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

Quoting: dibzThe big thing Ubuntu had was Canonical, for better and worse. Whoever they pick, it'll probably have to have some sort of corporate backing unfortunately. I could see them getting over it/arranging backing to something popular with a good track record, like Mint (LMDE) or something. They're invested in debian/apt/etc already, so at the very least I imagine it won't break away from that easily (and if they did, I wouldn't be surprised if it was at the same point they began reconsidering supporting linux at all).

Valve have backtracked on this now as well and will still support ubuntu but i would of thought it would of made more sense for valve to shift gears to debian given steam os is based on it rather ubuntu

I installed openSUSE Tumbleweed with xfce recently in VirtualBox, and it seems to be a very good Ubuntu replacement. It's a rolling-release distribution, like Arch, but very easy to install and use, unlike Arch. Steam and other software can be installed by the same way as in Ubuntu, just replace "apt" with "zypper". But beware of the Linux kernel bug which prevent Steam from connecting. It was fixed in kernel 5.1.14, but openSUSE has 5.1.10 so far.

If I ever have to leave Ubuntu-based distros, I'll probably switch to openSUSE Tumbleweed.

Quoting: ageresI installed openSUSE Tumbleweed with xfce recently in VirtualBox, and it seems to be a very good Ubuntu replacement. It's a rolling-release distribution, like Arch, but very easy to install and use, unlike Arch. Steam and other software can be installed by the same way as in Ubuntu, just replace "apt" with "zypper". But beware of the Linux kernel bug which prevent Steam from connecting. It was fixed in kernel 5.1.14, but openSUSE has 5.1.10 so far.

If I ever have to leave Ubuntu-based distros, I'll probably switch to openSUSE Tumbleweed.

If you really don't like the setup of Arch , try Manjaro or one of the helper scripts.
I agree first setting up Arch can be a pain but can't say it was that much of an issue afterwards.

Quoting: razing32If you really don't like the setup of Arch , try Manjaro or one of the helper scripts.

The problem with distributions derivatives is that their support can be dropped, like Antergos.
If, say, Xubuntu ends someday, I can always use Ubuntu mini CLI installer and simply choose xfce as DE. But I have problems with installing Arch. I tried several times, and succeeded only once, and I'm not sure what was different that time. It's something with a bootloader. I chose its every option in the installer, but the system did not start after installing. So, I don't want to use Arch-based distros if I cannot even install Arch.

Also, I don't see any reason to use Arch. Having a rolling release distro, so I wouldn't ever have to upgrade or reinstall? OpenSUSE is one too. Many software distribute as deb or rpm files only, which can be converted to each other with "alien", but Arch supports neither. More nuisances, no benefit.

Quoting: ageres

Quoting: razing32If you really don't like the setup of Arch , try Manjaro or one of the helper scripts.

The problem with distributions derivatives is that their support can be dropped, like Antergos.
If, say, Xubuntu ends someday, I can always use Ubuntu mini CLI installer and simply choose xfce as DE. But I have problems with installing Arch. I tried several times, and succeeded only once, and I'm not sure what was different that time. It's something with a bootloader. I chose its every option in the installer, but the system did not start after installing. So, I don't want to use Arch-based distros if I cannot even install Arch.

Also, I don't see any reason to use Arch. Having a rolling release distro, so I wouldn't ever have to upgrade or reinstall? OpenSUSE is one too. Many software distribute as deb or rpm files only, which can be converted to each other with "alien", but Arch supports neither. More nuisances, no benefit.

The only time i ran into issues was when i forgot to create /boot and /boot/uefi partitions.
Thoguh to be fair i only used grub as a boot loader.

alien_package_converter is in the AUR. I also came across deb2targz but seems rpmextract got dropped.

But to each his own. You use what suits your needs.

Quoting: einherjar

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: einherjar

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: einherjarThanks Canonical :><:

Now we will have lots of game devs and publishers saying:
"See, there is no reliable Distro in the Linux world. It doesn't make sense to ship software for Linux"

No doubt we will. But they will be fools to do so. Look, Microsoft and Apple make stupid decisions all the time. When they do, just exactly what can you do about it? Can you switch to a different Windows or Mac OS distro?
This is a time to celebrate the fact that Linux distros are not monopolies.

Like it or not, but with that small userbase it is also a disadvantage.
Developers and Companys like Adobe will be held away from bringing their software to Linux.
They want one reliable OS --> MS gives it to them.

We need a big popular and reliable Distro, to have enough marketshare and live the "diversity". With 1% marketshare distributed across more then 10 Distros, we will remain irrelevant (on Desktop) for most of the companies.

As may be--would you be happier right now if Ubuntu were the only Linux distro?

Absolutely not. But when there is not one big "standard" (with a bigger marketshare may be two) Distro, that developers can adress, we will not get software/games for Linux. And that one also has to be beginner friendly.
It is very positive, that there is more than one, but too much is also not good.
the dose makes the poison...

May be a bit too simplified, but games only need access to a window (surface) and some drivers. Apart from that, they don't really need anything else. I suspect being 'irrelevant' has more to do with incompatible middleware and the costs of retraining their staff (programmers, support staff) to support another platform they don't see much profit in. The developers/publishers that put out more than one linux game seem to have no problem to continue to release on linux.

Quoting: ageres

Quoting: razing32If you really don't like the setup of Arch , try Manjaro or one of the helper scripts.

The problem with distributions derivatives is that their support can be dropped, like Antergos.
If, say, Xubuntu ends someday, I can always use Ubuntu mini CLI installer and simply choose xfce as DE. But I have problems with installing Arch. I tried several times, and succeeded only once, and I'm not sure what was different that time. It's something with a bootloader. I chose its every option in the installer, but the system did not start after installing. So, I don't want to use Arch-based distros if I cannot even install Arch.

Also, I don't see any reason to use Arch. Having a rolling release distro, so I wouldn't ever have to upgrade or reinstall? OpenSUSE is one too. Many software distribute as deb or rpm files only, which can be converted to each other with "alien", but Arch supports neither. More nuisances, no benefit.

The main reason for Arch over OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is probably that Tumbleweed is more of the bleeding edge, rolling release version of OpenSUSE, whereas it's just what Arch does.

So stability wise, Arch is more likely to be stable than Tumbleweed is.

I've tried out Tumbleweed in the past, and while stability wasn't really an issue, I just can't use Yast. It's funny, those that started out Linux with that distribution probably love Yast, anyone who started out with other distributions despise it. I kind of fall into that latter group.

It's the same thing for something like webmin / webadmin, that thing was horrific back in the day, not sure how it is now, but it's just simpler to edit the configs yourself, and not use something that's going to mash over it. Especially for configuring things like the Squid proxy software, where it has a billion options, and there is no decent way to create a UI for configuring it, without losing a lot of the potential functionality.

Anyhow, Arch may have a lack of what most people would say is a real installer, but it doesn't matter because once you have it installed, it just works.

It's also gotten a LOT better than it used to be, some things are just simply 'pacman -S gnome' and you get gnome. I think it takes me about 20 minutes to do a net install of Debian, and maybe another 10m after that of configuring it how I like it. Arch takes maybe an hour for both. Though with Arch, you should have a phone or some other device to read wikis while installing :)

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: ageres

Quoting: razing32If you really don't like the setup of Arch , try Manjaro or one of the helper scripts.

The problem with distributions derivatives is that their support can be dropped, like Antergos.
If, say, Xubuntu ends someday, I can always use Ubuntu mini CLI installer and simply choose xfce as DE. But I have problems with installing Arch. I tried several times, and succeeded only once, and I'm not sure what was different that time. It's something with a bootloader. I chose its every option in the installer, but the system did not start after installing. So, I don't want to use Arch-based distros if I cannot even install Arch.

Also, I don't see any reason to use Arch. Having a rolling release distro, so I wouldn't ever have to upgrade or reinstall? OpenSUSE is one too. Many software distribute as deb or rpm files only, which can be converted to each other with "alien", but Arch supports neither. More nuisances, no benefit.

The main reason for Arch over OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is probably that Tumbleweed is more of the bleeding edge, rolling release version of OpenSUSE, whereas it's just what Arch does.

So stability wise, Arch is more likely to be stable than Tumbleweed is.

I've tried out Tumbleweed in the past, and while stability wasn't really an issue, I just can't use Yast. It's funny, those that started out Linux with that distribution probably love Yast, anyone who started out with other distributions despise it. I kind of fall into that latter group.

It's the same thing for something like webmin / webadmin, that thing was horrific back in the day, not sure how it is now, but it's just simpler to edit the configs yourself, and not use something that's going to mash over it. Especially for configuring things like the Squid proxy software, where it has a billion options, and there is no decent way to create a UI for configuring it, without losing a lot of the potential functionality.

Anyhow, Arch may have a lack of what most people would say is a real installer, but it doesn't matter because once you have it installed, it just works.

It's also gotten a LOT better than it used to be, some things are just simply 'pacman -S gnome' and you get gnome. I think it takes me about 20 minutes to do a net install of Debian, and maybe another 10m after that of configuring it how I like it. Arch takes maybe an hour for both. Though with Arch, you should have a phone or some other device to read wikis while installing :)

The Debian installer bugs me. It doesn't let me setup my system the way I want. It has a habit of telling me the thing I'm trying to do won't work and that I can't do it when I can. I just don't use it anymore, I have a Debian disk with debootstrap on it and I just install Debian the same way most people do Arch. It lets me get Sid right from the start and it doesn't get in my way. It's also not terribly difficult if you're familiar enough with Linux.

Quoting: slaapliedjeIt's also gotten a LOT better than it used to be, some things are just simply 'pacman -S gnome' and you get gnome. I think it takes me about 20 minutes to do a net install of Debian, and maybe another 10m after that of configuring it how I like it. Arch takes maybe an hour for both. Though with Arch, you should have a phone or some other device to read wikis while installing :)

Quoting: ScooptaThe Debian installer bugs me. It doesn't let me setup my system the way I want. It has a habit of telling me the thing I'm trying to do won't work and that I can't do it when I can. I just don't use it anymore, I have a Debian disk with debootstrap on it and I just install Debian the same way most people do Arch. It lets me get Sid right from the start and it doesn't get in my way. It's also not terribly difficult if you're familiar enough with Linux.

While I'm sure those scenarios are fine for you guys and you get a great system out of it and all that, you can see why Valve wouldn't be wanting to put their muscle behind advising the general gaming public to go with that, right?

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: slaapliedjeIt's also gotten a LOT better than it used to be, some things are just simply 'pacman -S gnome' and you get gnome. I think it takes me about 20 minutes to do a net install of Debian, and maybe another 10m after that of configuring it how I like it. Arch takes maybe an hour for both. Though with Arch, you should have a phone or some other device to read wikis while installing :)

Quoting: ScooptaThe Debian installer bugs me. It doesn't let me setup my system the way I want. It has a habit of telling me the thing I'm trying to do won't work and that I can't do it when I can. I just don't use it anymore, I have a Debian disk with debootstrap on it and I just install Debian the same way most people do Arch. It lets me get Sid right from the start and it doesn't get in my way. It's also not terribly difficult if you're familiar enough with Linux.

While I'm sure those scenarios are fine for you guys and you get a great system out of it and all that, you can see why Valve wouldn't be wanting to put their muscle behind advising the general gaming public to go with that, right?

uh oh.. here we go xP