Official Unity Hub on Linux

Perfect!

No problem with installation and configuration ; it even located my projects automatically. Thanks a lot!

​

 

GOD NO!!!

Why Unity? Why did you make it a package? This is going to make it pointlessly difficult to install it on non officially supported distributions and adding an extra repo to the package system always has the potential to wreck the whole system. This is not how we should be distributing applications in 2022.

The AppImage worked just fine. Why did you ditch it?

 

Why!???
Now all arch users got f****. thanks a lot unity!
"quality of life" of who? this is worse than before.

 

Exactly. But it's not just that. It is much much worse than just that. Please allow me to explain.

Issue #1: Reliability
Unity is now forcing us to add a package repository to our system in order to install UnityHub. The problem is a package repository has the power to replace ANY package on the system! If Unity's repository is badly configured (either by mistake or malice) then it has the power to destroy the entire system. Now, any time I will update my system, I will have to blindly trust that Unity didn't made any mistake and didn't get hacked. This is the same reason why Ubuntu's PPA suck and why Canonical developed Snap to replace them.

When UnityHub was distributed as an AppImage there was no such problem. Installing it couldn't harm the system.

Issue #2: Easiness
When UnityHub was distributed as an AppImage, all you had to do to install it was downloading it, right click on it and install it. That's it, no extra step required. And yes, that takes care of the integration with the rest of the system (ie put it in the app menu and such). This is how I installed Unity on Ubuntu, Mint, Manjaro, Kubuntu and Neon. It always worked right out of the box.

Now that UnityHub is distributed as a package I have to open a terminal, become root, edit a system config file (which is different depending on the distribution I'm using), add a new line (which is different depending on the distribution I'm using), and type a bunch of commands (which are different depending on the distribution I'm using). If I make a mistake while doing it, I can screw up my whole system! How is this quality of life?

Issue #3: Other distributions and future versions of supported distributions
I know that Unity only officially support Ubuntu and CentOS and I approve of that decision. But if I want to install it on a non supported distribution that's my problem. AppImage is a distribution agnostic method to distribute applications, it works the same everywhere. I managed to install and use Unity on a whole bunch on distributions without issue.

Now that UnityHub is distributed via a package repository there is no way to install it on a non officially supported distribution. There is also no telling if this is going to work on future versions of Ubuntu and CentOS. Package are tied to one specific version of one distribution. If Ubuntu or CentOS decided to rename some package or to change the version numbers and UnityHub depends on those package, then it won't install anymore. Unity devs will have to constantly keep their packages up to date with the changes in their supported distribution. This is extra work for no benefit.

Packages are yesterday!
I know that packages used to be the way to distribute applications for Linux, but this is not true any more. Packages never were a good way to distribute applications to begin with. Linux developers know this. This is why they came up with new and better ways to distribute applications for Linux, namely AppImage, Flatpak and Snap. Unity devs don't have to support them all, they only have to choose the one that fit their needs best.

AppImage was a fine choice. If, for any reason, Unity devs were not satisfied with it, they could just have picked Flatpak on Snap instead (I know that many people dislike Snap for various reasons but it works and that's all that matter here). Distributing UnityHub via a package repository is a HUGE step back. This is not quality of life, it's trouble for everybody, including Unity.

Please Unity, reconsider your decision.

 

why not have both methods? Have it as a package and as an AppImage for non-supported distros

 

The appimage is still available; you can use it until you sort out your problems with the new version: https://forum.unity.com/threads/unity-hub-v2-0-0-release.677485/#post-4936106

 

Problems with the new system will never be sorted out because they are inherent to that system.
Packages shall not be used to distribute third party applications. That's not what they're for.

 

How is the Hub a third party application?

 

The Unity Hub doesn't ship as part as your Linux distribution (Ubuntu, Mint, Arch... whatever you're using). That's why (from your system's point of view) it is a third party application.

Packages are great for things that come with your distribution: kernels, libraries, services, command line tools, desktop environment and basic applications (like the terminal or the file explorer). These things need to be in sync with each others, they need to be updated together. That's exactly what the package system is for.

