG). There was no embrace extend extinguish, as there was nothing already existing like it to embrace or extinguish.
Also saying that they are now supporting linux and open source is ignoring a long history of their work with linux. This isn’t something new for them. What’s new is yet another large step forward in their investment, not their involvement.
Look, like you, I am concerned about their level of control over digital distribution game sales for the PC market. But from a practical standpoint I find them incredibly hard to have any large amount of negative feelings about them due to their track record, and the fact that they are not a publicly traded company so they are not beholden to the normal shareholder drive for profit at any cost. I’d love to hear more reasons to be concerned if any exist rather than “proprietary” and “too big”.
On top of that, Steam DRM is pretty notably easy to bypass, with what appears to be relatively little effort from Valve to eliminate the methods. They aren’t doing the normal rat race back and forth between crackers and the DRM devs that you would expect.
Anyway, again I’ll say: I’d love to hear more reasons to be concerned beyond “proprietary” and “too big”.
I think a good comparison is Bell Labs and AT&T. A lot of good work was done by Bell Labs but it was mostly enabled by AT&Ts monopoly.
I’d like to see a Sankey graph of where Valve’s money goes before I praise them that much for helping out a Linux distribution a bit.
Lots of major companies like Microsoft and IBM also contribute to Linux, it doesn’t make them saints nor even necessarily compare to what they get for using the volunteer dev work inside Linux.
Gabe Newell is a billionaire, Steam is a defacto monopoly that objectively charges more than they have to, and literally everyone who works at Valve is in the 1%. Let’s not fall over ourselves dick-riding them.
Oh come on. Mr negativity over here. FFS Valve has been a godsend compared to the likes of EA or Blizzard. I bet you complain when you get ice cream that it’s too cold
Valve has ripped off every single game purchase to the tune of billions and billions of dollars (taking an objective 15% more than they need to from the total cost of every single game), for the past 20 years.
But let’s thank them for that! Thanks Valve for making every single working class gamer poorer. We all love the fact that every single Valve employee is a multimillionaire, at the expense of literally every single game player and developer. What kind generosity! /S
At the expense of literally every single game player
How is it at the expense of the game player? Even if they paid less, the publisher and developers aren’t going to pass the savings on to the consumer. That’s wishful thinking in the same vain as hoping Starbucks would make their drinks cheaper because their rent went down.
If anything, one can argue that the 30% fee shelled out by the publisher pays for the various nice-to-haves that players get on Steam, like: a functional review system, free cloud save syncing, the workshop, game discussion forum, friends system, family sharing, game streaming, Steam input (which is a godsend for accessibility), etc.
You don’t seem to have idea of how much a billion is and how much money is valve making. Enjoy your icecream while it’s cold because you can’t afford too much of it.
Being cautious of a corporation is never a bad thing, but remember: Valve isn’t a public company. They don’t have the same incentives and fiduciary duties that led to the enshittification of most other companies and services.
Ultimately, yes, everything they do is entirely for their own benefit. But, they’re also free to focus on their long-term growth and returns. As long as the leadership doesn’t get changed to a bunch of shit-for-brains golden parachute MBAs, they’re going to want to keep their customers happy. It’s good for them, and it’s not terrible for us. Everybody wins.
I would prefer they were a nonprofit, but I’m not going to complain when the mainstream alternatives to Steam are mostly comprised of shitty sales-focused storefronts created by companies beholden to their investors.
I’ll tell you a secret: you don’t need a proprietary launcher to run software
I’ll tell you something you missed:
Steam’s DRM is notoriously easy to bypass, allowing that. They also don’t force DRM on their platform, it’s entirely developer/publisher opt-in (and they are also free to add additional DRM on top if they wish), and many many releases on Steam run fine directly from the executable without the launcher running.
Edit: For the record, I pirate before I buy, buy on DRM free platforms (GOG mainly) where possible, and use a third party launcher to unify my collection across multiple storefronts and many many loose executables into one spot.
