Quoting: eldaking

Quoting: F.UltraNo I didn't say that others did such stuff all the time. What I said was that in the real world companies announce their plans, then they await comments from users and partners to see how said plans will be received after which the plans are either amended or put into production.

The problem here is that the Linux fanbase decided to see the announcement of plans as a foregone conclusion and then run around screaming.

When they "announced" this years ago, did they set a date? Was it fully decided and plotted out? How much did they broadcast their intentions so that people could prepare their transition?

Or was their announcement now still just a "plan" to be discussed, despite the fact the changes takes effect in a few months?

Everyone was surprised by this because information was not communicated clearly enough and in advance enough. Yeah, we are probably overstating the impact... but this a panic Canonical created.

Here is the initial announcement from last year: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2018-May/040310.html so it was just one year ago and not years as I first claimed (shame on me there).

edit: further research shows that they also made an announcement back in 2016: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2016-June/039420.html

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EikeWell, actually "immature" and "world was ending" were part of your statement, too.

I take it that you don't frequent Phoronix and Slashdot much. If so then don't let the curiosity get the better of you, it's not pretty.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: F.UltraCurrently Ubuntu have 6391 packages in Main, building that will take hours even for Canonical.

Makes me wonder how Debian is able to do such an enormous feat with its AFAIR ~70K packages...

Quoting: F.UltraWhat is next, UFO conspiracies, 9/11 Truthers, Freemasons, anti-vaxxers and anti-GMO fools?

Will you refrain from such talk in future?

I was mentioning the number of packages in Main, not the total number of packages in Ubuntu since Main is where Canonical provides support. If we count every single package including Updates and Backports then Ubuntu have over 70k packages as well.

Debian receives corporate sponsorships and are a community effort while Canonical as a company have to pay for their own servers, power and personel.

If people drop the conspiracy claims then I'm fully prepared to drop the conspiracy accusations. I have no intention to call people names unnecessary.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: F.UltraThis is how things are done and decided in the real world all the time, the only difference now is that the immature Linux fanbase for some reason decided to run around in circles screaming that the world was ending.

You mean like Microsoft gave up 32 bit support? And enforced UWP only? Oops...

So tell me when Canonical gave up 32-bit support and enforced UWP only. Oh that it right this very thread exists only because Canonical decided to not give up 32-bit support.

What ever this now have to do with Microsoft?!

We are talking about Ubuntu reverting their decision to not properly supporting 32 bit software anymore. You've said others were doing such stuff all the time. That's where Microsoft comes to mind quite naturally. Giving up 32 bits and enforcing UWP are two examples of stuff they couldn't do due to software that must be supported.

No I didn't say that others did such stuff all the time. What I said was that in the real world companies announce their plans, then they await comments from users and partners to see how said plans will be received after which the plans are either amended or put into production.

The problem here is that the Linux fanbase decided to see the announcement of plans as a foregone conclusion and then run around screaming.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: x_wing

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: TobiSGD

Quoting: GuestI can see why they want to remove 32 bit libs because it's a ton of work.

But a ton of work for whom? They still get the majority of their packages directly from Debian, throwing a patch on one or the other package and just compile. If Debian still supports newer versions of 32 bit libraries, how much work is there really to be done for canonical?

They get the base source code of each package from Debian, then they have to build the IA-32 version themselves, and provide support themselves. Considering the amount of packages in the repo it will take quite some time to build the packages for IA-32 and that is time taken from building for other archs and so on. If there where no cost for providing IA-32 builds then they clearly wouldn't have planned to throw them out to begin with.

The only real cost is QA. Building is normally cheap.

Currently Ubuntu have 6391 packages in Main, building that will take hours even for Canonical.

Seriously, do you people really think that Canonical decided to drop IA-32 for some other reason and then have their devs lie that it had to do with resources? What is next, UFO conspiracies, 9/11 Truthers, Freemasons, anti-vaxxers and anti-GMO fools?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: F.UltraThis is how things are done and decided in the real world all the time, the only difference now is that the immature Linux fanbase for some reason decided to run around in circles screaming that the world was ending.

You mean like Microsoft gave up 32 bit support? And enforced UWP only? Oops...

So tell me when Canonical gave up 32-bit support and enforced UWP only. Oh that it right this very thread exists only because Canonical decided to not give up 32-bit support.

What ever this now have to do with Microsoft?!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dannielloGood that Canonical changed their bad decision, but anyway - it means that "Linux desktop" situation is much worse than I thought:(

Sad, very sad situation. It is well known that Canonical is not serious company, but such absurd situation also harmed Valve reputation (at least from Linux enthusiasts perspective).

It is oblivious that Canonical took this decision without consultation with Valve. It means - there is no agreement between Canonical-Valve. No agreement at all!!! Valve set Ubuntu as "recommended distribution" for game developers and Linux users WITHOUT any serious agreement with Canonical to protect their investment!

And you think that there are an agreement between Valve and Apple? Or between Valve and Microsoft?

This whole fiasco is a fiasco of the Linux fanbase, nothing more.

Close to two years ago they announced that they planned to drop 32-bit (IA-32) support and since no one back then voiced any concern they moved forward to the decision they now made for 19.10.

However they didn't silently drop the packages, instead they announced yet again that it would be done. Then they again waited for comments which this time came in droves and after that they changed their mind.

This is how things are done and decided in the real world all the time, the only difference now is that the immature Linux fanbase for some reason decided to run around in circles screaming that the world was ending.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TobiSGD

Quoting: GuestI can see why they want to remove 32 bit libs because it's a ton of work.

But a ton of work for whom? They still get the majority of their packages directly from Debian, throwing a patch on one or the other package and just compile. If Debian still supports newer versions of 32 bit libraries, how much work is there really to be done for canonical?

They get the base source code of each package from Debian, then they have to build the IA-32 version themselves, and provide support themselves. Considering the amount of packages in the repo it will take quite some time to build the packages for IA-32 and that is time taken from building for other archs and so on. If there where no cost for providing IA-32 builds then they clearly wouldn't have planned to throw them out to begin with.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: gradyvuckovicAll Valve has to do now is offer some kind of option to run your own remote instance of a gaming PC on a Valve server, and connect direct to it, and they'll have an alternative to Stadia. Buy your game on Steam, download it to play it locally, or stream it to any PC or phone/tablet or TV. Stream it from your PC or stream it from a Valve server. All your workshop mods, your cloud saves, your Steam friends, etc, take them all with you anywhere you go.

Buy Portal 2 and download/install it locally to play on your PC, then stream it from your PC to your TV and play it with any controller you want, then stream it from a Valve server to your phone and play it on the train.

If Valve offered that service for free, (which they probably could because the overwhelming majority of users would prefer local gaming so it wouldn't be a commonly used option), Stadia would be dead on arrival.

For Linux (& Mac) gamers, that would mean all those games currently not playable on Linux, the 40% or so of Steam that isn't quite there yet with Proton, would suddenly immediately become playable via an alternative solution, ie: streaming from a Valve server. Effectively bringing all Steam games to Linux.

Boom, no need to ever install Windows for any game on Steam. No need to buy games on Google's or iOS's app store even, just buy it on Steam and stream it to your phone!

I'm calling it, this is what Valve is working towards. Valve is going to make it happen.

They would also have to invest a number of billions in new datacenters and bandwidth for that to happen on the scale that Valve operates (they have roughly 90 million monthly users) and they would have to build them locally all over the world. The costs of running stuff like this is extreme and is why currently only Google is pulling it off (and we don't know yet if they will pull it off).

The other services described in this thread is nowhere near to compete, Shadow seams to have only a small number of servers in California and Geforce Now seams to have only 300k users with some reports that performance is bad during peak hours (but to be honest I have just spent a few minutes googling this).

For what it's worth I worked as the CTO of a Cloud computing startup 11 years ago and had to design stuff like this.

I have an Nvidia Shield. GeForce Now has a small set of free games included with the service, as standalone games and managed by Nvidia, but and this is where it's getting interresting, you may run Steam, Origin, Uplay and/or Epic launchers inside GeForce Now to play any games in your personnal library on Nvidia's servers (remote computer). Each instances are powered by a Tesla P40 GPU and grapical options are preset for each officially supported games. Stil, no problems running games at ultra for the other games, as far as I witnessed.

Imo, it would be the ideal services if it ran on Linux instances, but I don't think it's what they do.

Thanks for the info! Do you know if the GPU shared or dedicated?

Sorry. I have absolutely no clue on this one.

Edit: All I know is that it's based on the former Nvidia Grid technology, so I suspect it might be shared with some form of "load balancing". Is it the good expression when it comes to GPU workloads?

That can mean many things so that remains to be seen. Since you can play all your Steam and Uplay games I guess that it's just a matter of time before some hardcore gamer manages to get some GPU tool installed to measure if it always performs to 100% or if it appears to be shared.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: gradyvuckovicAll Valve has to do now is offer some kind of option to run your own remote instance of a gaming PC on a Valve server, and connect direct to it, and they'll have an alternative to Stadia. Buy your game on Steam, download it to play it locally, or stream it to any PC or phone/tablet or TV. Stream it from your PC or stream it from a Valve server. All your workshop mods, your cloud saves, your Steam friends, etc, take them all with you anywhere you go.

Buy Portal 2 and download/install it locally to play on your PC, then stream it from your PC to your TV and play it with any controller you want, then stream it from a Valve server to your phone and play it on the train.

If Valve offered that service for free, (which they probably could because the overwhelming majority of users would prefer local gaming so it wouldn't be a commonly used option), Stadia would be dead on arrival.

For Linux (& Mac) gamers, that would mean all those games currently not playable on Linux, the 40% or so of Steam that isn't quite there yet with Proton, would suddenly immediately become playable via an alternative solution, ie: streaming from a Valve server. Effectively bringing all Steam games to Linux.

Boom, no need to ever install Windows for any game on Steam. No need to buy games on Google's or iOS's app store even, just buy it on Steam and stream it to your phone!

I'm calling it, this is what Valve is working towards. Valve is going to make it happen.

They would also have to invest a number of billions in new datacenters and bandwidth for that to happen on the scale that Valve operates (they have roughly 90 million monthly users) and they would have to build them locally all over the world. The costs of running stuff like this is extreme and is why currently only Google is pulling it off (and we don't know yet if they will pull it off).

The other services described in this thread is nowhere near to compete, Shadow seams to have only a small number of servers in California and Geforce Now seams to have only 300k users with some reports that performance is bad during peak hours (but to be honest I have just spent a few minutes googling this).

For what it's worth I worked as the CTO of a Cloud computing startup 11 years ago and had to design stuff like this.

I have an Nvidia Shield. GeForce Now has a small set of free games included with the service, as standalone games and managed by Nvidia, but and this is where it's getting interresting, you may run Steam, Origin, Uplay and/or Epic launchers inside GeForce Now to play any games in your personnal library on Nvidia's servers (remote computer). Each instances are powered by a Tesla P40 GPU and grapical options are preset for each officially supported games. Stil, no problems running games at ultra for the other games, as far as I witnessed.

Imo, it would be the ideal services if it ran on Linux instances, but I don't think it's what they do.

Thanks for the info! Do you know if the GPU shared or dedicated?

View this comment - View article - View full comments