The big problem of Proton

[Yazloz]

I would like to play all my Windows games on Linux.

Now I have got Windows 7 with Ryzen 7 2700x and Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti. I don't want to install Windows 10.

Windows 10 has got telemetry and is a great spyware, I don't want this, but What is my alternative? Ubuntu 18 works well with working programs but not with games.

Proton has got good performance and give enough fps in games to considere it like an alternative.

I only have one problem with Proton, the big problem of Proton, that is the FrameTime and in consecuence, the input lag. Is awful to play with bad frametime and 60 solid fps.

When you play on competitive Linux games, you can't manage this frametime, and in single games frametime is annoying.

Solve it and I will pass to Linux. I think that a lot of people think the same and they go back to Windows for these reason.

[rusty_dragon]

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

Also Ubuntu has telemetry as well, so better use true corporation-free distributives like Devuan.

The tool that Ubuntu uses to collect the telemetry data is open source:

https://github.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-report

And it asks for permission first, during the installation process.

The main point of Devuan is that it doesn't use systemd. So I guess you're implying that any distro using systemd is not "truly corporation-free" simply because systemd itself was created by a corporation (Red Hat). Is that accurate?

FWIW, systemd is also open source:

https://github.com/systemd/systemd

If telemetry is open-source doesn't mean it's anyhow better.
Open-source is just a code. It's like saying that DRM-Free equals lack of spyware.

Systemd is a corporate tool of control Red Hat enforce over linux distributions to destroy competitors and enforce own agenda over development of Linux and it's sub-system/modules. SystemD is neither good, nor being developed with Unix philosophy in mind.

Red Hat has strong ties with Microsoft as well.

[rusty_dragon]

Originally posted by Yazloz:

Originally posted by Rogue:

The tool that Ubuntu uses to collect the telemetry data is open source:

https://github.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-report

And it asks for permission first, during the installation process.

The main point of Devuan is that it doesn't use systemd. So I guess you're implying that any distro using systemd is not "truly corporation-free" simply because systemd itself was created by a corporation (Red Hat). Is that accurate?

FWIW, systemd is also open source:

https://github.com/systemd/systemd

Richard Stallman doesn't trust in Ubuntu today because Ubuntu has got private software. I think that is better to install Ubuntu than Windows 10.

About telemetry, I think that Ubuntu asks you if you want to report data or not.

If you want to get rid of corporate crapware, better to get rid of it all together.
Ubuntu is company that wants to be Microsoft of linux. It does nothing for development of Linux and only makes money on the work of others.

Ubuntu has became popular just because it's been heavily forced and promoted back in 00s as "desktop Linux distributive" "distributive that makes Linux popular for masses" etc. Entire company's business is made on self-promotion.

[Dag]

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

Originally posted by Yazloz:

Ubuntu has became popular just because it's been heavily forced and promoted back in 00s as "desktop Linux distributive" "distributive that makes Linux popular for masses" etc. Entire company's business is made on self-promotion.

I've tried many distros over the years but found that Ubuntu was the one that worked better out-of-the-box than all the other distros *I tried*. However, I still dual booted WinX/Ubuntu for a few years, partly because of Unity, and with every release, Ubuntu was slowly getting better and better.

When Ubuntu 16.04 LTS was released I switched from dual boot to only booting 16.04, and here I am, four years later still using it daily as my work PC, running Steam with Proton, and developing a Vulkan game engine on it. (DELL E6230)

I think that VALVe chose Ubuntu because, yes Canonical is good at marketing, but it was / is *the* Linux distro that has consistently worked the best - *for me* - as a replacement for a Windows based desktop and *probably* for a lot of other people as well.

I think that one of Linux's strengths (bar no windows style telemetry / tracking etc) is that you can still run Steam on another distro if you're prepared to deal with any issues that will cause, but at least you have a choice. And if you really want to have a gaming OS, well there's SteamOS which you can install to a gaming rig etc.

Just my two cents... :-)

[rusty_dragon]

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

If telemetry is open-source doesn't mean it's anyhow better.

It's optional and you can ensure nothing shady is going on by studying the code. 67% of Ubuntu users agreed to share their data, and the data was made public:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/linux/ubuntu-reveals-desktop-telemetry-for-the-first-time/

It's enabled by default, one of the reasons why people been agreeing to it. Also as a side-effect it socially justifies to giving up you right on privacy. You can do much more shady stuff by cross-linking this data with other data.

Originally posted by Rogue:

That being said, I can totally understand not wanting to use Ubuntu, but it's the only distro (other than SteamOS) that Valve officially supports.

