13 ms·

What was wrong with SteamOS being based on Debian? I’ve not used SteamOS myself, but I wasn’t aware there were problems in that regard.

Conan_Kudo 5y ago
It's ancient and Valve had to do tons of backports to support it properly. I imagine they didn't like that very much.
- tlamponi 5y ago
  Could just have switched to Debian Sid, which is basically the rolling release variant of Debian. That could have saved some time on tooling/packaging adaptions. Not that I dislike Arch Linux, I run both Arch Linux and Debian (Stable on servers Sid on laptop).
  - caslon 5y ago
    Sid is still far behind most rolling release distributions, and anecdotally I haven't found it more stable than any of the ones I usually use.
    - shrimp_emoji 5y ago
      This. Only rolling releases are fit for end user systems; point release is a server meme. Not only is having new stuff good from a feature and hardware-support standpoint, but, paradoxically, new software seems to have WAY less bugs than old software. (I assume this is because devs are mainly on the new versions and don't care about old versions that much.) Try using CentOS 7, with ancient, should-be-rock-solid versions of apps. Dolphin crashes every time you load into a large directory. Kate's keybinds are broken. Tmux refuses to support 256 colors. I get none of these issues on Arch or Manjaro.
    - klodolph 5y ago
      My own personal experience with Arch & Debian Sid is that Sid is noticeably more stable than Arch, long term. Maybe Valve thinks it's easier to address the stability problems on an Arch-based distribution rather than deal getting the latest versions of stuff on something Debian-based? I'm also sure that Valve's system is going to have a smaller set of software than I'd use on an Arch desktop anyway, so there's less surface area for stuff to break.
      - caslon 5y ago
        It seems to me that most people finding Arch unstable find it so because they rampantly abuse the AUR. I'm not implying this is something that you, personally, would do, but it seems to be the case in most "Arch is unstable" scenarios.
        klodolph 5y ago
        I might have one or two packages from AUR, but mostly I don't touch it. I've had a number of discussions in meetups about stability and Arch over the years and have encountered plenty of people who switched from Arch to Debian or Ubuntu because of stability problems with Arch. I have a hard time imagining that it's mostly down to AUR. Maybe the people using lots of AUR are complaining a lot, and the people who don't just quietly switch distros?
        deadbunny 5y ago
        Quite possible. The number of packages in the main arch repos is a lot smaller than the number in Debian/Ubuntu. I would imagine the kind of people you're talking about are leaning on the AUR or packages found by default (and thus more heavily tested) in Debian/Ubuntu.
      - II2II 5y ago
        Has there ever been an analysis to see what is most likely to break on a rolling distribution? I have been using Arch for years, and have only had a couple of hardware related issues. If that is typical, rolling distributions may not even be an issue when the vendor has tight control over the product and can isolate hardware related packages in their own repository.
    - scns 5y ago
      Have you tried openSUSE Tumbleweed? It is a well tested rolling release (https://openbuildservice.org/ https://openbuildservice.org/), with snapshots on update via btrfs. With the opi package you can install: chrome, codecs, dotnet, msedge, msteams, plex, skype, signal, slack, teamviewer, vivaldi, vscode, vscodium, zoom and more. Brave is app i am missing so far, but having the newest version KDE and other software that required a PPA on Ubuntu is pretty nice. And it feels much snappier installed on a SATA SSD than Mint from a NVME SSD on the same machine!
      - tlamponi 5y ago
