Why Steam on Linux matters for non-gamers [LWN.net]

Why Steam on Linux matters for non-gamers

Posted Oct 6, 2013 12:27 UTC (Sun) by krake (subscriber, #55996)
In reply to: Why Steam on Linux matters for non-gamers by khim
Parent article: Why Steam on Linux matters for non-gamers

> Users want updates some software fast and most software stable.

Yes, but I didn't claim differently. We were talking about the general update rate of the distribution channel, i.e. time between package being released/uploaded and it being available to users.

My guess is that you are somewhat confused by common channel names.
As I tried to explain before, names like "unstable" do not refer to the stability of the software on the channel, but rather to the lack of fixed update interval.

An "unstable" channel reacts almost immediately to package uploads, a "stable" channel updates its package list at pre-determined dates.

The common app stores are all "unstable" channels, there is no coordination between publishing times of packages of different vendors.

> What about users who don't want it?

Channel selection is the user's choice on a private end user's machine, the administrator's choice in a managed setup.
All are usually available in parallel, e.g. an IT department can chose to use different channels for different types of machines.

(Log in to post comments)

Why Steam on Linux matters for non-gamers

Posted Oct 6, 2013 13:07 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

We were talking about the general update rate of the distribution channel, i.e. time between package being released/uploaded and it being available to users.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I'm talking about user experience from one side and developer experience on the other side. User [naturally] does not want to know about channels, update rates and other such things. S/he just wants to play latest Angry Birds or visit some website using Chrome. Developers want to offer some way to make it possible. Everything else are technical details.

The common app stores are all "unstable" channels, there is no coordination between publishing times of packages of different vendors.

Sure—but this is what users are supposed to use! Last time I've checked Debian's position was that “yes, you can use Debian unstable, but there are no promises”. If users are not supposed to use that thing (except for a brave few) then developers can not use it do deliver their software to the users.

With Android or Windows user can decide if s/he wants Beta release or Stable release (even on corporate phone/desktop… well, if developer offers beta at all, of course), while on Linux user can not even use latest stable version!

Channel selection is the user's choice on a private end user's machine, the administrator's choice in a managed setup.

Do you want to imply that it's perfectly reasonable to install “unstable” on mission-critical server or on CEO desktop? Because it does not look like what Debian project implies from their explanations.

All are usually available in parallel, e.g. an IT department can chose to use different channels for different types of machines.

Well, that makes sense for the OS, but why should “an IT department” decide what kind of software must be installed there. An IT department decides what should be installed here, of course, but then individual teams decide if they need MSVC 2010 or MSVC 2012, e.g. Note that both of them go on top of Windows 7 because Windows 8 (released almost year ago, remember?) is considered “too new and too risky”. With Linux there are no such choice: either one need to pick “you are on your own” unstable channel or one is stuck with years old programs.