Valve looking to drop support for Ubuntu 19.10 and up due to Canonical's 32bit decision (updated)

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: RCLCommercial distro designed for gaming would by definition incorporate closed source software so it would be neither, and as such it would have a much harder time attracting users.

Linux users won't appreciate a distro, that pushes for blobs (besides games themselves).

and this is also a lil off-topic, but let me clarify the position to those who said they're ok with paying devs: loving foss software != hating free markets, devs being paid, etc. that's actually a destructive falsehood.

i don't see how a subscription can work in open source apart from subscribing to devs as opposed to the software, which we fully support and is the current situation we have, and why i said he can pay for any project he likes and influence the direction. and i'd not expect the merits of open source (for both consumers and developers) need explaining to users on a gamingonlinux forum Owo either way i won't do it here.

as for a closed-source gaming os? ... i hear windows is wonderfully optimized for gaming..? xP but it's not subscription yet

Edit: i do think some popular distros could get far by adding feature votes, bounties, etc, on a very visible and linked-to page in a pretty and easy-to-access way for normies. it's a marketing/management thing.


Last edited by doomiebaby on 23 June 2019 at 4:59 am UTC

Quoting: RCLI meant games, it's enough for the point I was making (neither free as in freedom nor free as in free beer). Linux gamers are obviously Okay with this, but Linux community at large not always is, so a proposed commercial distro would be a tough sell. Still, I personally would support it.

Games aren't distributed as part of the distro, so distro shouldn't really matter. Same as today, you can play games using any distro you want.

Quoting: ShmerlGames aren't distributed as part of the distro, so distro shouldn't really matter. Same as today, you can play games using any distro you want.

This was in context of a gaming-oriented paid distro a la SteamOS proposed by someone earlier.

Quoting: bird_or_cage

Quotevorlon
June 23

I’m sorry that we’ve given anyone the impression that we are “dropping support for i386 applications”. That’s simply not the case. What we are dropping is updates to the i386 libraries, which will be frozen at the 18.04 LTS versions. But there is every intention to ensure that there is a clear story for how i386 applications (including games) can be run on versions of Ubuntu later than 19.10.

For anyone looking for context:

You can find the original post by "vorlon" here.

"vorlon" appears to be Steve Langasek's account on discourse.ubuntu.com

Steve Langasek is one of the correspondents on the mail thread for proposing to drop i386.

Quoting: RCL

Quoting: ShmerlGames aren't distributed as part of the distro, so distro shouldn't really matter. Same as today, you can play games using any distro you want.

This was in context of a gaming-oriented paid distro a la SteamOS proposed by someone earlier.

I think gaming oriented should be focused on UI, DE, compositor and all working well with gaming scenarios. Such as modern Wayland compositor supporting adaptive sync and so on. Open implementation of VR, and etc. All that can be open source. Whether you pay developers to work on it, depends on how they set it up. Patreon is a good option. So games themselves don't really prevent gaming oriented support of the distro from being fully open.

Personally, when it comes to distros and projects, I'd pay for open source development. Not for closed one.


Last edited by Shmerl on 23 June 2019 at 5:26 am UTC

Not that I agree with Ubuntu's move here, but in some way this also shows the problems with proprietary software. Yes, Windows does a better (but not perfect) job of keeping old binaries runnable, but it comes with the price of increased complexity, which causes more security holes. Not to mention that all those games that are not maintained anymore, some of them even having their source code lost by the developers, also contain bugs that will never get fixed, some of them security-related.

I really wish more game developers would open source their code, they can still keep the assets proprietary and sell them. But at least we wouldn't have the need to keep binary compatibility forever. If there was still enough interest in an old game, some people would surely help to fix the code to make it run on 64-bit.

Soo.. for "average" user like me, how? Another painful migration to another distors? Move to BSD?
Hell no! I never ever will back to run Windows for my own PC.

IMO, yes we certainly needs to move on to 64 bit architecture. But not by removing 32 bit support altogether! Especially on FOSS world which known for giving user freedom.

Also, it may tainting the whole Linux reputation on giving to all anything computer devices a rejuvinate 'second' live beyond it's EOL usage. No thanks to Canonical being Canonical, again.

I hate Linux/FOSS world 'soap opera' gets another 'reboot', again. But I agree Canonical should stop being Apple of Linux world.

p/s: Oh BTW, where's my Linux phones Canonical?!

I am not without sympathy for Canonical's decision, since providing support for any processor architecture involves a non-trivial amount of effort. But how much of the work required for multiarch support is performed by Canonical and how much comes from upstream Debian maintainers? Why can't we treat the provision of a 32-bit compatibility layer just like the support of any other compatibility layer (e.g. Wine)?

The argument that developers should offer games as Snaps or bundle all 32-bit dependencies with the executable isn't going to fly in the real world. For one thing, game engines can have hidden 32-bit dependencies that are not obvious to developers. And very few game developers will be willing to update their entire back catalogue just to make things work on Ubuntu. Plus it is unlikely that developers will choose to distribute their work as Snaps as this package format is not yet widely accepted as the default.

Meanwhile, the suggestion that Ubuntu should freeze the 32-bit libraries at their current versions is irresponsible. It means that security bugs in these libraries will never get patched, even if the upstream maintainers release patches.

I am heartened by the fact that a number of Ubuntu derivatives such as Mint and Pop_OS! have indicated that they will continue to offer 32-bit support in some form. Has anybody heard from Elementary or KDE Neon yet?

I feel that this decision will do immense harm to the Ubuntu brand in the community. While it has been under the discussion for some time, the announcement of a final decision only three months out from the release 19.10 is a public relations disaster. This is the kind of decision that requires a communication plan and long lead times. It breaks a large amount of software, including hardware drivers only offered in 32-bit builds. It's easy to point out that hardware manufacturers should be offering 64-bit driver build, but the truth is that many companies only grudgingly support Linux in the first place. And in the gaming area, it is unlikely that publishing houses will change their release strategies just to accomodate this move.

It might be time to look at putting Manjaro on my main desktop computer if none of the Ubuntu derivatives can implement a workaround...

Quoting: JmsnzSteam is already 64bit on macOS, and has been since last year.

And? How does this negate the fact that 32-bit games won't run? Double standard.

Quoting: Prime_EvilI am heartened by the fact that a number of Ubuntu derivatives such as Mint and Pop_OS! have indicated that they will continue to offer 32-bit support in some form. Has anybody heard from Elementary or KDE Neon yet?

I guess then Pop_OS will be a good Distro for beginners?