        Yes, actually I ran that for quite a while successfully before I switched to Arch Linux and Debian. The auto-snapshot feature on updates was really cool, and direct integration then (almost 10 years ago for me) was ahead of most other distros IMO. I then setup Arch to be more confronted with the things that actually go on under the hood, learned a lot and had generally a good experience with it. A bit later I got a job where Debian plays a key role, that sealed the deal on using Debian and Arch only for me (remembering the usage of two package managers is enough for me ^^). But I have good memories of openSUSE, and it was the distro that I first used "full time", even introduced me to Linux to some degree (I dabbled a bit around with Ubuntu and Knoppix before).
    - numpad0 5y ago
      Debian GNU/Linux: operating system so conservative that “unstable” means production ready rolling release (My go-to though)
    - tlamponi 5y ago
      Not really, it slows only down around the time when Debian wants to make a stable release, i.e., every two years for 2-3 months or so. Debian is in general really rigorous with ABI/Symbol versioning, dependencies and packaging in general - there are some outliers, but most of the packages in Debian is just high quality work. On the other side is Arch Linux, where they do not even care about Kernel ABI bumps, which are trivial to detect and track, so if you pull in a kernel update you cannot load any new module, as they just overwrite the modules of the running kernel - I used it, but I find that still lunatic! Nothing like having some complex workspace setup and then needing to connect to a VPN/WireGuard network but also forgetting to preload that module (I just load all possible relevant on start nowadays), forced a reboot, nothing lost but tedious. On Debian this and other things where you're in limbo while some library version mismatches, or some AUR package is depending on another one, won't ever happen on Debian. It has its disadvantages, but they certainly dot their i's.
- desine 5y ago
  Pedantic comment: it’s not that Debian itself is ancient, it’s that they prioritize stability and thus older packages. Both Arch and Debian get frequent updates in their packages, but Arch prefers cutting edge cool and Debian prefers “don’t break any users existing setups!” Arch is still a better choice because gaming is generally using cutting edge software.
  - wayneftw 5y ago
    And yet, Debian based desktop systems are the ones that have always broken after updates for me. It was only when I started using an Arch based system that I was able to go past 6 months without any issues. I’ve been running Manjaro now on three different systems for almost 3 years. No other Linux desktop has ever lasted this long for me and I’m not even a newbie. I’ve been using Linux since Red Hat 4. I’ve actually had less problems with it than I have had with any other desktop of us including Windows and Mac.
    - desine 5y ago
      If you're combining external packaging and debian packaging, or installing things manually, this is typical. Oftentimes if you're doing those, you'll have broken dependencies because Debian lags behind. I had issues keeping Blender and some other creative software up to date, because of this. It works great if you mostly stick to official Debian packages through and through.
      - wayneftw 5y ago
        Yeah, I almost always need something from an external repository with Debian based systems. I need external repositories (albeit rarely) with Arch too though and that has never caused a problem.
        Wowfunhappy 5y ago
        My solution on Debian has been to use Flatpak.
        5y ago
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  What does Valve have to backport? Surely games aren’t targeting super new libraries? (I’d expect Valve themselves to be the ones deciding what versions are targeted.)
  - Jnr 5y ago
    3d graphics libraries, drivers, input libraries, etc. It is a nightmare getting the latest versions for those on Debian/Ubuntu. Valve is pushing Linux gaming forward a lot and recent package versions are required in order to run games well.

