From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
The popular opinion is that it was easier for them to get up-to-date packages that way.
My opinion: It's just what the people working on the Deck were using at the time themselves.
Other reason might be that they had SteamOS 2 based on Debian and probably had some problems with it that they could solve on Arch more easily.
Arch packaging is also significantly easier to work with in my experience. I've packaged for both for some years and I'll take the Arch build system over wrangling dpkg every chance I can.
Totally agree. Arch is actually a really good, simple system. That's why so many people pick it as their main distro. Once you have installed it a few times, it's just very simple how it works. There is no magic.
The difficulty with arch is not get it up and running. It's about keeping it up to date. Do you have selinux enabled? I like selinux and among other things that's what fedora bundles for me. I could do everything myself but not only do I have to know the state of the art today, I also will have to know what's up tomorrow. I have to keep up with it. That is the difficulty with arch. Selinux is just one example but probably a prominent. I bet many people running arch have not installed it.
How is keeping Arch up-to-date hard? Because there are a lot of updates?
I found Arch to be easier to maintain than any other distro I use. Everything is managed by the package manager ( no snaps, no flatpaks, no PPAs ). Updates are frequent but small and manageable. There are really no update “events” to navigate. And everything is current enough that I never find myself working around missing features or incompatibilities. I found it to “just work”.
I am not sure how your first point relates to SElinux. SELinux is part of the Red Hat ecosystem which is why Fedora uses it. It is not new ( SElinux may pre-date Arch Linux ). Whether you have it installed or not has nothing to do with how hard the system is to maintain. Default Debian installs do not use it either. Most Linux distros don’t. Ubuntu and SUSE use AppArmor instead.
I do not use SElinux on desktop but it makes sense for a server. The Arch kernel includes SElinux support so all you have to do is install the package if you want it. Generally, Arch gives you a newer version than Fedora does.
+1 to this. I built a few deb packages at a previous company. It was a solid packaging suite but good lord was it a pain to work through
I feel like this is the answer. if you've ever had to maintain a build pipeline or repository for .deb or .rpm, it's not exactly pleasant (it is extremely robust, however). arch packaging is very simple by comparison, and I really doubt they'd need much more.
For KDE, Valve found it easier to work with KDE devs than GNOME devs.
Big surprise.
Doesn't kde work on debian? I haven't used it on the desktop in ages, but that seems odd.
On second thought, they may not have the most up-to-date version. So maybe it's that.
And if steam could make a Qt client while they're at it...
Of course it does. OP asked multiple questions, this was sipposes to answer why they used KDE instead of Gnome. I personally think Arch would have the advantage of having the newewst drivers, Proton version etc. available.
Gaming support is still very much a work in progress all up and down the software stack. Stable distros like Debian tend to ship older proven versions of packages so their packaged software can be up to 18mo behind current releases. The NTSync kernel code that should improve Windows game performance isn't even scheduled for mainline merge until the 6.10 kernel window in a few weeks - that's not likely to be in a stable Debian release for a 12-18mo.
TL;DR: Gaming work is very much ongoing and Arch moves faster than Debian does. Shipping 12-18mo old versions of core software on the Steam deck would degrade performance.
It's pretty common to use debian unstable as a base. stable is not the only release that debian offers, and despite their names they tend to be more dependable than other distros idea of stable.
$ awk -v k=$(uname -r) '/^NAME=/{gsub(/^NAME=|"/, "", $0);print $0,k}' /etc/os-release
Debian GNU/Linux 6.7.12-amd64In my experience, Debian unstable has been less stable than "pure" rolling release distributions. Basing on unstable also means you have to put up with or work around Debian's freeze periods.
As for why they adopted KDE, they probably discovered how hard it is to work with Gnome developers.
Why would you ever need such a feature? Closed.
I shared a green text recently that said just this lol
Since the start. Forget working with them, it's a rough go to even try and communicate with them.
And that goes back to mailing list days, creating a personal grudge against Gnome so firm that I haven't used it since the early 2000s.
Thankfully there's KDE for my general use and a wide variety of lightweight options for other uses.
I remember in an interview talking about the Steam Deck and its controls, GabeN said (paraphrased) "What we learned from the Steam Controller is there needs to be zero learning curve. Players want to pick it up and understand it immediately."
Given that ethos, it's not difficult to understand adopting KDE over Gnome. Most of Valve's customers are coming from Windows, and KDE resembles Windows' UI, where Gnome resembles iOS after a stroke.
Games need to live closer to the bleeding edge than a lot of other software.
Also, for wine/proton, and the other customisations built into the deck, it makes sense to pick a starting point that is more built for customisation. By that I mean there was probably less things they needed to add or remove at the start.
As mentioned, it's also likely there was personal bias internally. But even that can be a valid reason as they need to be familiar/comfortable with the starting distro.
Not saying that Debian cannot do it, but doing it this way probably made valve's employees lives easier.
It was based on debian, but moved to arch.
I think they did it because honestly, arch is better for desktop-usage due to its rolling-release model.
Bugs in debian stick around forever.
I don't think that's a good point, since they make their own immutable images, so they can use whatever versions of software they want, and you don't normally get to update them with the rolling release
Yeah but what's the point of using Debian when you're going to have to manually package newer versions of a lot of software?
