We are going through more or less Wine anyway, the libraries on the system don’t matter as long as Wine compiles
Which wine though?
The one pre-packaged by your distro? That doesn’t work because Valve needs to control the version you use and to provide additional stuff not part of vanilla wine.
The one part of proton that is built and delivered to your system by Valve? They would have to compile and support it for every set of dependency versions out there.
One of the core features of containers is process and process memory separation from host.
As far as container technology is concerned, the isolation is configurable. pressure-vessel is most likely using (possibly indirectly) namespaces and/or cgroups to achieve the isolation. I don’t see a technical reason that you can’t disable the isolation of shared memory or any other resource. The issue is whether you are given access to disable it.
According to the docs the runtime is based on flatpak and uses bubblewrap and libcapsule. I don’t know about libcapsule, but I recall that bubblewrap has granular control over what resources it isolates.
We have no control over what they put in those containers.
Apparently, you can modify the container as shown here. But there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to install custom containers alongside the default ones in the same way that you can install custom proton versions. Steam just doesn’t provide the interface for it.
Once they disable the PRESSURE_VESSEL_SHELL=instead we will have no insight into what’s inside.
There already exists an alternative that is “more likely to be extended in future” rather than being removed as shown here. But I believe you would always be able to gain access to the container because it remains a chroot + namespace + cgroup isolation, all of which you can control on your system.
and app developers neither have!
App developers don’t control what’s on your system either. The container is a huge improvement for them because it at least gives them a known target to build for. They can still bundle dependencies in any way that they would on a non-containerized system. There’s no loss of control from their perspective.
if it doesn’t work for some reason (with Wine I don’t really see it happening as what we run doesn’t rely on our OS libraries directly), you can create chroot, additional library packages with old versions, etc.
That’s what pressure-vessel is and as shown above you can modify it. And if you couldn’t it would be a tooling issue, not an inherent container disadvantage.
Worst case scenario, Linux community will figure something out
No, they won’t. Compatibility significantly increased after Valve got involved. In fact, the linux community is porting pressure-vessel outside of Steam to use it across different launchers as umu. The community is headed towards using pressure-vessel for everything.
Now I replied to each claim individually, but it’s not really about any specific point you’re making. The general idea is that there’s nothing inherent to container technology that prevents you from tinkering with it. Anything that you can’t do currently is because Steam is not designed to allow you to do it. It’s got nothing to do with whether Steam uses containers or not. Any control that you’ve lost over your system is because you’re using a proprietary app. They could remove the containers and still prevent tinkering, eg by using a bundled wine with no way for you to modify it or its launch options. It’s not about what Steam does, but about how it does it.
Most of Proton code is Wine. So basically if you have Wine in your system, library dependencies are not an issue anymore, apart from DLLs that some games require
Valve needs to control the version you use and to provide additional stuff not part of vanilla wine
And that is one of the reasons why I expect them to pull the rug at some point. Why are they doing a fork instead of contributing?
The one part of proton that is built and delivered to your system by Valve? They would have to compile and support it for every set of dependency versions out there.
Then why not let us manage Wine runners, like for example Lutris does?
I don’t see a technical reason that you can’t disable the isolation of shared memory or any other resource. The issue is whether you are given access to disable it.
And that is my issue
But there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to install custom containers alongside the default ones in the same way that you can install custom proton versions. Steam just doesn’t provide the interface for it
And that’s exactly my gripe. But I expect it will be easier to push back on using containerization in Proton, than making Valve allow us such control
I believe you would always be able to gain access to the container because it remains a chroot + namespace + cgroup isolation, all of which you can control on your system
I’m less optimistic. I expect they will in the future make it as hard as possible
App developers don’t control what’s on your system either. The container is a huge improvement for them because it at least gives them a known target to build for. They can still bundle dependencies in any way that they would on a non-containerized system. There’s no loss of control from their perspective.
That parenthesis was a tangent on Android Google apps, to show what I am afraid will happen in the future. Currently, in order for Android app to appear in the official Store, developer has to allow Google to repackage their app and sign it with Google key. So while we can inspect what is there in the code of the app in git, we don’t really know what lands on our phones if installed via Google Play
And as for taking the topic back to game developers, when we are talking about games ran with Proton, their known target is Windows anyway
That’s what pressure-vessel is and as shown above you can modify it. And if you couldn’t it would be a tooling issue, not an inherent container disadvantage.
I couldn’t find a way to disable memory separation. And if that’s not available, that is an issue with pressure-vessel, not tools
Compatibility significantly increased after Valve got involved
I think that was only because of additional work spent on games. I haven’t seen an example where a game would not work at all with Wine but would work with Proton. There are improvements on how it runs, of course. But my argument is that if some implementation in Proton makes a game work better, then it should land in mainline Wine
there’s nothing inherent to container technology that prevents you from tinkering with it. Anything that you can’t do currently is because Steam is not designed to allow you to do it. It’s got nothing to do with whether Steam uses containers or not
Yes. But “please, don’t fuck us up” is not something we can enforce
They could remove the containers and still prevent tinkering, eg by using a bundled wine with no way for you to modify it or its launch options
We can always just go back to running Windows version of whole Steam via Wine, as we were doing before Proton
Most of Proton code is Wine. So basically if you have Wine in your system, library dependencies are not an issue anymore, apart from DLLs that some games require
If I have wine on my system and try to run steam-managed proton without any sort of runtime or container, then I’m running proton on different versions of libraries than the ones it was compiled for and tested on. Proton also has additional components which might mean additional dependencies, so your statement is false to begin with.
