742
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

Timothée Besset, a software engineer who works on the Steam client for Valve, took to Mastodon this week to reveal: “Valve is seeing an increasing number of bug reports for issues caused by Canonical’s repackaging of the Steam client through snap”.

“We are not involved with the snap repackaging. It has a lot of issues”, Besset adds, noting that “the best way to install Steam on Debian and derivative operating systems is to […] use the official .deb”.

Those who don’t want to use the official Deb package are instead asked to ‘consider the Flatpak version’ — though like Canonical’s Steam snap the Steam Flatpak is also unofficial, and no directly supported by Valve.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 266 points 6 months ago

I'm sure Canonical's neverending death march towards Snap, along with the OS running outdated packages, is why Valve no longer uses Ubuntu for SteamOS development. The greatest April Fools was Ubuntu dropping Snaps because so many people were saying how they could go back to using Ubuntu again...then they noticed it was a joke and the sadness set in.

[-] [email protected] 71 points 6 months ago

I was certain you had to be joking in this post, holy shit.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

That's gotta be the funniest backfire for an April Fools' joke I've seen in a while lmao

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] [email protected] 155 points 6 months ago

The article says that steam showing a notice on snap installs that it isn't an official package and to report errors to snap would be extreme. But that seems pretty reasonable to me, especially since the small package doesn't include that in its own description. Is there any reason why that would be considered extreme, in the face of higher than normal error rates with the package, and lack of appropriate package description?

[-] [email protected] 91 points 6 months ago

It's not extreme. This is an opinion piece posted on OMGUbuntu, so I'll let you figure out where their biases lie.

[-] [email protected] 49 points 6 months ago

Honestly, that seems like the nicest way to solve the problem. Afaik Valve would be fully within their rights to C&D them from unofficially rehosting their binaries. In any other situation, that would be a blatant security risk.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 148 points 5 months ago

~~Canonical's Steam~~ Snap is Causing Headaches ~~for Valve~~

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 111 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That's the problem with doing everything yourself.

You also have to maintain everything, yourself.

Fuck snaps 🖕

[-] [email protected] 71 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)
[-] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago

I'm sorry but Linux Council has already decided your fate.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 109 points 6 months ago

I don't even want to hate on Snap, I just think Flatpak is probably superior in almost every way and it's probably not great that there are three competing formats for "applications with dependencies included". It was supposed to be "package your app to this format, dear developer, so everyone can use it no matter the distro they use", now it's a bit more complicated. Frustrating, as this means developers without that many resources will only offer some formats and whichever you (or your distro) prefers might not be available.

I know that you can get every format to work on every distro (AppImages are just single binaries you can execute), but each has their own first class citizen.

By the way, the unofficial Steam Flatpak has been working well for me under Fedora 39 KDE Spin, but an official one would be great to have.

[-] [email protected] 65 points 6 months ago
[-] [email protected] 121 points 6 months ago

obligatory reply to obligatory xkcd

[-] [email protected] 44 points 6 months ago

Yeah but Snap isn't an improvement.

[-] [email protected] 28 points 6 months ago

I know, I'm on the Flatpak side, just appreciate the intention behind snaps (although I quite frankly hate the execution).

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] [email protected] 36 points 6 months ago

Snap isn’t a standard actually. It’s closed off.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] [email protected] 26 points 5 months ago

I didnt want to hate snap either, until I found out its proprietary technology… on a foss OS… since then I‘m pretty over it - and ubuntu for that matter. I‘ll probably switch to debian once ubuntu 23.10 runs out of support.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago

Personally, I don't get why devs would elect to package for Snap, in favor of Flatpak or AppImage. I guess, if your toolchain offers Snap packaging out of the box, then might as well. But aside from that, do you not just reach fewer users...?

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)
[-] [email protected] 74 points 5 months ago

Who the fuck was asking for a Steam Snap.

JFC

Give up on snaps. It's not gonna happen. Whatever benefits they claim they could provide could be merged into Flatpak and everyone wins.

[-] [email protected] 32 points 5 months ago

It's Canonical. They'll perfect snaps in 8 years, then give it up

[-] [email protected] 23 points 5 months ago

Snap is what finally got me to drop Ubuntu for Debian. Such a pain.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] [email protected] 60 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I know the "Arch BTW" meme exists for a reason, but one of the reasons I haven't been able to drag myself away from Arch-based distros in recent years is that it allows me to always have current versions of my software while also just not having to care about all this appimage/flatpak/snap brouhaha.

I guess it's somewhat of a "pick your poison" kind of situation, but I find dealing with the typical complaints about Arch based distros to be both less of a problem than detractors would have you believe, and less of a headache than having to pick one of three competing alternative packaging approaches, or worse, to use a mix of them all. Standing on the sidelines of the topic it seems like a small number of people really like that these options exist, and I'm happy for those people. But mostly I'm grateful that I don't have to care about this kind of thing.

Edited to add: Seeing how this thread has developed in the past 5 hours convinces me anew that "on the sidelines" is where I want to stay on this topic. 😁

[-] [email protected] 20 points 5 months ago

I've always found the most time consuming thing about arch is having to spend half your life telling everyone you use it.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

100% all this. Canonical has been pushing snaps for awhile, and I wonder if the 12 year LTS for Ubuntu is part of that strategy - want something newer? It's in the snap store. snap is terrible, worse than flakpak and appimage - but just as you say, as an arch user I don't have to care. Whatever I want is probably in the AUR if not the main repos. Rolling distros, done right (arch), are an amazing experience.

load more comments (28 replies)
[-] [email protected] 47 points 5 months ago
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 43 points 5 months ago

This is a big issue with Snap. It may be like Flatpak, allowing devs to set their own dependencies for ALL distros, but its poor uptake outside of Ubuntu's ecosystem means that it's no different to yet another distro repackaging system.

Flatpak, or even Nixpkgs, are the future because they allow devs to have control over the distribution of their software. Snap being such a closed ecosystem in comparison only means it will replicate many of the problems we've found with traditional (re)packaging systems.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] [email protected] 41 points 5 months ago

The one Linux Distro that people will look for out of popularity, fucking up the of the Linux user base? Of course, thanks canonical.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] [email protected] 38 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Let me simplify that: ~~Canonical's Steam~~ Snap is Causing Headaches ~~for Valve~~

[-] [email protected] 35 points 5 months ago

Ubuntu used to get a lot of undeserved hate but lately the hate feels deserved. Ubuntu has been the face of the usable desktop Linux for a long time and they just keep tripping over themselves every time they try to move forward.

Their intentions are usually good. A lot of things they propose usually end up being adopted by the community at large (just not their implementation). They seem to just yank everyone's chain a little too hard in the direction we're eventually going to go and we all resent them for that.

Off the top of my head, there was Upstart (init system), there was unity (desktop), and now snaps (containerized packaging). All of these were good ideas but implemented poorly and with a general lack of support from the community. In almost each case in the past what's happened is that once they run out of developers who champion the tech, they eventually get onboard with whatever Debian and Rhel are doing once they were caught up and settled.

Valve's lack of interest in maintaining the snap makes sense. The development on the Ubuntu platform is very opinionated in a way where the developers of the software (valve) really want nothing to do with Canonicals snaps.

On another note: my favorite thing about the Ubuntu server was LXD + ZFS integration. Both have been snapified. It was incredibly useful and stable. Stephane Graber has forked the project now into INCUS. It looks very promising.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago

Would be cool if they just straight up supported flatpaks. That's been my main way of gaming for a couple years now, and it works great. The downside is that the folder structure is confusing so it makes things like modding pretty difficult.

load more comments (28 replies)
[-] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago

Good. Snap is an abomination.

[-] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The problem is that 3rd parties are doing the packaging both on Snap and Flatpak whereas if they had followed proper security practice ONLY THE REAL DEV should ever be allowed to package their app as a Flatpak or Snap.

This would ensure security, as well as a proper functioning flatpak/snap and also all feedback would be directed to the Dev.

I've never liked the fact that Canonical and whoever can make Snaps and Flatpaks of other people's software. There is zero security guarantee, zero guarantee they'll update it and zero guarantee it will work.

Just because Snap and Flatpak exist doesn't mean just anyone should be able to just make them.

If Valve only chooses to make a deb then so be it! It's their product!

[-] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago

Wait until you find out how distro packaging works

[-] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago

The problem is that 3rd parties are doing the packaging both on Snap and Flatpak whereas if they had followed proper security practice ONLY THE REAL DEV should ever be allowed to package their app as a Flatpak or Snap.

Says who? If it were the case, Linux would either be a nightmare of fragmentation or become centralised on one distribution. Distros need to be able to package their own software, and these are kind of like distributions. Also since we're talking about proprietary software here, is it really any better security practice if the "real dev" packages it or somebody else, they both could contain malicious code.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago

Tbh i never found an app that runs better on snap than on deb

Same goes for almost anything like snap

[-] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago

I'm really hoping this all forces Ubuntu out as the face of desktop Linux.

It's been pretty low tier for years now, and Canonical just proves corporate backing doesn't guarantee a good distro.

Snap is pretty garbage, default GNOME is horrendous, the repos break every other month, apt is still pretty lame despite being an user upgrade for apt-get, the packages are neither stable nor cutting edge, they change core OS backends like every update which breaks configs and makes documentation obsolete.

I'd like to suggest Fedora as the new goto, but I feel like it's a bit too privacy and FOSS oriented which may scare away new users.

Debian is great but it doesn't have latest packages which isn't optimal as performance upgrades would take time to release or need to be manually installed.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
742 points (99.1% liked)

Linux

45773 readers
858 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS