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.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    221
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        64
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

        • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

        • henfredemars@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

        • kameecoding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          “Likely”, man I am pretty sure Gaben openly talked about this, they haven’t liked where windows was headed for a long time

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        and a way to tell Windows that they could go without them if they don’t collaborate.

        Ehhhh it’s a step in that direction. But as long as 96% or whatever of their users run Windows, it’s hardly much of a bargaining tool.

        I do think that’s what they’re working for. After all Windows could flip a switch at any time and royally fuck them.

        • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think Steam does have enough influence to be able to pull a sizable chunk of users away from windows.

          • henfredemars@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • TechnicallyColors@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

              • noodlejetski@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                They’ve more or less already done that with Proton and DXVK.

                no, that’s making software made for the platform that everyone’s running work on another platform. it’s, like, the opposite of what the previous person was talking about.

                • TechnicallyColors@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  The previous person was worried that Valve wouldn’t be able to convince “a sizable chunk of users” to move to Linux because all of the software they sell is written for Windows. If we apply a little bit of critical thinking, we realize that Valve has actually already thought of this(!) and applied a different(!) solution that solves the same problem(!) without requiring “everyone to write software for something that’s not the platform nearly all users are running”. If you want to see Valve’s attempt at getting everyone to switch to Linux without using compatibility tools you should look into how successful their Steam Machine campaign was.

      • sibachian@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        steam on linux was officially launched because gaben said windows trying to build a walled garden can go fuck right off. and he was right on the mark; as microsoft keeps buying big studios and locking down their ecosystem more and more. steam going linux and the steam deck are direct responses to wrangle control out of microsofts hands - and with all rights, considering the debacle of directx when that launched and pushing gaming to make hardware development a priority which in turn made microsoft licenses sell for new computers.

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • masterspace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • tyrant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        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

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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

          • pivot_root@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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.

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              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.

              This is the most dumbass asinine defense. So now you’re pro landlord rent gouging?

              Jesus fucking Christ how are people upvoting this flat out landlord simping crap.

              It does not fucking matter if Ubisoft remains greedy. Every single independent self publishing dev gets 15% more money. If a landlord gogiges Starbucks, they’re also going to gouge the independent business, and the family needing somewhere to live.

              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.

              “Oh my corporate landlord might be owned by a billionaire and every single one of his employees might be a multimillionaire, but he’s a good landlord because he gives us a washing machine. It might be old and clunky and never repaired, but hey that makes him a saint, right?”

              The fucking fact that you brought up landlords rent seeking as a non issue is the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard. You need to go outside, give your head a shake, and do fucking better.

              • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                So now you’re pro landlord rent gouging?

                No, they’re anti Starbucks price gouging. It’s like all those companies taking advantage of a little inflation to drastically increase retail prices.

                It might be old and clunky and never repaired

                It’s the opposite.

                • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  No, they’re anti Starbucks price gouging. It’s like all those companies taking advantage of a little inflation to drastically increase retail prices.

                  I said Valve is taking 15% more that they don’t have to, they said who cares if a landlord drops Starbucks rent 15%, the consumer won’t save. I pointed out that that means that not just Starbucks is being gouged but also independent stores and places that might actually drop their prices, or not increase them as quickly in the future.

                  There is literally no way to defend rent seeking. It makes everything more expensive for everyone.

                  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    We hate rent seeking. We’ll hate Steam if they raise the profit margin. We’re not talking about rent gouging. Piv’s point is that large publishers dominate the landscape and won’t bulge their prices. This is compounded by Steam’s anticompetitive clause against having a lower price on other platforms. That part is bad. However, the washing machine is well oiled and speedy. Epic’s is the clunky one, unfortunately. The only Steam alternative I’ll happily use is GOG and itch.io, where indies can still publish.

                  • pivot_root@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    I’m not defending landlords or rent gouging. I’m pointing out that when production or operating costs become lower in a for-profit entity, they increase their profit margin instead of passing their savings down to the consumer. Welcome to capitalism.

                    If you can’t see how that connects with the hypothetical scenario of having Valve to take a 15% cut instead of 30%, let me do it for you:

                    Ubisoft makes a new Assassin’s Creed game. They publish it on Steam, PlayStation, and Xbox. All of them currently take a 30% cut, so they sell the game for $70. Now, suppose your petition to Valve works, and they lower their cut to 15%. Ubisoft is still going to charge $70 to buy the game on Steam, and the only thing changing is that they now make an extra $10.50 from Steam purchases compared to the others.