Why are they doing a fork instead of contributing?
The fork is open source. As far as I know, some contributions do get merged into wine. Valve is also funding work from Collabora which is contributed directly into wine. They cannot contribute the entirety of proton to wine because wine does not want all their contributions. This is a very common situation to arise when someone wants to use an open source project but their goals don’t align.
But I expect it will be easier to push back on using containerization in Proton, than making Valve allow us such control
Valve is never going to rip out a solution that is working great for them and risk causing issues for customers for no good reason. Thinking that Valve are more likely to remove containerization than they are to allow you to modify the container is, frankly, delusional. It’s also completely irrelevant, as I’ve already said. If Valve wants to “fuck us up” then they’re going to do it. Steam is a proprietary piece of software that supports DRM for all your (also proprietary) games, which are stored on the cloud. You have no control over your games, but containers have nothing to do with it. And if they did, and Valve really wanted to pull a trick on us, asking them to remove the containers would make even less sense…
Which wine though?
The one pre-packaged by your distro? That doesn’t work because Valve needs to control the version you use and to provide additional stuff not part of vanilla wine.
The one part of proton that is built and delivered to your system by Valve? They would have to compile and support it for every set of dependency versions out there.
As far as container technology is concerned, the isolation is configurable. pressure-vessel is most likely using (possibly indirectly) namespaces and/or cgroups to achieve the isolation. I don’t see a technical reason that you can’t disable the isolation of shared memory or any other resource. The issue is whether you are given access to disable it.
According to the docs the runtime is based on flatpak and uses bubblewrap and libcapsule. I don’t know about libcapsule, but I recall that bubblewrap has granular control over what resources it isolates.
Apparently, you can modify the container as shown here. But there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to install custom containers alongside the default ones in the same way that you can install custom proton versions. Steam just doesn’t provide the interface for it.
There already exists an alternative that is “more likely to be extended in future” rather than being removed as shown here. But I believe you would always be able to gain access to the container because it remains a chroot + namespace + cgroup isolation, all of which you can control on your system.
App developers don’t control what’s on your system either. The container is a huge improvement for them because it at least gives them a known target to build for. They can still bundle dependencies in any way that they would on a non-containerized system. There’s no loss of control from their perspective.
That’s what pressure-vessel is and as shown above you can modify it. And if you couldn’t it would be a tooling issue, not an inherent container disadvantage.
No, they won’t. Compatibility significantly increased after Valve got involved. In fact, the linux community is porting pressure-vessel outside of Steam to use it across different launchers as umu. The community is headed towards using pressure-vessel for everything.
Now I replied to each claim individually, but it’s not really about any specific point you’re making. The general idea is that there’s nothing inherent to container technology that prevents you from tinkering with it. Anything that you can’t do currently is because Steam is not designed to allow you to do it. It’s got nothing to do with whether Steam uses containers or not. Any control that you’ve lost over your system is because you’re using a proprietary app. They could remove the containers and still prevent tinkering, eg by using a bundled wine with no way for you to modify it or its launch options. It’s not about what Steam does, but about how it does it.
Most of Proton code is Wine. So basically if you have Wine in your system, library dependencies are not an issue anymore, apart from DLLs that some games require
And that is one of the reasons why I expect them to pull the rug at some point. Why are they doing a fork instead of contributing?
Then why not let us manage Wine runners, like for example Lutris does?
And that is my issue
And that’s exactly my gripe. But I expect it will be easier to push back on using containerization in Proton, than making Valve allow us such control
I’m less optimistic. I expect they will in the future make it as hard as possible
That parenthesis was a tangent on Android Google apps, to show what I am afraid will happen in the future. Currently, in order for Android app to appear in the official Store, developer has to allow Google to repackage their app and sign it with Google key. So while we can inspect what is there in the code of the app in git, we don’t really know what lands on our phones if installed via Google Play
And as for taking the topic back to game developers, when we are talking about games ran with Proton, their known target is Windows anyway
I couldn’t find a way to disable memory separation. And if that’s not available, that is an issue with pressure-vessel, not tools
I think that was only because of additional work spent on games. I haven’t seen an example where a game would not work at all with Wine but would work with Proton. There are improvements on how it runs, of course. But my argument is that if some implementation in Proton makes a game work better, then it should land in mainline Wine
Yes. But “please, don’t fuck us up” is not something we can enforce
We can always just go back to running Windows version of whole Steam via Wine, as we were doing before Proton
If I have wine on my system and try to run steam-managed proton without any sort of runtime or container, then I’m running proton on different versions of libraries than the ones it was compiled for and tested on. Proton also has additional components which might mean additional dependencies, so your statement is false to begin with.
The fork is open source. As far as I know, some contributions do get merged into wine. Valve is also funding work from Collabora which is contributed directly into wine. They cannot contribute the entirety of proton to wine because wine does not want all their contributions. This is a very common situation to arise when someone wants to use an open source project but their goals don’t align.
Valve is never going to rip out a solution that is working great for them and risk causing issues for customers for no good reason. Thinking that Valve are more likely to remove containerization than they are to allow you to modify the container is, frankly, delusional. It’s also completely irrelevant, as I’ve already said. If Valve wants to “fuck us up” then they’re going to do it. Steam is a proprietary piece of software that supports DRM for all your (also proprietary) games, which are stored on the cloud. You have no control over your games, but containers have nothing to do with it. And if they did, and Valve really wanted to pull a trick on us, asking them to remove the containers would make even less sense…