Sounds like a nightmare. I got sick thinking about it. Lol

Well here you go: https://bazzite.gg/

Or even better, a dedicated gaming runtime environment. And that env can then be made multiplatform.

Valve dosnt really "own" SteamOS. They maintain and update SteamOS, but SteamOS is free and open source

Plus just about everbody who knows anything about steam would tell you they are probably the most consumer friendly billion dollar company ever, and have been for decades. So yes even if they owned it like microsoft owns windows it would still be better

SteamOS is better than, for example, macOS and Windows because of licenses.

Since you're new (welcome!), I should let you in on a little secret: pretty much the entire free software movement is built around licensing. I know, it's boring and seems insignificant. But the outcomes are profound.

Because SteamOS is built to function within the free software ecosystem, it means users are never beholden to the decisions of one centralized entity (usually the company that owns the software patents.)

If Valve ever decides to, say, include candy crush ads in SteamOS' start menu (they'd have to make their own start menu, since right now SteamOS uses one that's already made by the free software community), then users can choose to remove that part of the menu or replace the menu altogether without having to start from scratch.

For wealthy people who can always pay the "proprietary tax," this might seem like a non-issue. Practically speaking, these people only want their software to work without hassle. They don't care about the true cost of that software, such as only one entity being able to modify/redistribute the software. It's not until, say, photoshop starts charging a subscription (which they can always increase the price of) that people start to see the value in free software and the importance of licensing.

If it's like the steam deck version, it'll be based on Arch with a bunch of steam-specific patches/configs to make games run more easily (with the added bonus of making non-steam games run pretty well too). Steam exists to sell games, and if they want to make it easier for me to play games, that's fine by me.

Not sure what a Microsoft distro would look like, but if they make a distro that'll run Xbox games with gamepass, I'd give it a shot.

Another nice bonus for either/both of those situations is that it wouldn't be too hard to incorporate those changes into other distros. That way people who want more of an "install and go" experience would have their official distros, people who like to tinker could work on importing the official code into their unofficial setup, and people who use arch btw can install it from the AUR.

Like if Microsoft released their own Linux OS, would it be good suddenly?

It's worth noting that steamOS, like any Linux distro has its issues and a bit of a learning curve. Especially if you want to go off the beaten track, it's pretty much just using a stock arch distro.

As for if MS switched to Linux, no it wouldn't be good because the issues with Win11 overwhelmingly aren't a matter of incompetence or anything inherent to the code, but of conscious anti-consumer business decisions. There's nothing about Linux that would actively stop MS from cramming telemetry, bloat, etc. In their distro.

Microsoft is deeply entrenched and has undergone decades of enshittification. SteamOS is at only the beginning of this cycle. And since SteamOS is linux-based, it's likely to have ramifications for the whole GNU/Linux ecosystem. Furthermore, if there are two vastly different OSes that developers and graphics card manufacturers need to seriously target, they're more likely to write more platform-agnostic software that everyone can benefit from.

Because valve is a private company. They don't have to answer to shareholders. That means, they don't go through enshitifaction, they care about their product and their customers. Are they perfect? Absolutely not, are they good? Better than every single company out there that tries to be like them. Period.

Because it's open source and based on the Linux kernel. It's owned by them but you can do what you want with it. You can't with Windows.

So if a game works on the Steam OS, it works on pretty much any distro

I game with Steam on Linux, but I'm not using Steam OS

Also, that means that every effort made by Valve to improve compatibility is beneficial to everyone.

Edit: Also, even if it were closed source, I think it would still be good as it gives us alternatives to Windows. But

Not answering your comment directly, and I don't even use Linux, BUT..

One reason a lot of us don't use Linux even if we really want to us because it's biggest strength is also one of its biggest weaknesses, that being it's modularity.

There isn't a single packaging system, window manager, file system, shell, etc etc.

This makes it hard for companies (and devs in general) to target Linux for releases. For example you want to release something for Windows, you build a single exe, apple is a dmg (I think) etc so you just build for one single platform with a consistent API.

When you want to build for Linux there can't be just one build/package. This has actively been cited as reasons why some commercial software doesn't support Linux, as it takes far more effort to support all major permutations of platform and package management.

So back to your question, why is Valve's Steam OS going to help? Because it's going to be a single platform with a single way of doing things. You can always go and replace the bits like any Linux distro but out the box it will be easy enough for vendors to support, it will hopefully also get more adoption because it has commercial support.

Look at Android as an example (I know it's not entirely the same), but that is just a customised version of Linux, but as it's consistent and has a single way to manage packages it's widely adopted.

I am pretty sure Linus himself said how one of the reasons why Linux desktop doesn't have mass adoption is because no one can agree on how things should be done, so we have hundreds of libs all doing the same thing in a different way. Valve will pick what they think is best (even if it isn't technically the best) and through that we all have a singular point of effort and adoption to centralise on.

The source is always free so you could fork it if you disagree with them. Also it means broader support for Linux gaming

Old steam os was an Ubuntu derived OS. Ubuntu has issues relating to the organization that runs it. New steam os is basically a coat of paint on top of Arch which is community based. The old os is deprecated.

The version on steam deck is fantastic, but they have been polishing it for desktop use for a while now. I can’t wait to have it available.

If I recall correctly, this has never happened the way it's happening now. It was a matter of "hey, you can fork it on GitHub and make your own iso thing", hence why there was a "holoiso" or something like that that (I keep forgetting the name) where people used if they wanted to install steamOS on a device. This one is straight supported by valve. Like "hey, here is our official steam OS that we use on our steam deck. Use it and we will support you".

From what I recall, it wasn't something you could easily use like a normal distro, and that version was based on Debian (so stable but outdated software). It only worked on some hardware, and you had to do a full system wipe.

More likely, this is them officially partnering with handheld or gaming laptop makers, using their latest Arch-based distro and allowing them to use Valve/Steam branding as a selling point.

I think modern steamos is based on a different distro then it was then. Also proton is good enough now to justify switching for a lot of people