Valve Will Not Be Officially Supporting Ubuntu 19.10+

[azdaha]

As it so happens I am indeed a sociology grad, but this phenomenon you're intent on exploring does not need a sociologist to put a name on it, it's a well known and very common phenomenon called know-it-all-iasis, and it usually manifests in people lacking knowledge about a given subject while at the same time being completely unaware that they lack it; common symptoms include them trying to express an uninformed (and usually laughable) opinion on said subject, and also trying to disparage other people's opinions in the process, probably because deep down in their unconscious mind they know that what they're really doing is spewing random sh*t and they're trying to cover it up by being passive aggressive about it.

In this particular case, the core issue is that all these people are clueless when it comes to programming and they think that old-ish x32 programs from the age of the x32 dinosaurs can be refactored and recompiled into modern x64 state-of-the-art Apps (please note that the capital 'A' in an 'App' is a necessary ingredient to achieve binary greatness in 2019) all within the blink of an eye, if only the developers stop being lazy snowflakes and start doing their jobs like real men. Notions like "source code lost or damaged", "dependence on incompatible libraries", "specific architecture hacks that cannot be converted", "license hell preventing source code manipulation" etc have no meaning to them, because as already mentioned they lack the knowledge to properly understand them.

If you need more info on this malady, please don't hesitate to ask your dear friend debianxfce, he's a real specialist on the matter. Although I'm afraid he's inevitably going to try and convince you that in order to achieve proper x64 greatness, one has to use Debian XFCE as a desktop environment to compile the new x64 binaries, because compilers generally work more reliably in XFCE as it hasn't as of yet been sabotaged by the IBM employees working at Red Hat.

Be prepared for a fierce debate.

Project much?

Long-winded attempt to ascribe derogatory characteristics to a person or group: What's this called?

Personally, as I've mentioned before, I use multiple distros for different purposes. Nevertheless, at the risk of sounding like yet another fan-boy, I would welcome a shift of focus from Valve toward supporting Arch.

* Arch is great because of its use of tar archives and bash scripts in terms of packaging.
* Community involvement is great in terms of software availability (projects, e.g. steam-native), testing, support, documentation.
* Rolling release ensures early access to available updates from upstream projects, hardware drivers, etc.
* Less restrictive copyleft policies allow for wider range of software offerings

Btw, this is all done almost entirely as a community Linux distribution project. There is a strong foundation in place already that Valve could take advantage of and build upon. It's, obviously, not perfect; the installation process is a barrier to entry for newcomers, as was pointed out here already. However, if that's the only argument against using Arch in favour of Ubuntu, then it has to be pointed out for what it is; i.e. a short-sighted criticism based on personal disdain for the loudest users/supporters of Arch--and on an issue that can be resolved with an installation script or GUI installer even--while overlooking all other benefits that Arch provides.

Ultimately, I'm sure there are other real or potential pitfalls or reasons for why Arch has not been chosen as the official distro in the past or even in the future. However, it should be said, it behooves us all to weigh (check) how we ourselves stand up to the criticisms and aspersions that we hurl toward others.

P.S. I am aware of the irony in berating long-winded criticisms with a long-winded, albeit less specific and wider in scope, critique.

[greema]

They don't want to support many Linux OS I guess but they should support ubuntu (IMO) because lots of user uses this distro but it's still their call, it's so sad to know, a same feeling of for the "Artifact" falls.

[F.Ultra]

So it's "you guys" now, eh? Racism or not is beside the point, anarchy implies the government has no control which effectively means the Somalian population makes the laws and enforce them. By then saying they have no "law and order" you're either taking a position of total authoritarianism or dismissing their capacity for self preservation.

Yes it's "you guys" when you and BOYSSSSS both made that argument. If racism is besides the point why make the stupid attempt at accusing me of that? (yes I'm not accusing you of that since it [email protected] that did that initially).

And no, anarchy does not mean that it's the Somali population that makes the laws and enforce them, it means that it's the Somalis with more guns that makes the law for the Somalis with less guns.

What I get annoyed with is how you always want to bend the words of everyone to fit your blatantly obvious agenda. It's as if you think a CoC is a religious document that must be defended at every step. Stop making straw men and read the first reply you got, the relevant part quoted below for your convenience:



This quite swiftly explains why a CoC might make it less likely for successful forks to happen.

I do not bend words to fit some agenda.

All I did was at one point ask you how you in one sentence could claim that a CoC would decrease the chance of forks happening while in another claim that a CoC would increase the chance of a fork.

When I did that you went all mad and claimed that you never ever said such a thing, I quoted your original post to demonstrate why that was a false claim by you too which you replied yet again that I was wrong and when trying to clarify your statement you still wrote that a CoC could decrease the likelihood of forks.

And here you again write that a CoC can reduce the risk of a fork. Can you not see how silly this have gone?

How can you still be mad at me for stating what you yourself have now stated in several posts? Perhaps one day when you will calm down and try to reread the posts that we have exchanged back and forth you will see this error of yours.

The only one here that have misrepresented what you wrote where you yourself and you even managed to do so within a single post, and you where the one claiming that "smart people" would be the first to leave Debian ;-)

[Djhg2000]

Talking about a country or it's people are two completely different things regardless of how they are governed. Further, claiming that Somalia is ruled under anarchy can not and will not ever be seen as any form of racism. Seriously, things like this should not be needed to be explained to you guys.

So it's "you guys" now, eh? Racism or not is beside the point, anarchy implies the government has no control which effectively means the Somalian population makes the laws and enforce them. By then saying they have no "law and order" you're either taking a position of total authoritarianism or dismissing their capacity for self preservation.

Regarding your constantly changing words regarding forking this is not me misunderstanding you, even in your previous post where you clarified what you meant you still talked about how a CoC would decrease the chance of a fork: "the decision to fork is slower" (<- verbatim quote) and yet you get mad every time that I bring up that you initially claimed that a CoC would decrease the chance of a fork.

What I get annoyed with is how you always want to bend the words of everyone to fit your blatantly obvious agenda. It's as if you think a CoC is a religious document that must be defended at every step. Stop making straw men and read the first reply you got, the relevant part quoted below for your convenience:

There's a difference to having rules at a workplace and at a community project. Usually a community project will do just fine without having any formal rules. Those who end up constantly being at odds with the rest of a project are usually better off forking it.

Just look at MPlayer; there was almost constant forking because in many respects it was a very capable player with poor management over the codebase. Eventually one of the forks gained enough traction to survive and that's why we have MPV today. Can you imagine if there was a set of rules in place to prevent them from going off at each other? We'd probably be stuck with MPlayer in all of it's single threaded glory with a few random forks for stylized subtitle formats, because nobody would've seen the frustration and subsequent anger from those trying to fix it.

Sometimes people need to be offended for things to happen and sometimes you just can't be friends with everyone. It's human nature and taking that away ultimately paves the way for totalitarianism as it propagates throughout society.

This quite swiftly explains why a CoC might make it less likely for successful forks to happen.

As most frequenters of this forum would know I'm very reserved with my use of profanity, but in this particular case I find it both appropriate and ultimately necessary to tell you, to either make a serious good faith effort at understanding people already or kindly fuck off. I've shown you nothing but patience and concise reasoning despite your charades, yet all I get in return is low effort wordplay. I'm fed up with such infantile behavior and if you want another decent reply then get off your high horse and make rational arguments to justify your position.

For the time being I'll part ways with this thread. Off topic discussions about politics like this is what makes me feel genuine discomfort in visiting the forum section of Phoronix, and that's not the way I want it to be. It's about time we recognize this is a cancer spreading throughout the community, and while I'll never support censorship, I hope we all realize sooner rather than later that it belongs somewhere else.

[F.Ultra]

So if they have total anarchy, who exactly are you referring to if it's not the Somalians?



...and there we go again. It's unfortunate that you do not understand what I'm saying but you don't have to be such a muppet about it.

Talking about a country or it's people are two completely different things regardless of how they are governed. Further, claiming that Somalia is ruled under anarchy can not and will not ever be seen as any form of racism. Seriously, things like this should not be needed to be explained to you guys.

Regarding your constantly changing words regarding forking this is not me misunderstanding you, even in your previous post where you clarified what you meant you still talked about how a CoC would decrease the chance of a fork: "the decision to fork is slower" (<- verbatim quote) and yet you get mad every time that I bring up that you initially claimed that a CoC would decrease the chance of a fork.

[Djhg2000]

So you don't see any distinction between Somalia and Somalis? Here is a small hint; one of them is a country.

So if they have total anarchy, who exactly are you referring to if it's not the Somalians?

Except of course that if you look you see that we had been arguing that very sentence for several posts already, it was just that all of a sudden he claimed that he never said what he said and thus I had to go back and quote him from back when our discussion started to show him verbatim why we had the arguments we had. So no, this was now suddenly.

Granted it could also be that he and I talked beside each other and thus missed nuances that could have been avoided if we would have talked person to person instead of via text on a forum but there is unfortunately no avoiding that since we are on the Internet.

...and there we go again. It's unfortunate that you do not understand what I'm saying but you don't have to be such a muppet about it.

[F.Ultra]

That's racist, are you saying Somalians are somehow inferior to us? It's the second time you point it out.

So you don't see any distinction between Somalia and Somalis? Here is a small hint; one of them is a country.

I hate it when I'm talking with someone for 20 pages of comments long and suddenly the guy quotes me at page 10. So I need to go to page 10 but realize that I need to read the whole 10 pages of conversations to remember what I was talking about.

Except of course that if you look you see that we had been arguing that very sentence for several posts already, it was just that all of a sudden he claimed that he never said what he said and thus I had to go back and quote him from back when our discussion started to show him verbatim why we had the arguments we had. So no, this was now suddenly.

Granted it could also be that he and I talked beside each other and thus missed nuances that could have been avoided if we would have talked person to person instead of via text on a forum but there is unfortunately no avoiding that since we are on the Internet.

[BOYSSSSS]

So here Alice just had to break the rules of the CoC in her reply? Why couldn't she reply to the "irrelevant argument" without breaking the CoC? That is an argument against every single rule ever invented on the planet, and yet you probably prefer to live in a country with law and order instead of in a total anarchy like Somalia?

That's racist, are you saying Somalians are somehow inferior to us? It's the second time you point it out.

Ok so then please explain what you mean by this sentence, that is where this whole discussion on forks came from:

I hate it when I'm talking with someone for 20 pages of comments long and suddenly the guy quotes me at page 10. So I need to go to page 10 but realize that I need to read the whole 10 pages of conversations to remember what I was talking about.

[Djhg2000]

If you have explicit written rules then yes the unwritten ones cease to exist. Or do you think that you can be brought to a criminal court in any western country for breaking an unwritten rule?

Now you're confusing formal action with informal action. Unwritten rules do not have a formal method of enforcement, but that doesn't mean they lack enforcement either. If you break an unwritten rule then it will be acted upon by the community rather than an enforcing body. If you bypass the checkout queue at a shop then nobody will call the police and press charges against you, but the clerk will most likely refuse to serve you.

No I didn't claim that you said that American behaviour in general is perverted. My point was that the rules have an American slant due to Debian having to abide to American corporate policy which to many of us Europeans can sometimes be seen as somewhat "perverse" (like e.g nipplegate which would be a complete nonissue over here).

That's not the way I read your quotation, but fair point. Nevertheless I still find some parts of the CoC touch on topics that are way too personal to be in a community project.

