Jump to content



Photo

  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#16 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 17 February 2013 - 15:47

Nobody put that in doubt that Windows 8 was the factor, but they should have at least tested Wubi with Windows 8 and figured out basic issues like this since the hybrid boot is enabled by default on every Windows 8 install (though the issue in the end was also with the hibernation file itself, maybe the hibernation detection was bugged?). Windows 8 has been out for more than 3 months, why didn't they fix the issues or at least put the appropriate warnings?

So Canonical shouldn't be expected to test their windows installer on a version of Windows that has been out for months? Even a simple warning would have been enough but the download page only warns UEFI users and people who buy a Windows 8 LOGO system (UEFI) but my issue had nothing to do with UEFI (that I don't use nor my motherboard supports).


You do realise that Ubuntu 12.10 was released BEFORE windows 8, right?


#17 OP francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 17 February 2013 - 15:51

You do realise that Ubuntu 12.10 was released BEFORE windows 8, right?


You do realize Windows 8 had developer previews, consumer previews, release previews and the RTM was already when Ubuntu was launched? Still this is an unrelated issue: Wubi is a separate download, it could have been updated in the meanwhile. Or they could have simply put the proper warnings rather than telling to install x64 standalone because of UEFI.

#18 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 17 February 2013 - 15:56

Ubuntu only release revised installers for LTE releases, they don't do it for .10 releases. The simple fact is, you're blaming them because you didn't do your homework properly. Linux developers actually work pretty hard on interoperability but like everything it takes time. Microsoft however don't work on it at all, in fact one could just reverse your argument and say it's Microsoft's fault for never bothering to make their bootloaders interface nicely with non Microsoft operating systems.

Next time do your research.

#19 OP francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 17 February 2013 - 16:07

Ubuntu only release revised installers for LTE releases, they don't do it for .10 releases. The simple fact is, you're blaming them because you didn't do your homework properly. Linux developers actually work pretty hard on interoperability but like everything it takes time. Microsoft however don't work on it at all, in fact one could just reverse your argument and say it's Microsoft's fault for never bothering to make their bootloaders interface nicely with non Microsoft operating systems.

Next time do your research.


Yes, it's certainly the user's fault if Canonical didn't bother either updating the software adding at least a messagebox saying "Your operating system is not supported" (how much would that be, 3 lines of code? 1 minute of recompiling?) or at least add a proper damn warning on the download page rather than a confusing one regarding a completely unrelated UEFI issue.

Their release schedules are not a valid excuse, they could have certainly done something about that but they didn't. It's their fault. Stop with the double standards. And no, nobody said Microsoft is better: google "Games for Windows Live Windows 8", fun for everybody!

#20 ViperAFK

ViperAFK

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 07-March 06
  • Location: Vermont

Posted 17 February 2013 - 16:15

Whose fault is it then? It's a Windows installer, not just anyone's but an Ubuntu specific one, shouldn't it be expected to work on Windows?



Good thing I didn't follow the instructions then. I was somewhat expecting all sorts of havoc too, instructions that said to install the whole x86 subsystem on a 64bit platform didn't sound much right.


Installing the 32 bit libs is actually right, because for some reason valve made steam 32 bit only on linux. Ubuntu does support multilib (running 32 bit programs on 64 bit like you can in windows) out of the box, you just need to grab the appropriate 32 bit libraries first, which the installer/software center usually does automagically, not sure why so many people seem to be getting the 32 bit libs error. Did you make sure to install all ubuntu updates before installing steam?

The package downgrading issue is another problem all together and is a problem with valve's steam installer having totally outdated package dependencies. I wouldn't recommend anyone install steam on ubuntu 12.04.2 until valve sorts that out. afiak it should work fine on 12.10 though, it installed fine when I used the beta on 12.10. I've only had problems when installing it on 12.04 LTS. I'm not sure what version you are running.

#21 cybertimber2008

cybertimber2008

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 02-December 08

Posted 17 February 2013 - 16:19

Yes, it's certainly the user's fault if Canonical didn't bother either updating the software adding at least a messagebox saying "Your operating system is not supported" (how much would that be, 3 lines of code? 1 minute of recompiling?) or at least add a proper damn warning on the download page rather than a confusing one regarding a completely unrelated UEFI issue.

Their release schedules are not a valid excuse, they could have certainly done something about that but they didn't. It's their fault. Stop with the double standards. And no, nobody said Microsoft is better: google "Games for Windows Live Windows 8", fun for everybody!