That's a popular misconseption. And an example how Ubuntu makes their business through promotion. Valve has initially been working with Ubuntu, because they've thought it's a right thing to work with "most popular" linux distribution and a commercial company instead of some committee like Debian. But shortly after that Valve has switched from working with Ubuntu to working with Debian.

Same was with Gog, when they even used Ubuntu logo instead of Tux at the launch of linux support.

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

Open-source is just a code. It's like saying that DRM-Free equals lack of spyware.

"DRM-free" doesn't give users the right to study or modify the code. Open source does.

Thanks, captain.

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

Systemd is a corporate tool of control Red Hat enforce over linux distributions to destroy competitors and enforce own agenda over development of Linux and it's sub-system/modules. SystemD is neither good, nor being developed with Unix philosophy in mind.

Sounds like FUD. How did Red Hat force all these other distros to adopt it? I understand that systemd violates the Unix principle of "do one thing and do it well", but what are the other reasons to avoid it?

They've forced it with creating systemD evangelists with Poettering in the lead. There were big scandals with implementing systemD in almost every distributive. For example in case of Debian there was divide inside dev community, and systemD evangelists been sabotaging votiing multiple times. Original creator of Debian was very unsatisfied with adding systemd.

The problem with SystemD is not it's existence, but how it's been forced upon users as the only solution. There are multiple technical reasons to avoid it. It has horrible logic that changes from release to release, forcing you to re-learn it. It's bloated and unnecessarily complicated to understand. It's not Posix-compatible. Poettering promoting cretin idea that Posix be damned. There are no advantage to use it over other init systems, it's just worse to use because it's harder to maintain. People write long articles going in-depth why this whole situation is wrong. I can link you some if you want to.

And it's not like "haters" or "tinfoil cospiracy" proponents being against it. There are lots of people having real life problems in the end.

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

If you want to get rid of corporate crapware, better to get rid of it all together.

Why stop at Ubuntu or systemd? Better get rid of Steam and your library of 400 games too.

Because there are corporations that play along the rules, and there are one that are vile and predatory towards people. Red Hat went to the dark side years ago. The reason why I adwise against Ubuntu and systemD is pretty simple. Why learn things that can damage you, if you have ability to avoid them from the start.

[rusty_dragon]

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

It's enabled by default, one of the reasons why people been agreeing to it.

Not exactly, It asks you during the installation:

"Would you like to send this information?

Yes, send system info to Canonical
No, don't send system info"

Here's a screenshot:

https://www.bleepstatic.com/content/posts/2018/06/22/Ubuntu-report-tool.png

And it's enabled by default. ;)

Originally posted by Rogue:

That's not the same as a setting being enabled by default and tucked away in a menu somewhere, which is what they used to have in 12.10.

Because community been heavily criticizing for doing so. If a fraudster have started following the law requirements after being caught, doesn't mean people should encourage him for doing so.

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

That's a popular misconseption.

It's stated by Steam support:

"Important:

Currently, Steam for Linux is only supported on the most recent version of Ubuntu LTS with the Unity, Gnome, or KDE desktops."

https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=1504-QHXN-8366

Steam KB articles often being outdated. At first Steam Client was indeed made for Ubuntu only and people had problems with just running it on other OSes. Now we don't have any problem with support. And Valve being Ubuntu partners is just a result of history. SteamOS is Debian based and Valve are maintaining some of Debian packages, not Ubuntu one.

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

Because there are corporations that play along the rules, and there are one that are vile and predatory towards people. Red Hat went to the dark side years ago. The reason why I adwise against Ubuntu and systemD is pretty simple. Why learn things that can damage you, if you have ability to avoid them from the start.

I feel like you missed the point. The line you've drawn is arbitrary. People have different opinions as to what is acceptable and what isnt.

Well, any argument is arbitrary to the point you can turn things upside-down. Murderer is a great husband and killed this man for the greater good.

People accept lots of BS in their life. It's not an objective criteria.

While line I've drawn is objective from a perspective of Linux user community. Corporations that make money on Linux not necessary make anything for Linux or it's community. It's understandable, they have different interests and goals. But when they intentionally make harm and create corruption through subversion, it's a different story.

There are facts:

• Red Hat has created a tool of market control(systemD) and forcefully pushed it over most of Linux Distributions.
  
• Red Hat has created(or funded) community of evangelists and subvert Linux community for own liking, corrupt it and divide it.
  