For third party applications (web browsers, office suits, media players, development tools...), package sucks. You can't expect your Linux distribution to package every applications you will ever need. It isn't Canonical or Red Hat job to package Unity for their distribution. It is Unity's job to distribute Unity to us so that we can install it on our system. That's what AppImage, Flatpak and Snap are for, and that's what Unity should be using.

 

I don't know what Linux distribution you are using but third party packages have never been a problem for me, using Linux mint. Maybe you should try it?
And I'm very happy Unity Technologies didn't abandon their baby to Flatpak!

 

Welp now I can't use the new hub. Why can't the appimage and flatpak versions continue? This limits unity to Ubuntu and CentOS based distros.

 

Neon. It's just plain Ubuntu with KDE. Nothing fancy.

They've been for me each and every time I installed something with a PPA. The pattern is always the same:
1) I need an application that isn't packaged by Ubuntu, or a version that is newer than the one packaged by Ubuntu.
2) The devs of the application provide it via a PPA because they don't know better solutions exist.
3) I add the PPA to my system and install the application.
4) Sooner or later, one of the package offered by the PPA conflict with one of the package on Ubuntu and then I get error when I try to update my system. Best case scenario I manage to purge the PPA (but then the app is no longer installed). Worst case scenario I get a non bootable system.

PPA are just Ubuntu's way of adding new package repository to the system. This is exactly the same thing Unity is telling us to do to install the Unity Hub. I can already predict what's going to happen to Unity Linux users sooner or later. One day one of the package provided by Unity's repository is going to conflict with one Ubuntu package and then they will screw up their system.

PPA and additional package repository (functionally the same thing) are the S***tiest way to distribute Linux applications. Nobody should use that.

Yeah. It wouldn't be fun If we could just install Unity on any distro without having to edit system config files and risking screwing up the entire system.

Because it wouldn't be enough "quality of life" if we could just install Unity with Flatpak like this:



It wouldn't be enough "quality of life" if we could continue installing Unity with AppImage like this:



No, now we have to do it like this:


Hourra for quality of life!

 

@MadWatch Best part is I tried to add the signing key but... its a 443 so the work around to get the public key, is to go to the https://hub.unity3d.com/linux/keys/public and download the pub file. After that open a terminal wherever its downloaded and do sudo apt-key add thepublickey.pub. I do admit though the hub is much better than it use to be it recognizes the project files without having to create a new project then add the existing ones in. Yes it would be nice to open a software manager and install the application, and they are probably working on it.

 

Worst part for me was that I'd just finished with ricing my arch yesterday and noticed that hub told me that updates are no longer given through appimage and I've to use ubuntu or centos based distros, which led to me spending another week of my life in dual-booting mint and getting my dotfiles back, and you know that many software like htop, lolcat now don't even get updated on there distro specific repos. Appimages version was so great. also having distro based packages makes unity provide distro specific binaries which means twice as much time spent compiling. distro based packages are not terrible (most probably coz I've never updated and non rolling distro like mint or ubuntu so I haven't got any conflicts).

 

I really appreciate that there's an official non-beta version of Unity for Linux now, but why is it so hard to install Unity from the terminal? I'm trying to set up a Jenkins build environment but all the old ways of installing Unity no longer work. Attempting direct downloading from https://download.unity3d.com/download_unity/7298b473bc1a/ (version 2020.3.26f1) gives a 403 Forbidden error. UnityHub does not support running from the terminal either, attempting to do this just gives some X11 error.

So please, can we have proper Linux terminal support for CI/CD integration? And no, I'm not going to use Unity Cloud Build.

 

Agree.I really appreciate that there's an official non-beta version of Unity for Linux now, but I agree more with
MadWatch. Why not just use Flatpak or AppImage?

 

There is a Flatpak package already for Unity Hub but it's not supported by Unity Technologies and it's not up to date either.

​

There is a limit to what a company can do to maintain their product; it's normal that Unity Technologies concentrates on a couple of versions instead of spreading themselves. I really find weird that people cannot understand that, or do not want to.

