Other then be more stable what else LTS edittions have to offer? I mean they have older app versions and that is not plus. And dev’s support updates longer… that’s it? And yes LTS are aimed for PRO use but that is not always case. Back to question, i know that 16.04 LTS support AMDGPU-PRO etc… But for gaming and general use on PC desktops are we again in open vs proprietary discussion?
My guess the reason the producers of Steam prefer an LTS release is precisely because of the predictability of the underlying OS and desktop with an LTS release. This means that the makers of Steam can code their product to perfectly fit that LTS release.
In the case of short term releases, this is where new stuff is introduced. Some of which may be a bit flaky and unpredictable. That is, presumably, not an environment in which the makers of Steam feel able to guarantee a good user experience of their product.
3 Likes
Just as i was thinking. Well, thanks for sharing your opinion.
In a doesn’t-even-have-to-be-perfect Linux world they shouldn’t recommend anything and just make sure they adhere to Linux standards like most distros do. The sort of fragmentation Steam and other proprietary software developers get into may be common practice for them, but it is not Linux turf.
I guess we should be thankful they develop for Linux at all. And on the particular case of Steam, the so-important video gaming industry. But they aren’t doing a good job if this is how they plan to get into this platform. And the business (their business) won’t benefit that much. It’s not that Ubuntu is even today the most used distro out there. And many other distros offer stable fixed and LTS releases.
On the other hand, the recommendation makes little sense. LTS releases offer no guarantee the system will work as intended. Ubuntu, like any other operating system out there, has had its share of long term releases with plenty of issues that had to be ironed out on the subsequent months.
Developer recommendations over systems they have no control over should always be taken with large grains of salt. So I’m surprised these are still being made as if they had any value. Steam works also perfectly fine on (all I used myself), Arch, Mint, Solus, OpenSUSE.
1 Like
Sure enough, LTS releases have issues on the day of release that need to be ironed out over the following few months. But, they can then be regarded as stable. Interim releases are, in my experience, even more unstable on day of release as compared to LTS releases and never get the chance to be fully stabilised before their support ends. Which is, of course, fine if you like bleeding edge software and can live with the glitches. Not fine if you are a company in the business of providing a stable and predictable platform for other producers to sell their wares and for end users to use those wares predictably.
So, for ultimate stability, the option to take, as a user, is to go for an LTS that is halfway through its lifecycle and swap to the next LTS only when it hits the half way point of its lifecycle.
That is more or less what I do myself.
3 Likes
I wasn’t so much making a distinction between LTS and non LTS (although that could warrant a separate discussion), but between the different Linux OS flavours that Steam hints at. This is the current Steam information on supported Linux systems: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=1504-QHXN-8366. You’ll see that their “recommendations” go further than just telling users to choose an LTS option from their distro.
[quote=“marfig, post:6, topic:13610”]You’ll see that their “recommendations” go further than just telling users to choose an LTS option from their distro.[/quote]My recommendation – run the Windows version in WINE. With some proper WINE and Steam configuration, it’ll actually run like a charm. And offer you a larger library of titles to choose from.
Sounds like sane advice to me.
1 Like
I’d VM a Windows system myself, since there is no guarantee you get to run every single game in your library unless you mod it to use DX 9.0c.