• This tool has no benefit over solution it's replaced. Otherwise it's unstable and unreliable for production, adds additional unnecessary complexity to learn and maintain it.

So from perspective of Linux community and company's customers Red Hat is objectively destructive company that spoils product and market for their own benefits(or as they believe would be beneficial).

You can say, that and old Red Hat admin may say: hey, I know this company for years, love their product they should be good guys. And he'll accept. But from objective perspective systemD is a bad product, no one have asked for, a serious catastrophe on many levels. And I don't go overly dramatic here, it's a real problem, and we only starting to see it's consequences.

[andrew]

what version of proton do you use? there is the default beta then you can go down for two or three different versions there .

[Cybertao]

Damn, that's some crazy ♥♥♥♥ about systemd. What's next, the evils of vaccination and climate controlling chemtrails?

[Tim]

Originally posted by Cybertao:

Damn, that's some crazy ♥♥♥♥ about systemd. What's next, the evils of vaccination and climate controlling chemtrails?

[Admiral Uflg]

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

Also Ubuntu has telemetry as well, so better use true corporation-free distributives like Devuan.

The tool that Ubuntu uses to collect the telemetry data is open source:

https://github.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-report

And it asks for permission first, during the installation process.

The main point of Devuan is that it doesn't use systemd. So I guess you're implying that any distro using systemd is not "truly corporation-free" simply because systemd itself was created by a corporation (Red Hat). Is that accurate?

FWIW, systemd is also open source:

https://github.com/systemd/systemd

systemd is metaproprietary software. It is developed under open source license but it designed for vendor lock-in. The only real developer is RedHat because nobody else can support this bunch of nonsense. Even Lennart Poettering said there is no resources to fix bugs. Most of independent engineers are unhappy to see systemd in action. I recommend you to look more in the following website (arguments listed in the website is just a tip of the iceberg): http://without-systemd.org/

[Admiral Uflg]

Originally posted by Rogue:

Sounds like FUD. How did Red Hat force all these other distros to adopt it? I understand that systemd violates the Unix principle of "do one thing and do it well", but what are the other reasons to avoid it?

It was pretty simple. Significant part ot Debian technical commitee at the moment of voting "for systemd" were RedHat representatives. They sabotaged any alternative options including "let everyone use init system they want" and tried to kick out Ian Jackson (the engineer who proposed neutral options). The only independent distro adopted systemd is ArchLinux. Thus, there is no "all these other distros".

[Admiral Uflg]

Originally posted by Rogue:

It's stated by Steam support:

"Important:

Currently, Steam for Linux is only supported on the most recent version of Ubuntu LTS with the Unity, Gnome, or KDE desktops."

https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=1504-QHXN-8366

Does it mean Steam doesn't work with other distros? Besides, SteamOS is basically Debian with Steam and Valve's repository.

[rusty_dragon]

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

Because community been heavily criticizing for doing so.

In other words, they listened to the community. ;)

In my opinion, Canonical violated user's trust. At that point I stopped using Ubuntu. But many people still use it or use distros based on it. Why begrudge them for doing so? You risk alienating people with that attitude. It's still better than using Windows 10.

If Canonical has violated users trust, clearly intentionally put hidden telemetry in place, why you turn things around and call it "listened to community"? Just like managers like to turn things upside down to hide own crap.

I don't begrudge or alienate people. I advice them to use a system without corporate spyware and crapware. What is the point of adopting distributive that has known flaws, when you can start with one that is totally free of them from the beginning?

The only side that benefit from adopting flawed software products are corporations. Classy example of it being presence of big software corporations in universities. They give away free or discounted copies of own proprietary software as a first dose to get students hooked.

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

Steam KB articles often being outdated. At first Steam Client was indeed made for Ubuntu only and people had problems with just running it on other OSes. Now we don't have any problem with support.

Well, in this case it's not outdated. It's not that Steam doesn't work on other distros; it does. But if you're running some other distro, and have a distro specific issue, Valve may not be able to help. There are several distro specific issues on Valve's Github, as well as issues that only affect certain DEs/WMs. The Steam Runtime is still based on Ubuntu 12.04, and that causes ABI incompatiblity:

https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-for-linux/issues/4768

Developers who port to Linux often target the Steam Runtime and test on Ubuntu. Other distros occasionally need to apply game specific workarounds. Some distros have modified their Steam package or provide additional packages to ensure compatibility.

Again. SteamOS is Debian-based distro, Valve are maintaining set of Debian packages. What you are talking about is minor legacy compatibility problem with Steam Runtime collection of libraries. And surprise-surpirise, recent versions of Ubuntu have same issues with libstdc++6.