 

Exactly. When the Hub was distributed as a AppImage the Unity devs only had the AppImage to do and nothing else. Now they have to maintain one package for Ubuntu and one package for CentOS, plus one package repository for each. That's more work for them.

 

That's what automated CI/CD build piplines are supposed to be for...

What irks me more is how Unity-Hub 3.x is relying on doing some OAuth2 stuff through the web-browser in order to login to Unity. On my desktop machine (at a time I accidentally got the 3.x-beta installed) this never worke (so I reverted to the 2.4.x version of the hub)

On my laptop the 3.x release acutally did work (but popping up a new tab in Firefox is rather quirky), but for some reason I haven't solved yet, after some updates and rebooting it is combletely borked now!

The application starts, but most of the time doesn't show its window, or I get an empty one. If I run the old AppImage 2.4.x hub (which is also still on my machine), it may decide to open, but lost all of the configurations, and when I select login I get an empty window and cannot login.

I already tried `dpkg-reconfigure` as well as `apt reinstall unityhub`, but no success.

I cannot login to the hub at the moment!

My system is a Lubuntu 20.04 installation.

 

I rebooted the previous kernel again, and the Hub works again (both, 2.4.6 appimage and 3.0.1 ubuntu package).

Linux ludumix 5.13.0-27-generic #29~20.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jan 14 00:32:30 UTC 2022 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
works, and 5.13.0-28 fails.

GPU driver is the same (different DKMS modules, of course):
| NVIDIA-SMI 495.46 Driver Version: 495.46 CUDA Version: 11.5 |

 

The fun continues, but somewhat differently...
I have the Hub running.
I am logged in.
I open a project from the list in the Hub.
Unity opens (2020.3.28f1, I just installed the update and bumped the version for this project).
Unity Editor shows as not logged in and when I click on the login option I get prompted to install the Hub.

 

I had to logout in the Hub and login again.
I quite don't get why the Hub doesn't report the session token having expired by itself.

And this stupid "use the browser for login" only worked when I manually selected "/opt/unityhub/unityhub" as the linked application for it...

 

I'm going to join the plea for Unity, please reconsider using a distribution agnostic packaging format, Flatpak, AppImage or Snap. Every one of those, especially Flatpak and Snap would be miles more user friendly to install for Ubuntu users, than the PPA-deb approach, with the added benefit of not restricting possible users to those supported distributions. You can still keep officially supporting only those distros.

 

Will you try using flatpak? Or even Snaps? Use one of these and you'll only have to maintain one package for ALL distros, you get the best quality, and best compatibility.

 

unityhub won't open.


Xubuntu

 

It works OK in EndeavourOS (Arch based) because there's someone voluntarily maintaining it in the Arch User Repository. You just install it with "yay unityhub".

But I personally saw nothing wrong with the AppImage, it always worked. I wonder why they decided to do that? It shouldn't be hard to provide a small explanation with the announcement...

 

Probuilder is so messed up in linux!

 

I am currently using Mageia linux 8. Even though it is not an officially supported linux distro, the AppImage installer worked without issue, and Unity ran with no issue.

While I have been able to add the UnityHub repository to Mageia, the .rpm will not install because it is built for specifically for another distro.

sudo dnf install unityhub gives the following:

Error:
Problem: conflicting requests
- nothing provides gtk3 needed by unityhub-3.0.1-1.x86_64
- nothing provides libXtst needed by unityhub-3.0.1-1.x86_64
- nothing provides libuuid needed by unityhub-3.0.1-1.x86_64
- nothing provides gtk3 needed by unityhub-3.1.0-1.x86_64
- nothing provides libXtst needed by unityhub-3.1.0-1.x86_64
- nothing provides libuuid needed by unityhub-3.1.0-1.x86_64
- nothing provides gtk3 needed by unityhub-3.0.0-1.x86_64
- nothing provides libXtst needed by unityhub-3.0.0-1.x86_64
- nothing provides libuuid needed by unityhub-3.0.0-1.x86_64
- nothing provides gtk3 needed by unityhub-3.1.1-1.x86_64
- nothing provides libXtst needed by unityhub-3.1.1-1.x86_64
- nothing provides libuuid needed by unityhub-3.1.1-1.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

Idly wondering since the hub is an actual .deb/.rpm package now, if it would work better under FreeBSD using the linux compatibility layer which is based on CentOS.