Ultimately, yes, everything they do is entirely for their own benefit. But, they’re also free to focus on their long-term growth and returns. As long as the leadership doesn’t get changed to a bunch of shit-for-brains golden parachute MBAs, they’re going to want to keep their customers happy. It’s good for them, and it’s not terrible for us. Everybody wins
No, they don’t. Literally every single gamer across the world pays 15% more on every single game purchase, for literally no reason except to make the 1% at Valve even richer.
And they don’t have to hire MBAs because gamers dick ride them like Gabe isnt a self serving billionaire and keep forking over an extra 15% and then thanking them for the opportunity to do so.
No, they don’t. Literally every single gamer across the world pays 15% more on every single game purchase, for literally no reason except to make the 1% at Valve even richer.
Do you seriously believe that if a developer pays 15% less in platform fees to Valve, that savings will be passed on to us? Epic Games tried that. Guess what: games still cost us the same there as every other platform.
It literally either goes back to the consumer or back to the game developer.
Or, more likely, the publisher. But, that’s beside the point.
As it has been demonstrated when Epic tried the “developers pay less fees here” approach, the average Joe Gamer doesn’t benefit in any way whatsoever. Your premise of the savings being passed down doesn’t exactly pan out.
To be fair, Epic Store was marred by exclusives and having way less features back then. Even now, their (Electron) launcher boots up way slower than (CEF) Steam, and their sales are way worse.
deleted by creator
I don’t agree that they’re a monopoly, because they’ve done absolutely nothing to prevent competition. Other stores do it to themselves.
Yes they have. The steam friends network and the fact that you can’t transfer your purchases, friends data, or community data to other platforms is an inherent form of lock in. Just because you’re used to it because Facebook also does it, doesn’t mean it’s not.
Lock-in != Monopoly.
The fact that you can’t transfer your purchases […] to other platforms
This is ridiculously unrealistic in a capitalist society.
It costs the platform money whenever a user downloads a game, and a user who didn’t buy from their store isn’t a user that they make money from. No other platform would voluntarily accept a recurring cost like that unless they profit from user data.
Also, it’s not like they stop publishers from doing that themselves. Ubisoft and EA use the cd-key generated by steam to associate the game with your U-Play and Origin accounts.
Not being able to transfer purchases seems like an other-platforms problem. Steam has authenticated API for users’ game libraries.
Lots of major companies like Microsoft and IBM also contribute to Linux, it doesn’t make them saints nor even necessarily compare to what they get for using the volunteer dev work inside Linux.
Most of those companies actually contribute to the kernel or to foundational software used on servers, but few contribute to the userspace for desktop consumers on the level that Valve does.
So?
People more readily appreciate things that obviously directly affect them.
Valve: “Yeah, we funded Arch (btw)”
Valve are such Chads.
I’m just waiting for some FOSS purist to find fault in this.
FOSS purists are too busy malding over systemd, and Steam being proprietary DRM, and games being closed-source.
Steam being proprietary DRM, and games being closed-source.
Better not tell anyone about DRM-free open source games on Steam then. Wouldn’t wanna burst anyone’s bubble.
I want to give the perspective that from a technical standpoint, even free games on steam require the steam client to install and while the license to play the game is free steam is licensing your account to own the game. The game doesn’t require steam after that and usually this means the game is available elsewhere, but for the specific case of “free games on steam”, steam is still acting to manage digital rights.
The game doesn’t require steam after that and usually this means the game is available elsewhere
Means you can also zip the folder and archive it for later.
They do still have some basic protection. Steam’s default, loose, DRM requires you to launch Steam when you open a game’s executable.
I use OpenRC, and play OpenTTD, OpenRA and Tux Racer.
OpenTTD is on Steam, btw
Don’t you play cdda?
Leaving the others aside, the last one is quite unsurprising considering the meaning of the acronym…
systemd controversy was never about purism. It was about some piece of software unasked for by the majority of users, including absolute majority of desktop users, being pushed with juvenile means and those disliking that being called words like “luddite”.
It still is, believe me or not, I probably wouldn’t find anything wrong in systemd (or pulseaudio, or Gnome 3) were it not pushed with that arrogant Apple or MS like approach of “we’ve rolled out this new feature in our system, and you’re a weirdo”.