Unfortunately that's how distros work. There was a problem with Fedora 15 or 16 I think where the release .iso version couldn't be put onto a USB stick and was discovered a day or so after release. Even though it was a simple fix (rebuild with a newer version of something), they didn't update the .iso. Instead you had to follow directions to build your own .iso with the updated package, and then it would work.
It might have been much more than 3 lines of code to fix it though, so it might have taken more time (and needed through testing), or just hold off on the fixes until 13.04.

Website note though should have been done.

#22 billyea

billyea

    Your Two Cents

  • Joined: 15-July 06
  • Location: Noitacol

Posted 17 February 2013 - 16:21

Thread summary: It's everyone's fault and Steam on Ubuntu 64 doesn't work without workarounds.
Everyone could've done a bit more testing, but I think the blame here rests more on Valve's shoulders for not setting dependencies right.
As for Ubuntu and Windows not getting along, unfortunately there's no real standard on bootloaders, and Microsoft doesn't want to bother with official support when trying to integrate into GRUB. I can't blame them either, as GRUB is, commercially, a very small minority.

Gaming on Linux still has a ways to go. Someday!

#23 ViperAFK

ViperAFK

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 07-March 06
  • Location: Vermont

Posted 17 February 2013 - 16:21

Unfortunately that's how distros work. There was a problem with Fedora 15 or 16 I think where the release .iso version couldn't be put onto a USB stick and was discovered a day or so after release. Even though it was a simple fix (rebuild with a newer version of something), they didn't update the .iso. Instead you had to follow directions to build your own .iso with the updated package, and then it would work.
It might have been much more than 3 lines of code to fix it though, so it might have taken more time (and needed through testing), or just hold off on the fixes until 13.04.

Website note though should have been done.


Depends on the distros, some distros would probably release a new iso for that type of issue.

#24 +_Alexander

_Alexander

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 21-January 13
  • Location: USA
  • OS: W8.1 u1
  • Phone: Nokia 521

Posted 17 February 2013 - 16:24

Wait why would 32-bit steam not work?

Wait why do Linux users get 64-bit steam?!

#25 ViperAFK

ViperAFK

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 07-March 06
  • Location: Vermont

Posted 17 February 2013 - 16:25

Wait why would 32-bit steam not work?

Wait why do Linux users get 64-bit steam?!


steam is 32 bit only on linux still. The "steam64" package just installs the 32 bit libs and then installs the 32 bit steam.

#26 Javik

Javik

    #GamerGate

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 17 February 2013 - 16:28

Yes, it's certainly the user's fault if Canonical didn't bother either updating the software adding at least a messagebox saying "Your operating system is not supported" (how much would that be, 3 lines of code? 1 minute of recompiling?) or at least add a proper damn warning on the download page rather than a confusing one regarding a completely unrelated UEFI issue.

Their release schedules are not a valid excuse, they could have certainly done something about that but they didn't. It's their fault. Stop with the double standards. And no, nobody said Microsoft is better: google "Games for Windows Live Windows 8", fun for everybody!


And again I repeat

Ubuntu 12.10 was released BEFORE Windows 8. The only double standards are coming from you and the fact that you feel compelled to blame others for the fact that Microsoft cannot write their bootloaders to interact properly with other operating systems. Your attempt to use a feature in an unsupported way is your fault not theirs. If Ubuntu could have done it during their testing phase, why couldn't Microsoft as well? You can guarantee that Ubuntu will probably work properly with the next release alongside Windows 8, but Microsoft will never fix the way their bootloaders break Linux.

#27 +_Alexander

_Alexander

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 21-January 13
  • Location: USA
  • OS: W8.1 u1
  • Phone: Nokia 521

Posted 17 February 2013 - 16:31

steam is 32 bit only on linux still. The "steam64" package just installs the 32 bit libs and then installs the 32 bit steam.

That is sad. To think a game download client, for gamers who for the most part have 64-bit OS, is still 32-bit.

Anyway, I will pass on OP's little adventure as I doubt Linux can emulate DX11 and higher without some performance penalty.