All of the things others have said are excellent points, I would also like to point out that if you go to the steam hardware survey and select Linux only you'll see that Arch is the most used distro (after SteamOS), and that was also the case when the Steam Deck was announced in July 2021 https://web.archive.org/web/20220806051441/https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
And from my personal experience there's a reason for that, other than the I use Arch btw meme, despite most ports having Ubuntu in mind, and despite Ubuntu being the more user friendly distro, games just work on Arch. It's a weird thing where gaming on all of my arch machines is very painless, but gaming on the Ubuntu ones is frustrating, there's always something not right, it feels like the machine is chugging, or the driver decides not to work, or the game shows a black screen, or prime decides not today, etc, etc. I admit this is personal experience, and others might have the exact opposite, and that this is kind of biased because as a general rule people who use Arch tend to be more knowledgeable about Linux than people who use Ubuntu, but from replying on several Linux forums it's generally people with Ubuntu that have problems with games and people with Arch usually report that "it just works" for them.
Reminds me of the time I had a nvidia GPU laptop and was distro hopping like a rabbit on crack trying to find something stable. Surprisingly enough it was Arch that proved to be the most stable and what I ended up sticking to.
the deck isn't some server that needs > 100% uptime for years. Debian is poopoo for bleeding edge game releases, especially any alpha/beta/early access stuff
[...] anyone know why Volvo went in this direction?
So noone is talking about Volvo?
Other than that, SteamOS started with Debian and switched to Arch last minute before the steam deck released.
Volvo probably trying to cast off their reputation for being "safe ang boring" and take on a more edgy image.
Ditching Internal combustion in favour of steam power is also a major shift for them.
Rolling release, quicker updates for gaming, and pacman is an extremely fast package manager, which is why OpenSUSE Tumbleweed wasn't chosen. KDE probably because touch screen works better on it and maybe they found switching between desktop and big picture mode to be a better transition
In early Steam Deck showcase videos there were talks with Valve guys like Lawrence Yang, and IIRC they simply said that it is easier for them to build the system that way, not that they couldn’t continue using Debian.
I think the reason for that might be that Debian has pretty strict package and dependency policies and sometimes it’s not easy to put cutting edge solutions on top of the „stable” base, so they would end-up using unstable/sid anyway, which still isn’t ideal as there is some freezing happening every now and then. Also Debian packaging system feels quite dated and strict comparing to PKGBUILD format, and it’s simply easier to build custom packages, having single build instruction file is super convenient and unlike with Debian at times, replacing whatever core system packages without breaking half of the dependency tree is usually easily doable on Arch.
Another point for KDE might be that it works much better on a small screen that may be partially obscured by an overlaid keyboard. I used Bazzite Gnome for a while on the Steam Deck and I much preferred Plasma on there after switching back, despite using Gnome on my main system.
For the KDE part, something I haven't heard most people mention is the wayland support and how fast they are to pioneer and implement new protocols. DRM leasing is the reason why Gnome can't do VR games and I forget why they wouldn't implement it, but the why doesn't really matter for a company focused on gaming. There are quite a number of protocols that have followed this same story with Gnome.
Debian was planning on dropping 32 bit support and Steam is still a 32 bit application so valve freaked out.
Arch gets faster driver updates, KDE is faster at developing Wayland protocol implementations.
Edit: Valve gets their desired stability by turning Arch into a point release distro through image based releases. And, the system is practically unbrickable since it's immutable. So, in summary it's the best of both rolling release and point release models. By best, I mean for gaming.
SteamOS, which is what is on the Deck, used to be Debian-based. The creation of the Deck led to an environment where a rolling distro was a better choice.
I suspect KDE because most PC gamers are Windows users and KDE is closer to that while Gnome is closer to macOS (both in design and being restrictive).
I believe SteamOS is also immutable and uses a rolling release model. It’s probably logical to make a custom version of Arch. They can make it immutable and still get the latest packages. Fedora Silverblue (or another immutable Linux distro) wouldn’t be as quick to release packages and was probably in alpha when the decision was made.
I suspect KDE because most PC gamers are Windows users and KDE is closer to that while Gnome is closer to macOS (both in design and being restrictive).
For what it's worth, when I moved from macOS to Linux I found that KDE Plasma customisation made it less frustrating to get the appearance and multitouch gestures closer to what I was missing on a Mac.
I know this is silly and I can make KDE do this but at some point, my workflow became a mouse to the top left corner to get an overview and get all the windows so I can swap programs. It started with Gnome 3 years ago, and as far as I know, macOS copied hot corners in a way that’s worse in that it requires changing settings.
The other part of my workflow is pressing a remapped CAPS Lock control or whatever and tilde for my terminal to come out guake style. I use ddterm in gnome.
If I can’t switch windows and call up a terminal guake style, I’ll retire.
The macOS version of it also sucks because you can’t close windows from “Mission Control” or whatever they call they call their Gnome clone. Put an X on each window whereas Gnome lets me do that and clear old shit out the way when I need to.
The bottom line is that when I really need macOS, it’s built into the settings. Gnome is effortless. Windows is a constant battle.