Same reason I liked the very theoretical idea of something like Wayland, but Wayland itself I don’t want to even try. Except for the possibility of something like CWM existing for it, that I can set up in 15 minutes with 20 lines of config file without levels of brackets etc (there is actual research as to how many levels various primates can process, chimps can’t go above 3, and I’m apparently as intelligent as a chimp, because neither can I in practice, but so is Linus Torvalds with his famous quote about more than 3 levels of indentation ; the issue is that I don’t want to strain my mind with that either when with a few X11 window managers I don’t have to). There’s none I’ve found yet.
Their politics trouble me. The technical parts may be sometimes arguable, but what isn’t, our world is created with mistakes as building blocks. But I’ve started using Unix-like systems for the feeling of freedom and patience, and while RH stuff doesn’t take away the former, it infringes on the latter.
While I agree with the politics part (especially the notorious suspend-then-hibernate thing), I do see why a lot of devs would ask for systemd-init: to just bundle 1 kind of service instead of a gazillion. Same thing with Flatpak and not needing to build a gazillion binaries for every distro that hasn’t packaged you, even though FLatpak’s sandboxing away from native libraries is something I just don’t like.
I do see why a lot of devs would ask for systemd-init: to just bundle 1 kind of service instead of a gazillion
How would that work? There were N init systems with one “main” one, now there are N+1 init systems with one “main” one, just different.
Anyway, init systems for developers being problematic seem for me a nonexistent problem. Writing a systemd unit takes less time than writing this comment with tea and buckwheat with milk as a distraction. Writing a sysvinit script takes something like that too. Same with BSD inits. Same with openrc.
While combined they take some time, packagers can do that. And even if they can’t, time spent trying to persuade others that systemd makes things easier is orders of magnitude bigger than time spent writing service scripts\templates\units.
As per Arch wiki
Arch is a pragmatic distribution rather than an ideological one.
If you’re a FOSS purist, you shouldn’t run Arch ethier way, because providing proprietary software for those who want it is one of the core principles of Arch.
Seeing a large company doing anything involving Linux besides blocking its users from using their product is a rare occurance these days.
It’s stuff like this that restores my faith in humanity.
Yo a distro collabing with a corporation this is soo fire 🔥🔥🔥
I think we will be getting proper arch on arm!
Using OSS in your product and giving the OSS devs resources to improve their software, instead of trying to take over their project? Did Valve not get the memo that big tech companies are supposed to be evil?? Oh right, they have a monopoly on video game distribution and all of their products rely on DRM.
they have a monopoly on video game distribution
People who claim that Valve has a monopoly on PC games are already wrong but you claim that they have a monopoly on video game distribution in general is outrageously false. The 2022 overall video game revenue was a bit over US$180Bn. The PC game revenue was US$45Bn. In 2023, all of Steam was responsible for US$8.6Bn in revenue. The biggest PC games (Fortnite, Minecraft, Roblox) aren’t even on Steam and neither are any console or phone games.
Criticize Valve for actual things to criticize them for. Don’t spread misinformation.
I have many games I own on Steam that I can play portably from a flash drive without Steam. DRM is still on the developer.
They have a monopoly on video game distribution.
They have a massive marketshare, but that doesn’t make them a monopoly. Developers are still free to distribute their games through any other storefront/launcher, and Valve isn’t going out of its way to engage in anticompetitive practices like exclusive publishing deals with third-party studios.
“Monopoly”, other platforms are free to compete, Valve isn’t actively trying to stop them
Comment OP appears to have drank the Epic Games Kool-aid.
Comment OP appears to have drank the Epic Games Kool-aid.
The world’s biggest video game, Fortnite, is only available on Epic Games Store for most platforms. Epic’s market share is gigantic, other video game developers just don’t benefit of it because Epic promotes their own stuff first and foremost. If Epic had a storefront monopoly, it would be classified as anti-competitive behaviour.
they have a monopoly on video game distribution
Last I heard you could buy games from GOG or Epic and install them on a Steam deck produced and subsidized by Valve.