#28 threetonesun

threetonesun

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 26-February 02

Posted 17 February 2013 - 16:31

The warning is for Windows 8 logo systems (because they are mandatorily UEFI) and other UEFI systems, if you click the warning indeed it leads you to the UEFI Ubuntu wiki page. The warning also said to use x64 Ubuntu instead so it's 100% UEFI related (x64 is required for UEFI). My motherboard uses a plain old BIOS (not even an UEFI-wrapped BIOS, a real BIOS BIOS) so if it really doesn't work with Windows 8 they should change the text in the download page because it's unrelated to the real issue: if they only write UEFI or Windows 8 Logo systems (computers sold with Win8 preinstalled so still UEFI) if you don't have neither of the two you expect it to work. Anyway in the end Wubi was actually working, it was the Ubuntu installer that kept getting stuck, I managed to get it to shutdown the third time and it looked like it had some issues initializing the ext4 partition.

Funny fact: the Wubi wikipedia page shows Wubi installing on Windows 8. This is clearly a conspiracy!


The install page simply says "Windows 8 or UEFI": http://www.ubuntu.co...tu-with-windows

Point is, Wubi is terrible and always has been. IMO it's only given people a bad taste of running Linux on Windows PCs.

#29 OP francescob

francescob

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 04-November 08

Posted 17 February 2013 - 16:42

afiak the 32 bit libs error only happens when you try to install steam on a fresh ubuntu install without running ubuntu's update-manager beforehand.


I had the opposite problem, it didn't work on the fully updated Ubuntu (indeed the support page says it breaks with .04). The Valve instructions for Ubuntu only said to install all the available updates first so I made sure that was the first thing I did after installing the OS (would have been foolish to do otherwise even if the instructions didn't explicitly mention that due to how most linux distros manage their libraries). I tried installing Steam when linux was fully updated, first I tried installing it from the link the Valve Wiki had (the .deb file that unfortunately is 32bit only) then from the store where it didn't work either.

Unfortunately that's how distros work. There was a problem with Fedora 15 or 16 I think where the release .iso version couldn't be put onto a USB stick and was discovered a day or so after release. Even though it was a simple fix (rebuild with a newer version of something), they didn't update the .iso. Instead you had to follow directions to build your own .iso with the updated package, and then it would work.
It might have been much more than 3 lines of code to fix it though, so it might have taken more time (and needed through testing), or just hold off on the fixes until 13.04.

Website note though should have been done.


Indeed it would have been perfectly acceptable if they didn't update the installer and just put a warning that explicitly said that Wubi didn't work on Windows 8. The warning on the page is regarding UEFI hence it says to download x64 Ubuntu, had it not been about UEFI it would have said to simply download standalone Ubuntu so it's actually a confusing mess.

And again I repeat

Ubuntu 12.10 was released BEFORE Windows 8. The only double standards are coming from you and the fact that you feel compelled to blame others for the fact that Microsoft cannot write their bootloaders to interact properly with other operating systems. Your attempt to use a feature in an unsupported way is your fault not theirs. If Ubuntu could have done it during their testing phase, why couldn't Microsoft as well? You can guarantee that Ubuntu will probably work properly with the next release alongside Windows 8, but Microsoft will never fix the way their bootloaders break Linux.


No, it's only you that have double standards and keep mentioning the Windows 8 bootloader that nobody talked about and has nothing to do with this discussion. I used a Windows Ubuntu installer, shouldn't it support... I don't know... WINDOWS? If it doesn't support it and the company didn't bother updating it or putting a proper warning on the application or the page rather than one is that is related to UEFI whose fault is it? Who cares if according to their update schedule they update it every 6 months they could have made an exception and do something about it. It's like if after a car ran over you the driver would just came out with "SORRY, I ONLY BRAKE ON TUESDAYS". What kind of argument is that?

The install page simply says "Windows 8 or UEFI": http://www.ubuntu.co...tu-with-windows

Point is, Wubi is terrible and always has been. IMO it's only given people a bad taste of running Linux on Windows PCs.


The download page has a different banner that says Windows 8 logo PCs and UEFI. The banners in both pages point to the UEFI page. Also is everybody sure that Wubi doesn't work on Windows 8 at all? After turning off hybrid boot it actually worked since Ubuntu booted properly (there are several blog/forum pages around that say that Wubi actually works on Win8 if you disable the hybrid boot), it was the install process afterwards that failed

#30 vcfan

vcfan

    Straight Ballin'

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 12-June 11

Posted 17 February 2013 - 16:45

So, from what I got from that.. half the issue was because you had 8.. so if you had 7 it wouldn't have mattered.. then you had issues with ubuntu 64bit and steam. So.. instead of looking up how to fix it (which is to simply download the 32bit libraries) you called it quits.


lol at people blaming windows 8 on the failure of installing a Linux distro.

Whats next, blaming windows 8 because your toilet is clogged?