 

Although i understand the frustration for not having how to install Unity on other distros (except the unityhub-beta aur for Arch/Manjaro) and also being affected by this (i really wanted to try Fedora, but it won't be this time), i understand why Unity made this change.

Even when the Hub was distributed by .appimage, they only stated that they were only supporting Ubuntu LTS, which is wrong both technically and legally. Since UnityHub is distributed in a universal format, technically they are also obliged to support whoever was with problems.

And "supporting" doesn't only mean making the application be in a functional state, it also means troubleshooting/helping someone when they are facing a error in the app.
And because the vast majority of differences some distros can have because of countless factors, it's easier for them to only support one or another of the most used distros, which happens to be the base of other equally famous distros.

But as i said, they were refusing to offer support to those who were using non-supported distros, but still they were distributing the UnityHub to that same non-supported distros, which could backfire one time or another. We already had countless posts here on the forum of someone using Elementary on Linux Mint with some problem, but not receiving any official support since their distro wasn't supported.


Again, i ain't happy with this either, but technically Unity isn't wrong, but i also would like to see that flatpak version of UnityHub being the official one.

 

If you want to try Fedora, just go ahead and do it. The Hub works perfectly there, just add the centos repo and then install it with dnf.

I did it right now and it works flawlessly.

 

Hello.
I have an issue installing the Unity Hub on the latest 22.04.
When I try to open the Hub, nothing happen.
When I run it via the terminal, nothing happen.


I do have an issue if I wait for a long time:

Bug report does nothing.

When I installed the hub, I had this issue, idk if it's relevant or not.


Any ideas?

 

Same issue on Fedora 36 Beta. Appimage or package doesn't matter. The result is the same.

 

I just installed on my brand new ubuntu laptop, the same error message appeared but it works fine. I think the failure is not related to this

 

I've made both a thread and a bug report for this issue: https://forum.unity.com/threads/ubuntu-22-04-hub-wont-launch.1265963/
Looks like it's related to libssl stuff.

 

On my fedora 36 install I had the same issue and I managed to get it working after installing these two packages:

sudo dnf install openssl1.1-1:1.1.1n-1.fc36.x86_64
sudo dnf install openssl-libs-1:3.0.2-3.fc36.x86_64

 

Got a problem with the Hub. I manually downloaded a unity editor tarball from the archive, uncompressed it and tried to add it to UnityHub using the Locate button but it doesn't add it properly, it just imports it with the name of the parent folder of the editor, so if the directory structure is like:

• MyUnityEditor
  • Editor
    • Files...
    • unity (as such, no extension) file

And I try to load that "unity" file, a dummy install is added to my list of editors as "MyUnityEditor", no version number, so I can't use it. Please help!

 

So... Hub doesn't work with Ubuntu 22.04 LTS?

I was using just fine with Fedora 36 which was in Beta, I expected it to work fine on an LTS Ubuntu release... any workaround?

 

It doesn't open or open a window but doesn't show any content



Here is another user that somehow manage to fix but he doesn't know how:
https://forum.unity.com/threads/installing-unity-hub-on-ubuntu-22-04.1271816/

 

How to get Hub 3.1.2 to work on Ubuntu 22.04 LTS
(solution by @tobagind)

Add this repository using the terminal:

and install

Now uninstall the hub if you have installed and install it again by following this guide:
https://docs.unity3d.com/hub/manual/InstallHub.html#install-hub-linux

 

After doing apt update.
I get from the terminal the following:
https://hub.unity3d.com/linux/repos/deb/dists/stable/InRelease: Key is stored in legacy t
rusted.gpg keyring (/etc/apt/trusted.gpg), see the DEPRECATION section in apt-key(8) for det
ails.
Also Unity Hub is not opening. Testing on Kubuntu 22.04 Lts.

Edit: The above coment from Invector helped to open the hub.
Edit 2: Worst decision ever to turn down the app.image. More companies should use app.image as a default.