                    But, that’s Ubisoft. What about an indie dev? Absolutely nothing different. Microsoft and Sony’s distribution agreements make it a contract violation to have a lower MSRP on a competing platform.

                    In our current reality, that 15% more-than-necessry fee will never go into the hands of the consumer. You are not being a champion for the consumer by rallying against 30% platform fees, you’re literally arguing to change the ratio of money going between two corporations.

        • index@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

        • index@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’ll tell you a secret: you don’t need a proprietary launcher to run software

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          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.

          • pivot_root@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              It literally either goes back to the consumer or back to the game developer.

              • pivot_root@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                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.

                • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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.

                  • pivot_root@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Is it Electron? Someone elsewhere mentioned it was actually an instance of Unreal Engine running for the webview component. Something about the EGS install directory containing the same UE settings file that games use for initializing Unreal

                • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  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.

                  Oh really? Please do point me to the study you did where you gave 15% more revenue back to developers and then assessed their output quality.

                  Claiming that having the store take 15% less cut of revenue will have no effect is a quite frankly flat out absurd claim to make.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        I’d say it’s a lot more than “a bit”. It’s an enormous amount of help that pretty much everyone in the Linux (professional) community can, has, and will attest to.

        I don’t agree that they’re a monopoly, because they’ve done absolutely nothing to prevent competition. Other stores do it to themselves.

        I do agree though that their fees are exorbitant and their contributions to Linux are a teeny tiny fraction of their wealth, but I appreciate it regardless.

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • helenslunch@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            What do you expect them to do? Not actively helping your competition is not remotely the same thing as being anticompetitive.

                • pivot_root@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  While I disagree with the other commenter’s approach and attitude, he/she/they are partially correct with the comment they left next to this one.

                  There is no legal obligation for a company to fund or assist its competition, even if it holds a significant marketshare. The companies that do help their competition, like Microsoft with Apple in 1997 or Google with Mozilla today, begrugingly choose to do it so their lawyers can make the argument that they are not a monopoly because they still have competition.

                  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    If they’ve already been deemed a monopoly? Sure. That’s a response to anticompetitive behavior.

                    like Microsoft with Apple in 1997

                    Don’t know anything about that.

                    Google with Mozilla today

                    That’s funny because this is the opposite of what you seem to be suggesting. This is not helping their competition, this is paying another company hundreds of million dollars to be anticompetitive against their competition. They paid Mozilla (and dozens of others) to be the default search engine. Its the exact anticompetitive behavior that caused them to be legally classified as a monopoly.

                • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  They literally, objectively, have, monopolistic anti-competitive power, largely thanks to blind corporate dick riding gamers like you.

                  And yes, in literally every single western democracy you have special obligations to actually further competition beyond normal if you’re in a situation without competition, because competition is inherently beneficial.

                  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    They literally, objectively, have, monopolistic anti-competitive power

                    They literally don’t.

                    in literally every single western democracy you have special obligations to actually further competition

                    You literally don’t.

          • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Not being able to transfer purchases seems like an other-platforms problem. Steam has authenticated API for users’ game libraries.

          • pivot_root@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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.

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Lock-in != Monopoly

              They asked if they did anything anti-competitive. Lock-in is inherently anti-competitive.

      • Giooschi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

          • tempest@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            People more readily appreciate things that obviously directly affect them.

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              And the Linux Kernel which powers the whole thing directly effects them, so we should all praise Microsoft and IBM like we praise Valve right?

              • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Userspace affects users much more. I value getting Wayland color management support much more than the following kernel gobblygook lifted straight from https://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges:

                Summary: This release includes suppor for x86 FRED, which is a new way of transitioning between CPU ring privileves; it also includes support for creating pidfds for threads; support for BPF arenas, which is a sparse shared memory region between the BPF programs and user space; and BPF tokens, which allow delegating functionality to less privileged programs; host support for AMD Secure Nested Paging; support for weighted interleaveing memory policies; support for a FUSE passthrough mode that makes regular file I/O faster; and a new device mapper VDO deduplication target.

                • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  So?

                  Just because you don’t understand electrical engineering doesn’t make it less valuable then paint. If Valve is a saint for contributing to Linux then so is Microsoft and IBM and we should all dick ride Microsoft and IBM like the Valve dick riders in this thread.

                  • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    The point was “People more readily appreciate things that obviously directly affect them.” The only ways that directly affects users are improved execution times and footprints that users won’t notice. So no, we should not all praise MS and IBM like we praise Valve, especially when Valve also contributes to the Linux kernel.