Corporations are quite quick to leave when they believe that they might be connected to projects that are not behaving to their internal policies, look at the whole adpocalypse on Youtube for a reference on how this happens.

That doesn't mean we should proactively cater to them. If they have any request then of course they would be points for consideration, but we're not acting as their PR department and we neither claim nor seek to do so. If they want out from an inaction in politics then maybe the sponsorship wasn't as rooted in a common philosophy as we thought and following their every whim would be a disservice to the community as a whole.

One of the latest "YouTube adpocalypses" was a highly politicized move initiated by Carlos Maza of Vox by calling the individual advertisers and pressuring them to pull their ads from the platform. This was, by his own admission, because he wanted to cut the ad revenue of Steven Crowder. From my understanding these two have been exchanging jabs for quite some time and things went overboard. Since the advertisers realized Vox is a news source with a sizable following Carlos Maza could easily publish an article implicating the advertisers, causing their legal team to pull all advertisement from Steven Crowder and by extension the entire YouTube platform. It's essentially mob tactics played on an industrial scale ("wouldn't it be a shame if your brand appeared in this smear article" and so forth).

To my knowledge, nobody has contacted the Debian sponsors and pressured them into requesting that Debian adopts a CoC.

So here Alice just had to break the rules of the CoC in her reply? Why couldn't she reply to the "irrelevant argument" without breaking the CoC? That is an argument against every single rule ever invented on the planet, and yet you probably prefer to live in a country with law and order instead of in a total anarchy like Somalia?

Because if you stir up enough emotion in people they act irrationally. There are entire professions based on doing this too, some of the more crafty ones are in things like street gambling.

The "we" are the open source community. Like it or not but we are no longer a fringe movement but now deeply used by corporations and governments around the world and they expect us to behave civil and like adults.

I don't care about politics when it comes to technical matters either, the problem is not you or I, it's the ones that cannot behave civil and like adults and thus rules are put into place. If all people cared as little about race, sexual orientation etc as we both did then a CoC would never have been needed but we don't live in such a world. Instead of focusing your anger on the result (the CoC) focus on the ass-hats and bullies that created the demand for this in the first place.

I'm pretty sure the hacker side of the open source community would smack you on the head over that first paragraph. Successful hackers are more often than not narcissists and/or anarchists. On the other hand they also write damn good code and support the projects they rely on. Alienating them should not be in the interest of any sane open source project.

The trend I'm seeing is more talk about irrelevant things like race and sexual orientation than ever as a direct result of CoCs appearing in new places. It's a clear practical example of the quasi-paradoxical Barbra Streisand effect.

But it doesn't matter, they both broke the rules. Rules does not work like that, unless it specifically mentions that it does so in the rules.

That assumes an equal playing field, which is an easy trap for the uninitiated. Some people are disproportionately skilled with speech and can effectively force the hand of an intervening party with some sly language.

Ok so then please explain what you mean by this sentence, that is where this whole discussion on forks came from:

The only way that I can interpret that is that if there are arguments then forks can happen, but with a CoC everybode will happily work together and forks will not happen to the same degree.

It means that with a CoC in place the decision to fork is slower because everyone involved wants to save face leading up to the fork. The fork will then have a more uncertain future since there aren't as many strong emotions to fuel the fork (as in "yeah we'll show those buggers how bone headed they are when our fork is twice as fast"). In some edge cases those who would otherwise move to the fork will be exhausted from the tensions between both parties and decide to take some time off instead, in turn hurting both sides.

Conflict is seldom pretty but sometimes it's a good thing when it escalates to a fork sooner rather than later. Anger is one of our strongest motivators you know, with proper direction it can move mountains. Or an example closer to our worlds, replace MINIX. If MINIX hadn't frustrated Linus all those years ago then we wouldn't have had Linux today.

[F.Ultra]

You're missing my point, but this brings up another issue. How exactly would you intend to use the written rules as a defense against an unwritten one? It's almost as if you're implying unwritten rules cease to exist once you have written ones.

