Search Unity

  1. Unity 2018.3 is now released.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. The Unity Pro & Visual Studio Professional Bundle gives you the tools you need to develop faster & collaborate more efficiently. Learn more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. We've updated our Terms of Service. Please read our blog post from Unity CTO and Co-Founder Joachim Ante here
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Want to provide direct feedback to the Unity team? Join the Unity Advisory Panel.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Improve your Unity skills with a certified instructor in a private, interactive classroom. Watch the overview now.
    Dismiss Notice

Please vote for Universal Linux Package

Discussion in 'Linux Editor' started by t_obrien, Dec 19, 2017.

  1. t_obrien

    t_obrien

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2017
    Posts:
    3
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2017
    mercurysama likes this.
  2. DevLaTron

    DevLaTron

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Posts:
    23
    As posted under the vote, put here for discussion.

    No, sorry, but no. I could potentially see this as an optional, entirely 100% non- required alternate download, but from an Administrative standpoint I do not want this AT ALL.

    I can see that you're coming from a "user" perspective, but these systems are a maintenance nightmare in a larger environment.

    Also, I do not believe the very few dependencies UnityEditor has actually warant the additional overhead of yet another packaging system.

    I don't think it's a good idea to propose complexity onto others for ones own simplicity.
     
    Ryiah and Kitcat490 like this.
  3. t_obrien

    t_obrien

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2017
    Posts:
    3
    You're forgetting the dependencies on the operating system itself. Packaging applications for Linux is hard, really hard. Maybe hear it from Linus instead to perhaps convince you more, have a read the Motivation section of the AppImage readme. https://github.com/AppImage/AppImageKit/blob/appimagetool/master/README.md

    What are the perceived Administrative issues you envision?

    Its a reduction of complexity, not increase. Less code in the Editor developers codebase. AppImage files require absolutely nothing extra to be installed on the system and are completely portable.
     
  4. DevLaTron

    DevLaTron

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Posts:
    23
    You get me wrong in that I think "Application Images" (Fancy new Buzzword for Tech that has been around for 20+ years) are inherently bad. They have their use. But, from a system administration point of view (as in: You, as a user are provided with a system to use, not allowed to tinker around on it), this does add considerable overhead. It requires additional care to provide security updates, and have you seen how often openssl, which nowadays is used everywhere has been patched recently?

    - An administrator would have to check each package for this, as the libraries are bundled and not system wide anymore. And yes, there are Admins out there who do thoroughly check the applications that run on their systems. Not an Issue if it's your machine and your responsibility, but certainly one if not.

    - The "user" isn't involved in any of the process up until "running" the software, so there is no advantage whatsoever on that side for an administrator. Mind you, there are a lot of users with way less knowledge about IT that you and me, like QA, Graphics, Sound, Level Design, who are not capable of sustaining their own OS.

    - How can security for multi user installs be handled in an automated way? Updates (again), specifically?

    - Especially, we'd be giving off dependency management into the hands of (multiple) third parties. This would mean I have to rely on Unity to provide security patches of the libraries they bundled in a quick, and timely manner. Again, nice for the user, but not so for the IT department. It also requires Unity to have someone at hand that actually handles all this, and the state the Linux Editor is in right now, I doubt the strain and responsibility should be put onto the developers at this point in time, as well as the risk of being legally liable/protected for/from the bundled software packages.

    I could go on with a quite extensive list, these are just some concerns from the top of my head, but:

    What I'm saying in short: I don't care if someone (Unity) provides an Application Image of some sort (There is a great abundance of tools for that), and they may be nice for a user environment (a.k.a. "You're the guy that's root, and if you mess up you don't call the IT department), but *as a replacement* this is idea is rubbish, and *does* add ongoing overhead for control, updates, security, and installation checks, while at the same time breaking a set of tried and tested procedures used in a lot of IT departments.

    Also, there is obviously a difference between Trust in Image providers: Chrome >> UnityEditor, for example.