Last I heard you could buy games from GOG or Epic and install them on a Steam deck produced and subsidized by Valve.
Or get them on PlayStation, Switch, or Xbox (Earth Walker claimed Steam has a monopoly on video game distribution in general).
Or, you know, a simple installer from the dev’s website.
You might be too young to remember, but DRM existed way before Steam, and the worse ones that exist today are the ones that the Devs/publishers add, not the steam one.
I haven’t gamed on pc for quite some time, but I remember every gaming company adding “launchers” for their games that you had to run to install and play their games. Even Nvidia did this with their fucking drivers. :)
Valve doesn’t do any of that bullshit. Maybe that’s why gamers like them?
To be fair, weren’t Valve the first company to do that? People were really annoyed at having to install steam just to play some Half-Life.
Of course, that was only 1 launcher, no launcher-in-launcher shenanigans back then.
Yep, Valve also normalized microtransactions significantly through TF2.
Once again, Valve started it as something reasonable: Cosmetic options, then expanded to allow shortcutting unlocking alt weapons through $1-3 charges instead of through game progression (achievements unlocked alt weapons at first). Other companies followed suite in ever increasingly predatory ways, and Valve got worse with it too over time.
They also originated loot boxes (TF2)
Hopefully this would lead to a more (stable version of) ArchLinux.
Arch isn’t unstable. Users mess it up by installing a bunch of random crap from the AUR or fiddling with system files.
SteamOS addresses this by making the root level filesystem immutable and guiding the user to install containerized (flatpak) apps.
I’ve been using a Steam Deck for almost a year damn near daily with maybe 1 OS crash that was largely due to a very unstable game. How is ArchLinux unstable, exactly?
SteamOS is based on arch, but it has major differences. The steam deck’s update mechanism is completely different from normal arch Linux.
Arch normally immediately updates to the latest version of every program. This is usually fine, but when a big bug is missed by the developers, it can cause problems.
The steam deck updates a base image that includes all the programs installed by default, and by the time it releases a lot of them aren’t the absolute newest version. When valve updates SteamOS they definitely run a lot of tests on the base image to make sure it’s stable and won’t cause any issues.
SteamOS is also an immutible distro, meaning the important parts are read only. This also means updates are done to everything at once, and if something goes wrong, it can fall back to a known good version.
Not to say arch Linux is unstable (its been better for me than Ubuntu), but SteamOS is at a completely different level. It’s effectively a completely different distro if we’re talking about stability. I think what they’re hoping is this support would allow arch to build out testing infrastructure to catch more issues and prevent them from making it to users.
Arch normally immediately updates to the latest version of every program
This is not true though. Arch packages new program versions as soon as they can - for popular stuff this happens quickly but not everything updates quickly. And when they do publish a new package it goes to the testing repo for a short time before being promoted to the stable repos. If there is a problem with the package that they notice it will be held back until it can be solved. There is not a huge amount of testing that is done here as that is very time consuming and Arch do not have enough man power for this. But they also do not release much broken things at all. I have seen other distros like ubuntu cause far more havoc with a broken update then Arch ever has.
That’s… a weird take. There are variants of Arch that focus on stability, if that’s what you are after.
Which ones? I’m not aware of any besides specialised distros like SteamOS
https://itsfoss.com/arch-based-linux-distros/
Manjaro for example. I also thought Garuda would be focused on stability but according to this article potentially no. So maybe just Manjaro, I do remember reading about something else like it though…
Manjaro has a stability track record miles worse than Arch, to the point where someone made a GitHub wiki called “Manjarno”.
Manjaro does “stability” by delaying everything by two weeks. That doesn’t really help at all and might hurt you for security updates, because those will wait the same two weeks.
Try #EndeavourOS!
Which is just Arch with GUI setup and DE pre-shipped
they added some nice tools though. e.g. their pacdiff & meld tool eos-pacdiff is pretty nice. then there is a kernel manager and a pretty clever update-script / wrapper around pacman and yay (eos-update). saying it is just Arch + GUI is selling it a bit short imho.
It uses the Arch repos directly though