Please don't spread misinformation that Ubuntu is the only distro supported by Valve "officially".

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

While line I've drawn is objective from a perspective of Linux user community.

You don't represent the entire Linux community though. If something is only true from a certain perspective then it cannot be described as "objective".

Where have I said that I represent entire Linux community? I've said that systemd objectively makes nothing good from the perspective of Linux user community. Individual people or even mass of them can sincerely believe that product X is doing any good for them. While in reality it does absolutely nothing, otherwise make things more complex.

[Cybertao]

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

Again. SteamOS is Debian-based distro, Valve are maintaining set of Debian packages. What you are talking about is minor legacy compatibility problem with Steam Runtime collection of libraries. And surprise-surpirise, recent versions of Ubuntu have same issues with libstdc++6.

Take a look at the ubuntu12_32 and ubuntu12_64 folders in your Steam installation. They take up 1.3GB of space.

Steam and 'native' game support is not only limited to Ubuntu, it's limited to Ubuntu 12. Forever. What SteamOS uses has no technical relevance as it's just something to install Steam (with Ubuntu 12 inside) on.

[rusty_dragon]

Originally posted by Rogue:

Originally posted by rusty_dragon:

There are facts:

• Red Hat has created a tool of market control(systemD) and forcefully pushed it over most of Linux Distributions.
  
• Red Hat has created(or funded) community of evangelists and subvert Linux community for own liking, corrupt it and divide it.
  
• This tool has no benefit over solution it's replaced. Otherwise it's unstable and unreliable for production, adds additional unnecessary complexity to learn and maintain it.

Here's an explanation of why systemd was adopted by Arch Linux from an actual Arch developer:

https://old.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/4lzxs3/why_did_archlinux_embrace_systemd/d3rhxlc/

Well.. Developers can be wrong as well as any other human.

I'll try to group his points by key ideas.

* systemD is faster than init.

In fact it's not. Originally systemD was aggressively promoted reposting everywhere few benchmarks that''s been showed better performance. Later when people actually started to making own comparisons, turned out those original benches were wrong. And now systemD evangelists trying to hide under the rug fact that initially systemD has been promoted as faster solution. But damage was done, and many people remembered false information that systemD is faster.

* systemD is easier to configure and maintain.

False, totally false. Init scrips are made with KISS principle, they are easy to read, understand and maintain for any Linux user. While systemD is a bloated monolithic system: complex and very unpredictable.

*

Lack of confiurability. It was impossible to change the behaviour of initscripts in a way that would survive system updates. Systemd provides good mechanisms with machine-specific overrides, drop-ins and unit masking.

Well, no. Configurability is worse for systemD. Because behavior of systemD is not clear in a form of simple scripts like on you have with init. Yes, you can't simply migrate init scripts from one version to another. But truth is seamless updates is utopia. Something always breaks with migration. systemD doesn't guarantee you to keep same functions and behavior from one version to another. Otherwise, it's a vendor lock so they intentionally broke it, and provide solution only to Red Hat's business partners. Since systemd is changing, you need to re-learn it each time, instead of just fixing simple scripts.

Also changes to init scrips are always custom work, which was never intended to be migrated in first place.

* some of his arguments are arguable, being personal preference of how to make X or Y

Nothing bad with that, Linux is about giving choice. The problem happens when you enforce one system over your users without giving them choice. That's the main reason why systemD gets such an active backlash. If it was one of init system to chose from, it would be not of a problem.

* init is full of bugs, which are hard to maintain.

Well, no. He is talking from a perspective of distributive maintainer. Obviously it's a complex thing to watch over scripts and keep it all in mind. But it's a typical job of a maintainer to do so, so he is a bit expressive here, because he had lots of work there.

While systemD itself is full of bugs and Poettering himself been telling they don't have enough resources to maintain.

Fixing those bugs was always complicated and took time, which we often did not have. Delegating this task to a larger community (in this case, the systemd community) made things much easier for us.

Here this arch developer said that they've just went a simple way. And delegate maintenance of initialization system to RedHat. Meaning they don't have own specialists to maintain systemD and fully accepted vendor lock. Became 100% dependent on any changes RedHat would make in systemD. Giving RedHat ability to dictate any rules.

[Zyro]

Originally posted by Admiral Ufolog:

It was pretty simple. Significant part ot Debian technical commitee at the moment of voting "for systemd" were RedHat representatives.

Then please name those people and their affiliation with RedHat.