 

after the first two commands from their guide (at the moment), you have to migrate it out:

1. list all apt keys:
   Code (csharp):

   1. sudo apt-key list
2. copy the last 4 characters of the pub code, so rn its 34E8243F
3. then export the deprecated key into a gpg file:
   Code (csharp):

   1. sudo apt-key export 34E8243F | sudo gpg --dearmour -o /usr/share/keyrings/unity.gpg
4. edit the source file with your editor (nano is my example):
   Code (csharp):

   1. sudo nano /etc/apt/sources.list.d/unityhub.list
5. just after deb, you insert this new tag surrounded by [ ]:
   Code (csharp):

   1. deb [arch=amd64 signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/unity.gpg] ...
6. now you can finally install unity hub:
   Code (csharp):

   1. sudo apt update && sudo apt-get install unityhub

these steps work with a clean install of ubuntu 22.04

 

Thanks, this info helped.
As of May,2022 this helped me fixed the "chrome-sandbox" error.

In Browser:
Sign In to Unity Account

#In Terminal:
sudo yum check-update
yum install openssl
sudo yum install openssl-libs
sudo yum check-update
sudo yum install unityhub

#Run UnityHub in Terminal
sudo unityhub (only sudo the first time)

 

it works

 

Code (CSharp):

1. wget -qO - https://hub.unity3d.com/linux/keys/public | sudo apt-key add -
2. Warning: apt-key is deprecated. Manage keyring files in trusted.gpg.d instead (see apt-key(8)).
3. gpg: no valid OpenPGP data found.

This is what I get after doing the 2nd comand from the guide.
And Update is doing a mess with the certificate validation because of tje key-desprecated.

Code (CSharp):

1. sudo apt-key list
2. Warning: apt-key is deprecated. Manage keyring files in trusted.gpg.d instead (see apt-key(8)).
3. /etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/ubuntu-keyring-2012-cdimage.gpg
4. ------------------------------------------------------
5. pub   rsa4096 2012-05-11 [SC]
6.       8439 38DF 228D 22F7 B374  2BC0 D94A A3F0 EFE2 1092
7. uid           [ unknown] Ubuntu CD Image Automatic Signing Key (2012) <cdimage@ubuntu.com>
8.  
9. /etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/ubuntu-keyring-2018-archive.gpg
10. ------------------------------------------------------
11. pub   rsa4096 2018-09-17 [SC]
12.       F6EC B376 2474 EDA9 D21B  7022 8719 20D1 991B C93C
13. uid           [ unknown] Ubuntu Archive Automatic Signing Key (2018) <ftpmaster@ubuntu.com>
14.  

And this is the output from sudo apt-key list

 

Having gtk deps is normal. You've gotta pick something.

Explicitly supporting exactly one window manager indicates that someone making decisions for your team is barely a Linux user. If you guys understood desktop Linux in the slightest, you'd regard "GNOME only" as a fireably incompetent declaration. Unfortunately, there is no suitable analogy, but I'll do my best:

This is the difference between requiring me to have fonts that support Chinese characters (gtk dependencies) and requiring me to have my OS set to Standard Chinese (GNOME only.)

 

Unity does not depend on GNOME. It's just that it is only tested (officially) with GNOME. I'm using Unity on KDE and it works perfectly. I also successfully tested it or Cinnamon and I know some people use it on XFCE. I don't mind that Unity is only tested on the GNOME desktop. It it works there it will also work elsewhere.

It's been nearly 3 months since Ubuntu 22.04 was released and this issue isn't solved yet (at least to the best of my knowledge). The worst thing is you're going to have the exact same issue next time Ubuntu releases a LTS and next time the Cent OS devs decide to upgrade their system libraries. This is the nature of Linux, it is constantly changing.

@KevinWelton I am grateful for all the work you and your colleagues are doing on the Linux version, but please reconsider the distribution method. Flatpak, Snap and AppImage have been designed to solve this kind of library dependency problem you're having. If you continue distributing Unity as a DEB/RPM you're going to have library dependency problems again and again and again.