Aren't all of these things basically out-of-band investments? They didn't recontribute upstream to these projects from what I understand, but they made their own forks and developed on those - or those projects have scurried to backport the changes Valve has made, simply being lucky enough that the licenses required them to remain open so the changes could be pulled backwards into public projects.

SteamOS is not a General Purpose OS. It is a hardware-specific Linux fork of Arch. Not the same thing.

So while yes, Valve has used Linux quite gracefully for their ends; my point was that if they acted more as an orchestrator and guided the community in the general OS space, they would be good stewards for doing so.

Valve didn't invest in Wine. They forked it, called it Proton, developed that, and Wine can only benefit if they scurry and 'chase' the changes in Proton. There's nothing wrong with that - but it's hardly conducive to improving existing projects.