    Edit: Please note that I'm referring to a company setting, in which the technical setup is usually part of a bigger whole and can't be just changed, even if someone would wish to do so. Also, there are some criteria that may seem weird, but are a fact. For example, "trusting" a software source usually translates into "will insurance cover it or can we sue" in such a setting, with policies in place to ensure this.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2017
  5. t_obrien

    t_obrien

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2017
    Posts:
    3
    Funny how we've been administering Mac and Windows installations for years that have packaged applications already.

    Your argument doesn't really hold water. Development systems != production systems. Besides, Snaps and Flatpaks can be sandboxed, anyway.
     
  6. DevLaTron

    DevLaTron

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Posts:
    23
    Sorry, but WhatAboutIsm doesn't really work on me. On the contrary, it's the main point WHY we're running Linux instead of Windows and Macs.

    I'm not even remotely talking about Dev vs Prod. environments. I'm talking about businesses that consist of enough people to have an IT department with clear rules and system guidelines. Which means, that the EMPLOYEE may NOT administrate or change their work terminals, for example for security reasons.

    This just shows that your idea isn't thought through and tries to just impose your own scenario onto others not caring for any other use case, even if presented to you with alternatives.

    Not very encouraging, tbh.

    Do you want to force Unity to support OSes (The one you are using) they don't at the moment through this change? If so, why not instead ask them directly for this?
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2017
    Muhamad_Faizol and Ryiah like this.
  7. MR4Y

    MR4Y

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2014
    Posts:
    1
    This would be extremely useful. On some distros, like Arch, you have to install and compile things that have a very high potential of wrecking your entire system, like several video drivers (proprietary and open) and such.
     
  8. pshem

    pshem

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2015
    Posts:
    1
    that would be a godsend. Would love to see it as Flatpak. Not only it would allow easy install for all those that really aren't into fiddling with deps, but also would make it easier to separate proprietary and non-proprietary bits (you can have additional runtime that contains all required foss components).
    But note I'd love to see it not as a replacement but as an option (I get it - some folks like to have a fine tune control over libs version in their system and love to spend hours tinkering with it).
     
    tessiof likes this.
  9. tessiof

    tessiof

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2017
    Posts:
    5
    Other than that, there are distros like Endless OS that only supports flatpaks.
    My christmas wish is for Unity to be published on Flathub!
     
  10. dhollinger

    dhollinger

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Posts:
    2
    Where are you working where Devs are still forced into a specific development environment. I've been in tech for over 10 years now and not even the old-school InfoSec and Govt companies I've worked for locked computers down that much. They gave us a Security policy and expected us to install the Sys Admin and Dev Tools we needed to do our job. All devs had full Sysadmin/root privileges to their own laptop. In the rare case where help desk would fight it, the CTO would lay the smack down in that the help desk cannot know what every dev and admin team needed to do their work.

    The only thing managed on my laptops at the last 4 jobs were security updates and AV/Firewall.

    I know this is still a thing in some places, but what you're talking about is becoming less and less common as the slower pace of that kind of centralize user application management simply doesn't work as well in a world where dev tools update with bug and security fixes every few days.

    Source: Former Linux Systems Engineer turned Ruby/Go Developer
     
  11. 00jknight

    00jknight

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2014
    Posts:
    25
    Hey there, just chiming in to say that a Snap would be awesome. Lots of proprietary applications have snaps: vscode & spotify come to mind.

    I'd like to be able to easily install Unity on a non-ubuntu system, and using the snap store seems like a great way to do that.

    I'm not sure I understand what the "naysayer" up there is yelling about, that person really needs to work on their communication skills.
     
  12. tessiof

    tessiof

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2017
    Posts:
    5
    If you want to install Unity on "non Ubuntu systems", then what you really want is Flatpak.
     
    FROS7 likes this.
  13. dhollinger

    dhollinger

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Posts:
    2
    Or just go with AppImage and be done with it as it's OS-agnostic and provides the packaged libs that are needed. I don't know enough about gamedev to know how beneficial Snap or Flatpak would have over AppImage, but I do know in traditional dev that Snaps/Flatpaks occasionally have issues where access is needed to libraries that exist in directories that snaps/flatpaks don't have access to (if the app is sandboxed).