Every article tag can be clicked to get a list of all articles in that category. Every article tag also has an RSS feed! You can customize an RSS feed too!
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. See more here.

Update: Canonical are now saying 32bit libraries will be "frozen" and not entirely dropped.

Original article:

Things are starting to get messy, after Canonical announced the end of 32bit support from Ubuntu 19.10 onwards, Valve have now responded.

Speaking on Twitter, Valve dev Pierre-Loup Griffais said:

Ubuntu 19.10 and future releases will not be officially supported by Steam or recommended to our users. We will evaluate ways to minimize breakage for existing users, but will also switch our focus to a different distribution, currently TBD.

I'm starting to think we might see a sharp U-turn from Canonical, as this is something that would hit them quite hard. Either way, the damage has been done.

I can't say I am surprised by Valve's response here. Canonical pretty clearly didn't think it through enough on how it would affect the desktop. It certainly seems like Canonical also didn't speak to enough developers first.

Perhaps this will give Valve a renewed focus on SteamOS? Interestingly, Valve are now funding some work on KWin (part of KDE).

Looks like I shall be distro hopping very soon…

To journalists from other websites reading: This does not mean the end of Linux support, Ubuntu is just one distribution.

Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Tags: Steam, Valve
59 Likes
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly. Find me on Mastodon.
See more from me
The comments on this article are closed.
246 comments
Page: «17/25»
  Go to:

enz Jun 23, 2019
Not that I agree with Ubuntu's move here, but in some way this also shows the problems with proprietary software. Yes, Windows does a better (but not perfect) job of keeping old binaries runnable, but it comes with the price of increased complexity, which causes more security holes. Not to mention that all those games that are not maintained anymore, some of them even having their source code lost by the developers, also contain bugs that will never get fixed, some of them security-related.

I really wish more game developers would open source their code, they can still keep the assets proprietary and sell them. But at least we wouldn't have the need to keep binary compatibility forever. If there was still enough interest in an old game, some people would surely help to fix the code to make it run on 64-bit.
tonR Jun 23, 2019
Soo.. for "average" user like me, how? Another painful migration to another distors? Move to BSD?
Hell no! I never ever will back to run Windows for my own PC.

IMO, yes we certainly needs to move on to 64 bit architecture. But not by removing 32 bit support altogether! Especially on FOSS world which known for giving user freedom.

Also, it may tainting the whole Linux reputation on giving to all anything computer devices a rejuvinate 'second' live beyond it's EOL usage. No thanks to Canonical being Canonical, again.

I hate Linux/FOSS world 'soap opera' gets another 'reboot', again. But I agree Canonical should stop being Apple of Linux world.

p/s: Oh BTW, where's my Linux phones Canonical?!
Prime_Evil Jun 23, 2019
I am not without sympathy for Canonical's decision, since providing support for any processor architecture involves a non-trivial amount of effort. But how much of the work required for multiarch support is performed by Canonical and how much comes from upstream Debian maintainers? Why can't we treat the provision of a 32-bit compatibility layer just like the support of any other compatibility layer (e.g. Wine)?

The argument that developers should offer games as Snaps or bundle all 32-bit dependencies with the executable isn't going to fly in the real world. For one thing, game engines can have hidden 32-bit dependencies that are not obvious to developers. And very few game developers will be willing to update their entire back catalogue just to make things work on Ubuntu. Plus it is unlikely that developers will choose to distribute their work as Snaps as this package format is not yet widely accepted as the default.

Meanwhile, the suggestion that Ubuntu should freeze the 32-bit libraries at their current versions is irresponsible. It means that security bugs in these libraries will never get patched, even if the upstream maintainers release patches.

I am heartened by the fact that a number of Ubuntu derivatives such as Mint and Pop_OS! have indicated that they will continue to offer 32-bit support in some form. Has anybody heard from Elementary or KDE Neon yet?

I feel that this decision will do immense harm to the Ubuntu brand in the community. While it has been under the discussion for some time, the announcement of a final decision only three months out from the release 19.10 is a public relations disaster. This is the kind of decision that requires a communication plan and long lead times. It breaks a large amount of software, including hardware drivers only offered in 32-bit builds. It's easy to point out that hardware manufacturers should be offering 64-bit driver build, but the truth is that many companies only grudgingly support Linux in the first place. And in the gaming area, it is unlikely that publishing houses will change their release strategies just to accomodate this move.

It might be time to look at putting Manjaro on my main desktop computer if none of the Ubuntu derivatives can implement a workaround...
mphuZ Jun 23, 2019
Quoting: JmsnzSteam is already 64bit on macOS, and has been since last year.
And? How does this negate the fact that 32-bit games won't run? Double standard.
Spirimint Jun 23, 2019
Quoting: Prime_EvilI am heartened by the fact that a number of Ubuntu derivatives such as Mint and Pop_OS! have indicated that they will continue to offer 32-bit support in some form. Has anybody heard from Elementary or KDE Neon yet?


I guess then Pop_OS will be a good Distro for beginners?
deathxxx Jun 23, 2019
If Valve move to FreeBSD, that will be great! Because BSD is more faster than Linux. Only AMD cards will have no binary drivers, so will force to use Mesa. For Nvidia is OK. PlayStation uses BSD already and we saw how it run.
riusma Jun 23, 2019
Quoting: Prime_EvilI am heartened by the fact that a number of Ubuntu derivatives such as Mint and Pop_OS! have indicated that they will continue to offer 32-bit support in some form. Has anybody heard from Elementary or KDE Neon yet?

Some answers in this discussion on Twitter.


Last edited by riusma on 23 June 2019 at 9:57 am UTC
mylka Jun 23, 2019
Quoting: deathxxxIf Valve move to FreeBSD, that will be great! Because BSD is more faster than Linux. Only AMD cards will have no binary drivers, so will force to use Mesa. For Nvidia is OK. PlayStation uses BSD already and we saw how it run.

macos is also based on BSD and we know how that goes

I can not believe they do that. that is a suicide mission for ubuntu and ubuntu based distros and i hope they overthink this
razing32 Jun 23, 2019
Quoting: ElectricPrismThere needs to be a Ubuntu Devs meme where they are sitting around a round table and are like What Terrible Idea Can We Come Up With This Year?

It's not that 64-bit shouldn't overtake 32-bit in the app / game space, but in the library space it's not a sane solution.

As these problems come up and with developments in ARM, POWER9, RISC I am beginning to think that binary distros are not the way.

What I'm afraid of is what it will cost to switch to a source package manager distro -- I am under the impression that even Gentoo has some ideology and thinking in implementation form that is stuck in 2008.

It's a shame Ubuntu couldn't learn a lesson from Gobo Linux where they organize packages /Programs/X-Library/V.XX/[files] -- if Linux took a page from their book we would have never needed Snaps or Flatpaks because multiple dependency versions could co-exist, and on servers where security matters they could simply require the latest version or have a secure channel of approved versions completely mitigating the necessity of LTS and having the best of Rolling Release and Point Release stability and freshness all while eliminating the necessity to over-engineer solutions that never should have needed to exist to begin with.

Beamboom Jun 23, 2019
I'll not be surprised if Canonical backs out of this decision again, seeing the reception.

But either way, no one's forcing you to upgrade to 19.10. The practical difference between the versions are only smaller and smaller for each year.
I used to always upgrade back in the days for great benefits, but now I don't even care if I use 18.04 (@work) or 18.10 (@home), I've not even bothered upgrading to 19.04.

So there's really no reason for rushed decisions no matter what.
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
The comments on this article are closed.