5 ms·

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8&t=5m40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8&t=5m40s What he's talking about is on the video above and it's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8&t=5m40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PmHRSeA2c8&t=5m40s What he's talking about is on the video above and it's a very reasonable point. I just released a game with Linux support and most of the bug reports I got were from people running the game on different distributions and random libraries not being the version you would expect it to be. This is not to mention that I got way more bug reports from Linux users than Windows users, despite Linux users making up 2%-3% of the playerbase. His point is absolutely valid and not at all a "serious idiocy".

JepZ 9y ago
Just out of curiosity: Is you game open source (so every distribution builds it with their libraries) or is it distributed in binary format and are you using a custom engine or something well known like UE4/Unity? I am asking this because just yesterday, I tried to run the steam streaming client and it kept crashing. As far as I can tell, because it must have been compiled with a different compiler or glibc than the rest of my system. In fact, with closed source software I see a lot of problems in the Linux space which could be solved by recompiling, but that simply isn't possible. The reason behind all this is probably that Linux systems are just not build for closed source software as the devs keep changing things which would be required for that (e.g. stable ABIs). Btw. does anybody know if there are tools out there to obfuscate code for games, so that they could release their code in a form which some distribution could compile, but which is too obfuscated for someone else to make use of it (e.g. steal the game)?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- diggernet 9y ago
  They could compile it to the JVM...
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  If Linux Desktops had a stable and consistent base system, no one would need to recompile anything. That's the actual solution here. It's way way simpler to do than what you're suggesting.
  - bhaak 9y ago
    Which of the other desktop OS has a stable AND consistent base system? Microsoft is backwards compatible to an insane degree. Which gives you stability but not consistency. OSX is consistent but Apple throws out backwards compatible features every other year, so not really stable.
    - lttlrck 9y ago
      OSX is at least predictable and therefore from a developers perspective it is arguably stable.
      - bhaak 9y ago
        Linux is fine for developers as well. But for users, it doesn't help if you bought a tool last year and it gets non functional because Apple removed or tightened down a function in their OS. You can only hope than that the developers are still around and update it if that's even possible.
  - acomjean 9y ago
    Linux could really use a "It just works" solution for desktop apps. I think its significantly holding back desktop and laptop adoption. Besides all the distros and multiple desktop environments, all these permutations seems like its holding back applications. I use a cluster compute environment but my client is a mac. If apple can make a "unix" that runs applications well, why can't linux. (I can't code it but I would buy it) I don't want a separate vm or container for each app I run.
    - stjohnswarts 9y ago
      I have my fingers crossed for snap packages. I've only installed the spotify 'snap' and it works flawlessly. I haven't mucked about with any other packages yet
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
digi_owl 9y ago
Thing is that he is blaming distros for the situation, when distros are trying their level best to make things usable while upstream keeps changing the "rules".
- icedchai 9y ago
  He should be blaming their distros. It's their policies causing these problems, not a true technical issue. They should include those (modified) libraries as part of his app's package, where only his app uses them. This is actually the simplest way to package anything: include all the dependencies, isolated from the rest of the system. He's right, Mac and Windows figured this out ages ago.
  - lobster_johnson 9y ago
    Indeed, while macOS has global libraries ("frameworks") such as Cocoa, Core Data and so on, which are obviously versioned along with the OS (with a semver type system to handle compatibility issues), user libraries are typically bundled together with the app. While macOS comes with shared libraries in /usr/lib such as like readline, LibXML and OpenSSL, trying to use them from an app is almost always a bad idea, most of all because the libraries tend to be very old. Many Homebrew packages have an install flag to control whether they should link to the system libraries or provide their own.
em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
There are some new methods of linux software distribution comming out, such as Snap packages and AppImages which fix the problem of library incompatibility.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  They fix jack shit. They bandage over a festering wound, but do not actually do anything about the wound itself. Because the wound is cultural, not technical.

JepZ 9y ago

Just out of curiosity: Is you game open source (so every distribution builds it with their libraries) or is it distributed in binary format and are you using a custom engine or something well known like UE4/Unity? I am asking this because just yesterday, I tried to run the steam streaming client and it kept crashing. As far as I can tell, because it must have been compiled with a different compiler or glibc than the rest of my system. In fact, with closed source software I see a lot of problems in the Linux space which could be solved by recompiling, but that simply isn't possible. The reason behind all this is probably that Linux systems are just not build for closed source software as the devs keep changing things which would be required for that (e.g. stable ABIs). Btw. does anybody know if there are tools out there to obfuscate code for games, so that they could release their code in a form which some distribution could compile, but which is too obfuscated for someone else to make use of it (e.g. steal the game)?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
diggernet 9y ago
They could compile it to the JVM...
AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
If Linux Desktops had a stable and consistent base system, no one would need to recompile anything. That's the actual solution here. It's way way simpler to do than what you're suggesting.
- bhaak 9y ago
  Which of the other desktop OS has a stable AND consistent base system? Microsoft is backwards compatible to an insane degree. Which gives you stability but not consistency. OSX is consistent but Apple throws out backwards compatible features every other year, so not really stable.
  - lttlrck 9y ago
    OSX is at least predictable and therefore from a developers perspective it is arguably stable.
    - bhaak 9y ago
      Linux is fine for developers as well. But for users, it doesn't help if you bought a tool last year and it gets non functional because Apple removed or tightened down a function in their OS. You can only hope than that the developers are still around and update it if that's even possible.
- acomjean 9y ago
  Linux could really use a "It just works" solution for desktop apps. I think its significantly holding back desktop and laptop adoption. Besides all the distros and multiple desktop environments, all these permutations seems like its holding back applications. I use a cluster compute environment but my client is a mac. If apple can make a "unix" that runs applications well, why can't linux. (I can't code it but I would buy it) I don't want a separate vm or container for each app I run.
  - stjohnswarts 9y ago
    I have my fingers crossed for snap packages. I've only installed the spotify 'snap' and it works flawlessly. I haven't mucked about with any other packages yet
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago

digi_owl 9y ago

Thing is that he is blaming distros for the situation, when distros are trying their level best to make things usable while upstream keeps changing the "rules".

icedchai 9y ago
He should be blaming their distros. It's their policies causing these problems, not a true technical issue. They should include those (modified) libraries as part of his app's package, where only his app uses them. This is actually the simplest way to package anything: include all the dependencies, isolated from the rest of the system. He's right, Mac and Windows figured this out ages ago.
- lobster_johnson 9y ago
  Indeed, while macOS has global libraries ("frameworks") such as Cocoa, Core Data and so on, which are obviously versioned along with the OS (with a semver type system to handle compatibility issues), user libraries are typically bundled together with the app. While macOS comes with shared libraries in /usr/lib such as like readline, LibXML and OpenSSL, trying to use them from an app is almost always a bad idea, most of all because the libraries tend to be very old. Many Homebrew packages have an install flag to control whether they should link to the system libraries or provide their own.

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago

There are some new methods of linux software distribution comming out, such as Snap packages and AppImages which fix the problem of library incompatibility.

digi_owl 9y ago
They fix jack shit. They bandage over a festering wound, but do not actually do anything about the wound itself. Because the wound is cultural, not technical.