OBS Studio arrives on Steam but no Linux build for now so stick to Flatpak

Quoting: kokoko3k

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: kokoko3k

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: kokoko3kAlso, and absolutely not rhetoric, but really, REALLY out of curiosity:
Why someone on earth could have an interest in opening the whole steam to start obs!?

Presumably the people likely to do this would be people who are opening Steam anyway to play games?

If it were true, then i'd expect fro those people to add every program they use as a non steam application to their steam library.

So you mean, like, they'd add things they do while not playing games to their game-library software because that's exactly the same as adding things they do while playing games to their game-library software?

Ah, understood.
So the use case is that since obs may be used even while they are playing steam games, then it makes sense to take the burden to package and release it as a steam application, because people will prefer to start it from their library.
This honestly I haven't thought to.
Well then, but this still does not help my progress in understanding the motivations, because i don't think they are installing a browser as a steam specific app or any other app one may think of one can use while they are playing.
Ofc I may be wrong, but I really don't believe the number of users starting obs from steam justifies the release in their store.
Probably is just a matter of having more visibility or I just don't know.

I think it's not just that OBS may be used "even while they are playing games," but rather, a major use case for OBS is specifically to record gameplay. It makes sense to make it available via the major game store because it is used by gaming content creators together with games.

Quoting: kokoko3k

Quoting: gamingonlinux.com"For Linux users though, you should just stick to Flatpak from Flathub."

Quoting: https://archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/obs-studio/obs-studio 27.2.3-1
Build Date: 2022-03-14 20:45 UTC

Why should (Arch) "Linux users" "just stick to Flatpak from Flathub" ?
What are the advantages by using it and not the distribution provided package, if any?

As an Arch Linux user, today an update to Evolution/libphonenumber broke Microsoft Exchange compatibility. I tried downgrading the effected packages to no avail, and also tried building the -git packages from the AUR, but was met with a different issue.

In the end, I had to use the Flatpak for Evolution, which worked fine and is just as up-to-date. I'm not sure if I'm going to go back to using the distribution-prepared package, especially because it seems that GNOME-related packages are currently understaffed so take a while to get updates and fixes. However, the maintainers acted quickly on this one but closed it prematurely.

One advantage of Flatpaks is less breakage, and I don't have to chase dependencies around and still not get the software back to working order. This is not a typical situation for me on Arch Linux, but with the recent glibc update that broke Anki for me and now this (I'm definitely not using pip to install Anki, though), it's nice to have another option.

Of course, I have no idea whether the Evolution Flatpak is official—though it appears to be maintained by a Red Hat engineer—because the instructions on gnome.org for Evolution's Flatpak package tell me something completely different. It'd be nice if they got trust sorted out at some point, since it seems that anyone can just package and distribute a Flatpak.

Quoting: RodneyThe advantage is that it's first-party, fully supported, and contains all the features including service integrations, browser sources, etc. that are often missing from third-party packages. Flathub also makes it possible to install various popular plugins that may or may not be available as system packages.

The background-removal plugin is still not available. I use the snap version for now but would switch instantly to flatpak if it gained that feature.