117
Why the Steam deb from Canonical has been broken since 23.04 (popey.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

tl;dr In a recent thread on Mastodon, it was revealed that Ubuntu 23.04 users can’t install the Steam deb package from the Ubuntu archive without jumping through some technical hoops. It turns out this was a mistake, a bug was filed, and future builds shouldn’t have this problem.

Steam - the game store/launcher from Valve requires a bunch of 32-bit libraries to function. Many of the games that Steam installs also require many of these various libraries. These older games are likely never going to get updated to have 64-bit clean builds.

The thread on Mastodon brought up an expected thought process, though. The conspiracy theory-minded might (reasonably) think “This is Canonical breaking the deb, so you’re forced to use the snap”. But that doesn’t appear to be the case.

It’s just a simple mistake that is fixed, and now (a selected set of) i386 packages will be easily accessible again.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Because "users who just want their apps to work" is only a subset of "everyone" (and for them, yes, Flatpak is a reasonable solution to this kind of issue).

I'm part of a different and non-overlapping subset: if something doesn't work as advertised, that isn't acceptable. If there's a distro-native package and it won't install and run, then that's a bug and should be treated as such.

If you use "everyone" when you know that there are people out there who disagree with you, you should expect to get some flak.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Sounds to me like you would rather cry about Ubuntu-specific bugs and hope and wait they fix those bugs that break your program than use a distro-agnostic solution such as Flatpaks with zero such possibility of bug.

    I think I can confidently say that everyone in the range of 4/4 users would rather not put up with bugs if they could avoid them and that 10/10 would prefer their programs to launch when they press the icon. Made up but it should be obvious.

    That's where the comment is coming from. You still have your right of choice, doesn't mean that your individual choice is in line with other people's goals.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Brace yourself for the punchline: I don't even use Ubuntu, and what I said is not specific to any distro. Making sure that packages work, and work properly, is the single most important job a distro does.

    Correct integration matters to me. Testing by someone trusted matters to me. I trust my distro's dev team to do those things. I do not trust people uploading Flatpaks for distribution to cover those things (even, or perhaps especially, if it's software they've developed—the number of blind spots developers can have about their own environments is terrifying). "Why does [preference X] not work inside this Flatpak?" is not an uncommon topic.

    Anyway, I can confidently say that the number of users whose PCs have Windows on them and not Linux approaches 10/10 too. There's a reason argumentum ad popularum is a fallacy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    You are clearly wrong as Ubuntu disabling x32 apps here is what caused the problem. If a distro as big as Ubuntu could never be trusted to test Steam, what chance does your distro X have?

    I do not trust people uploading Flatpaks for distribution to cover those things (even, or perhaps especially, if it’s software they’ve developed—the number of blind spots developers can have about their own environments is terrifying).

    All this flies out of the window when it's your distro that's introducing the bugs as was the case here.

    “Why does [preference X] not work inside this Flatpak?” is not an uncommon topic.

    This is legit and I have to give you this. It's not perfect but to me, can't ever recall a time a workaround was not available. Most of the time, you'll find an issue like a plugin that is hardcoded to call to a library using the standard distro path or something like that.

    But more users catch this stuff and share solutions to the Flatpak community.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago*

    Sounds to me like you would rather cry about Ubuntu-specific bugs and hope and wait they fix those bugs that break your program than use a distro-agnostic solution such as Flatpaks with zero such possibility of bug.

    Yes, I don't want to use that distro-agnostic resource hog flatpak. Better than snap for sure, but I still don't have countless gigabytes of storage for countless versions of whole operating systems to run this and that app. No, storage is not cheap, at all, especially when you don't even have the physical space for it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent