I'm actually arguing "This is how it's been done now show me something better." I just don't know how better is being able to less that what I can do now.
But most reasonable people recognize that nobody pops out of a vagina as a fully-formed adult. Everything has to start somewhere. And the idea that all 8000 games -- 90% of which you would classify as 10-year old crappy 2d indie side-scrollers -- are going to be ported to Linux is just fantasy.
Valve is trying to build something better for the future of PC gaming, which is based on an open platform. It's not going to happen on day one but people who care about PC gaming should be supporting the effort, even if they have doubts about it's ability to succeed long-term.
You, however, are completely against it. And the reason you're against it is because you're personally offended that Valve didn't choose Windows as the base of its OS. But your issue is ultimately not with Valve but Microsoft. When Microsoft joins the 20th century and decides to build their OS around open technologies like Apple and almost all other companies have done, say a BSD or Linux or even open their own stuff, then their system can be used in versatile ways by third-parties. Until then, Windows fails to meet the most important of Valve's criteria for this effort: it's not open.
And [H] people shouldn't be satisfied with anything other than open platforms and open standards if they want to push the industry forward.