Conan_Kudo 5y ago

It's ancient and Valve had to do tons of backports to support it properly. I imagine they didn't like that very much.

tlamponi 5y ago
Could just have switched to Debian Sid, which is basically the rolling release variant of Debian. That could have saved some time on tooling/packaging adaptions. Not that I dislike Arch Linux, I run both Arch Linux and Debian (Stable on servers Sid on laptop).
- caslon 5y ago
  Sid is still far behind most rolling release distributions, and anecdotally I haven't found it more stable than any of the ones I usually use.
  - shrimp_emoji 5y ago
    This. Only rolling releases are fit for end user systems; point release is a server meme. Not only is having new stuff good from a feature and hardware-support standpoint, but, paradoxically, new software seems to have WAY less bugs than old software. (I assume this is because devs are mainly on the new versions and don't care about old versions that much.) Try using CentOS 7, with ancient, should-be-rock-solid versions of apps. Dolphin crashes every time you load into a large directory. Kate's keybinds are broken. Tmux refuses to support 256 colors. I get none of these issues on Arch or Manjaro.
  - klodolph 5y ago
    My own personal experience with Arch & Debian Sid is that Sid is noticeably more stable than Arch, long term. Maybe Valve thinks it's easier to address the stability problems on an Arch-based distribution rather than deal getting the latest versions of stuff on something Debian-based? I'm also sure that Valve's system is going to have a smaller set of software than I'd use on an Arch desktop anyway, so there's less surface area for stuff to break.
    - caslon 5y ago
      It seems to me that most people finding Arch unstable find it so because they rampantly abuse the AUR. I'm not implying this is something that you, personally, would do, but it seems to be the case in most "Arch is unstable" scenarios.
      - klodolph 5y ago
        I might have one or two packages from AUR, but mostly I don't touch it. I've had a number of discussions in meetups about stability and Arch over the years and have encountered plenty of people who switched from Arch to Debian or Ubuntu because of stability problems with Arch. I have a hard time imagining that it's mostly down to AUR. Maybe the people using lots of AUR are complaining a lot, and the people who don't just quietly switch distros?
        deadbunny 5y ago
        Quite possible. The number of packages in the main arch repos is a lot smaller than the number in Debian/Ubuntu. I would imagine the kind of people you're talking about are leaning on the AUR or packages found by default (and thus more heavily tested) in Debian/Ubuntu.
    - II2II 5y ago
      Has there ever been an analysis to see what is most likely to break on a rolling distribution? I have been using Arch for years, and have only had a couple of hardware related issues. If that is typical, rolling distributions may not even be an issue when the vendor has tight control over the product and can isolate hardware related packages in their own repository.
  - scns 5y ago
    Have you tried openSUSE Tumbleweed? It is a well tested rolling release (https://openbuildservice.org/ https://openbuildservice.org/), with snapshots on update via btrfs. With the opi package you can install: chrome, codecs, dotnet, msedge, msteams, plex, skype, signal, slack, teamviewer, vivaldi, vscode, vscodium, zoom and more. Brave is app i am missing so far, but having the newest version KDE and other software that required a PPA on Ubuntu is pretty nice. And it feels much snappier installed on a SATA SSD than Mint from a NVME SSD on the same machine!
    - tlamponi 5y ago
      Yes, actually I ran that for quite a while successfully before I switched to Arch Linux and Debian. The auto-snapshot feature on updates was really cool, and direct integration then (almost 10 years ago for me) was ahead of most other distros IMO. I then setup Arch to be more confronted with the things that actually go on under the hood, learned a lot and had generally a good experience with it. A bit later I got a job where Debian plays a key role, that sealed the deal on using Debian and Arch only for me (remembering the usage of two package managers is enough for me ^^). But I have good memories of openSUSE, and it was the distro that I first used "full time", even introduced me to Linux to some degree (I dabbled a bit around with Ubuntu and Knoppix before).
  - numpad0 5y ago
    Debian GNU/Linux: operating system so conservative that “unstable” means production ready rolling release (My go-to though)
  - tlamponi 5y ago
    Not really, it slows only down around the time when Debian wants to make a stable release, i.e., every two years for 2-3 months or so. Debian is in general really rigorous with ABI/Symbol versioning, dependencies and packaging in general - there are some outliers, but most of the packages in Debian is just high quality work. On the other side is Arch Linux, where they do not even care about Kernel ABI bumps, which are trivial to detect and track, so if you pull in a kernel update you cannot load any new module, as they just overwrite the modules of the running kernel - I used it, but I find that still lunatic! Nothing like having some complex workspace setup and then needing to connect to a VPN/WireGuard network but also forgetting to preload that module (I just load all possible relevant on start nowadays), forced a reboot, nothing lost but tedious. On Debian this and other things where you're in limbo while some library version mismatches, or some AUR package is depending on another one, won't ever happen on Debian. It has its disadvantages, but they certainly dot their i's.
desine 5y ago
Pedantic comment: it’s not that Debian itself is ancient, it’s that they prioritize stability and thus older packages. Both Arch and Debian get frequent updates in their packages, but Arch prefers cutting edge cool and Debian prefers “don’t break any users existing setups!” Arch is still a better choice because gaming is generally using cutting edge software.
- wayneftw 5y ago
  And yet, Debian based desktop systems are the ones that have always broken after updates for me. It was only when I started using an Arch based system that I was able to go past 6 months without any issues. I’ve been running Manjaro now on three different systems for almost 3 years. No other Linux desktop has ever lasted this long for me and I’m not even a newbie. I’ve been using Linux since Red Hat 4. I’ve actually had less problems with it than I have had with any other desktop of us including Windows and Mac.
  - desine 5y ago
    If you're combining external packaging and debian packaging, or installing things manually, this is typical. Oftentimes if you're doing those, you'll have broken dependencies because Debian lags behind. I had issues keeping Blender and some other creative software up to date, because of this. It works great if you mostly stick to official Debian packages through and through.
    - wayneftw 5y ago
      Yeah, I almost always need something from an external repository with Debian based systems. I need external repositories (albeit rarely) with Arch too though and that has never caused a problem.
      - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
        My solution on Debian has been to use Flatpak.
      - 5y ago
Wowfunhappy 5y ago
What does Valve have to backport? Surely games aren’t targeting super new libraries? (I’d expect Valve themselves to be the ones deciding what versions are targeted.)
- Jnr 5y ago
  3d graphics libraries, drivers, input libraries, etc. It is a nightmare getting the latest versions for those on Debian/Ubuntu. Valve is pushing Linux gaming forward a lot and recent package versions are required in order to run games well.