3 ms·
> not have 50 distribs to maintain I still don't understand that. Simply support ubuntu only, the other distributions will do the rest. E.g. the steam beta wor
by Tmmrn 14y ago
> not have 50 distribs to maintain
I still don't understand that. Simply support ubuntu only, the other distributions will do the rest. E.g. the steam beta worked fine on archlinux and fedora from day one. And if they have problems you can either decide to look into it or ignore it because you officially only support ubuntu.
- kamaal 14y ago>>Simply support ubuntu only Firstly historically speaking Ubuntu has gotten famous only now. Secondly, another distro fan is likely to argue <insert his favorite distro here> should be supported rather than ubuntu because of <insert a pedantic reason here>. Agree on a standard that works for every one and then we shall talk.
- grapjas 14y agoYou generally don't develop for a single distro: you develop for linux. Which then works on every distro. If you're optimistic enough you could even try to make it work for every *nix, but whatever. The only reason steam is made specifically for ubuntu is because it uses apt-get to actually get steam. If valve put more effort into making it like every other linux application nobody on any distro would have trouble running it.
- Tmmrn 14y agoActually I'm an Archlinux fan but I haven't yet encountered any software targeted at ubuntu that wouldn't work on archlinux too (with some work from repackagers, but as a company you don't have to do it because people who want to use it on an "unsupported" system will). It's just another linux and everything can be ported from it if necessary. Even unity would work fine, once ubuntu's patched x.org and libindicator were on Archlinux. As far as I know ubuntu has been the the most popular (for targetting software) distribution for several years now, so why not?