If you have explicit written rules then yes the unwritten ones cease to exist. Or do you think that you can be brought to a criminal court in any western country for breaking an unwritten rule?

It's completely out of context because "perverted framework of American behavior" was referring to "I very much don't give two shits about who you are, and especially not what you do in bed, [...]". You're trying to make it seem like I said the framework of American behavior in general is perverted. In doing so you infer that Debian would lose their sponsors unless their sexual habits were taken into account in the CoC, which I'm having an extremely hard time trying to believe.

No I didn't claim that you said that American behaviour in general is perverted. My point was that the rules have an American slant due to Debian having to abide to American corporate policy which to many of us Europeans can sometimes be seen as somewhat "perverse" (like e.g nipplegate which would be a complete nonissue over here).

I can turn that argument around and ask you if by some inherent law they must leave unless Debian would actively seek out political correctness? There's another philosophical question here as well; are they really merely sponsors if they are allowed to dictate the politics in your project? To me that sounds more like adopting a management. I.e. a community project going corporate.

Corporations are quite quick to leave when they believe that they might be connected to projects that are not behaving to their internal policies, look at the whole adpocalypse on Youtube for a reference on how this happens.

Again you're not following what I say:

1. Bob baits Alice into retaliation with an irrelevant argument
2. Alice replies to the irrelevant argument
3. Bob shifts the topic to bait Alice into more trouble using Alice's reply
4. Carl steps in and bans Alice
5. Bob has one less opponent

Is it more clear now?

So here Alice just had to break the rules of the CoC in her reply? Why couldn't she reply to the "irrelevant argument" without breaking the CoC? That is an argument against every single rule ever invented on the planet, and yet you probably prefer to live in a country with law and order instead of in a total anarchy like Somalia?

What do you mean "we"? You and I are clearly not the same. I, unlike you, didn't care about politics until CoCs started becoming a threat and take all the joy out of hobby software development.

Also, are you saying that Debian is now some sort of an exclusive group where teenagers in basements are no longer welcome?

The "we" are the open source community. Like it or not but we are no longer a fringe movement but now deeply used by corporations and governments around the world and they expect us to behave civil and like adults.

I don't care about politics when it comes to technical matters either, the problem is not you or I, it's the ones that cannot behave civil and like adults and thus rules are put into place. If all people cared as little about race, sexual orientation etc as we both did then a CoC would never have been needed but we don't live in such a world. Instead of focusing your anger on the result (the CoC) focus on the ass-hats and bullies that created the demand for this in the first place.

You have misunderstood point #2. In this scenario the reasoning behind the ban would indeed be that he didn't do his job. The part Dave in the example is formally contesting in point #3 is the sendoff he got when the ban was delivered. As a result of this John takes the fallout in point #4 while the ban is removed because it contained [insert politically incorrect insult here]. It's far from being an implausible scenario and ill intentions do exist.

But it doesn't matter, they both broke the rules. Rules does not work like that, unless it specifically mentions that it does so in the rules.

I'm still not saying it's preventing or prohibiting forks. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. If you have a genuine interest in understanding my reasoning I suggest you go back and read what I actually wrote, word for word, because I'm not going to type it out for you again. Otherwise you will just keep arguing a straw man.

Ok so then please explain what you mean by this sentence, that is where this whole discussion on forks came from:

Just look at MPlayer; there was almost constant forking because in many respects it was a very capable player with poor management over the codebase. Eventually one of the forks gained enough traction to survive and that's why we have MPV today. Can you imagine if there was a set of rules in place to prevent them from going off at each other? We'd probably be stuck with MPlayer in all of it's single threaded glory with a few random forks for stylized subtitle formats, because nobody would've seen the frustration and subsequent anger from those trying to fix it.

The only way that I can interpret that is that if there are arguments then forks can happen, but with a CoC everybode will happily work together and forks will not happen to the same degree.