Why a linux version is important


#1

Most of people that are willing to experiment new programs and new reality, often use linux based system, for example you can see what happened with programs like Blender that in few years became superior of any other 3d modelling program, and this just because of the participation of the opensource community.

I really would love for example to export all my works inside high fidelity servers, sell and partecipate, but i really don’t want to fight with compiling versions every time. At least i need a stable platform to work with.

Please consider a Linux version of HF


#2

There IS a binary distribution for High Fidelity’s server.

Includes pre-compiled files for the High Fidelity server, provided and updated by repository files.

Now if you mean the raw binaries as packaged for use in an unzipped area, that I can totally understand and would be fine to agree with. I’m not sure how to best get something like that going, so others can jump in on that topic.


#3

The main issue with Linux, is … which Linux?

Not an issue for popular OSS applications as it is more than likely someone will have packaged it for the flavour you prefer. But with more obscure (not to mention Beta) software, this is an issue. Traditionally the source of the software isn’t directly involved in packaging for particular Distributions (except, possibly their own preferred one).

But recently there is a solution (well, as is typical for OSS, a couple of competing solutions) in Flatpak, AppImage and Snappy which can allow a software developer to distribute in a Distro-agnostic format. These will never replace an internal Distro-specific packaging for efficiency and optimisation, but they are not meant to. And where HiFi is right now, development-wise, such fine-tuning would be rather overkill anyway.

I would love to not have to compile my client (which is often a huge headache of chasing silently updated dependencies, and also triples my OS footprint with compilers, headers, dev-libraries, etc.) and would be perfectly happy at this stage with a self-contained package I can just download, unpack and run.

I expect that a good pathway is to start with Distro-agnostic packaging, and if the software gets popular enough on any particular distro, someone deeper into that distro’s packaging system’s entrails will likely do an optimised distro-specific package for that one at that point.


#4

I concur, we finally need an easy to use Linux version. Linux users may be less in numbers, but they are usually a lot more involved in developing and creating. Not to forget there is a lot less competition in the gaming and virtual worlds section in the Linux space. Almost all games and virtual worlds are for Windows only. So lots of underserved users. Many potential HiFi users!


#5

If someone put together a debian build directory for interface, I’d happily keep it working. That’s still a step away from an easy-to-use Linux version, but it’s closer.


#6

I don’t understand what is needed but I want to help. What do you mean with “a debian build directory for interface”? Maybe a bash script to run in Jenkins?
Could I have the debian build directory you use for domain server to adapt it?


#7

Many open source projects include a “debian” directory. For example, look at https://github.com/davidgfnet/whatsapp-purple or https://github.com/dfelinto/blender/tree/master/build_files/package_spec/debian . This directory tells debuild (or whatever you use) how to produce .deb installable archives from the source. They aren’t generally trivial to construct – you have to know a lot about debian packaging and research the various dependencies and boil the build instructions down into something the debian packaging tools are willing to do. More here https://wiki.debian.org/HowToPackageForDebian .