My 2018 Linux Test

[JSumrall]

I'm actually really surprised you have issues considering your motherboard, must be a secure boot issue? I admit, I'm not really much of a secure boot fan myself.

At the time I tried it was so new even Windows had issues with it. Probably not much of an issue now. Just with Battle for Azeroth coming out, I'm not really wanting to mess anything up on that machine.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

I'm actually really surprised you have issues considering your motherboard, must be a secure boot issue? I admit, I'm not really much of a secure boot fan myself.

Well, my gaming rig problems all seem to stem from the motherboard. The ASUS ROG Rampage V Edition 10.

https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-RAMPAGE-V-EDITION-10/specifications/

I had tried with and without UEFI on and had all kinds of trouble with installation.

So, here's the one caveat that I know of to what I said above: the transition to UEFI was troublesome for Linux due to the signing issues involved. Basically, it took time for it to all get sorted, and motherboards released at the time may/may not be amenable. If this is the case, do your research, and you have my condolences .

 

[FNtastic]

So, here's the one caveat that I know of to what I said above: the transition to UEFI was troublesome for Linux due to the signing issues involved. Basically, it took time for it to all get sorted, and motherboards released at the time may/may not be amenable. If this is the case, do your research, and you have my condolences .

"Secure boot" adds no benefit. If you want to keep it on, it's possible. I suggest turning it off. It's a device for Microsoft to attempt to discourage users from using any other operating system. Linux distributions have to pay MS for a signature right now, just for their OS to not show up with signature issues. A scam, if you ask me... The reason it's a scam is that I could develop some malware software, package it, and pay MS $99 for my signature. Then, you install the software thinking that all is fine. When, in fact, you've compromised your PC at a cost of $99 to me. And, who wins? MS because they just got paid for doing nothing.

I suggest doing your own research around the topic.

 

[JSumrall]

"Secure boot" adds no benefit. If you want to keep it on, it's possible. I suggest turning it off. It's a device for Microsoft to attempt to discourage users from using any other operating system. Linux distributions have to pay MS for a signature right now, just for their OS to not show up with signature issues. A scam, if you ask me... The reason it's a scam is that I could develop some malware software, package it, and pay MS $99 for my signature. Then, you install the software thinking that all is fine. When, in fact, you've compromised your PC at a cost of $99 to me. And, who wins? MS because they just got paid for doing nothing.

I suggest doing your own research around the topic.

I have. I don't mind turning it off, and it is an option on my mainboard, I just normally keep it on with Windows because it does boot faster with it enabled.

If I install Linux on my main machine, I'll definitely turn it off.

Previously, however, when I tried to install Linux with it on or off it didn't matter. OpenSUSE was still the only distro at the time that would install, boot, and work.

 

[Mazzspeed]

Previously, however, when I tried to install Linux with it on or off it didn't matter. OpenSUSE was still the only distro at the time that would install, boot, and work.

You'll probably find that a newer Ubuntu distro would install on it just fine, secure boot's a finicky bugger.

 

[ChadD]

Kudos to you JSumrall for giving Linux another shot. No OS is perfect... still in my admittedly biased opinion Linux is the closest we have, and the quality gulf will only widen with time. Open source development is simply too powerful for even a company the size of MS to keep up with a project backed by 10s of billions of dollars worth of investment every year. Basically every tech and related company in the world is spending money in someway on Linux development. (Even MS themselves.... saying they may well switch Desktop windows to a Linux kernel base doesn't sound as crazy as it did 2-3 years back anymore.)

I am super curious now if your board that would only allow Suse previously is still a pain in the same way. The only thing I can think of is the secure boot code on that board had a sig for SUSE but nothing else or something. Which is possible if the board was sold heavily in the EU... as Suse is heavily installed out there. Perhaps SUSE was the only key it recognized. Or suse was the only company at the time paying MS. SUSE may not have messed around with all the EU govs using SLES and overwriting windows on laptops and other machines daily.. they may have just paid MS their extortion funds day one.

This is from the support site for your board though... instructions for how to change the setting so you can use Windows 7. (which also doesn't support secure boot)
https://www.asus.com/us/support/FAQ/1016356

If you do test on that machine you'll have to let us know how it goes.

 

[Meeho]

If only madVR was available on Linux

Nice writeup, though. Looking forward to further progress updates.

 

[Todd Walter]

I have. I don't mind turning it off, and it is an option on my mainboard, I just normally keep it on with Windows because it does boot faster with it enabled.

If I install Linux on my main machine, I'll definitely turn it off.

Previously, however, when I tried to install Linux with it on or off it didn't matter. OpenSUSE was still the only distro at the time that would install, boot, and work.

One of the more aggravating 'gotchas' of running Linux in a Windows world is that the ACPI tables won't populate if you query BIOS with an OS identifier other than 'Windows'. There are usually Kernel modules (WMI stuff) or quirks you can use to help.

 

[JSumrall]

Kudos to you JSumrall for giving Linux another shot. No OS is perfect... still in my admittedly biased opinion Linux is the closest we have, and the quality gulf will only widen with time. Open source development is simply too powerful for even a company the size of MS to keep up with a project backed by 10s of billions of dollars worth of investment every year. Basically every tech and related company in the world is spending money in someway on Linux development. (Even MS themselves.... saying they may well switch Desktop windows to a Linux kernel base doesn't sound as crazy as it did 2-3 years back anymore.)

I am super curious now if your board that would only allow Suse previously is still a pain in the same way. The only thing I can think of is the secure boot code on that board had a sig for SUSE but nothing else or something. Which is possible if the board was sold heavily in the EU... as Suse is heavily installed out there. Perhaps SUSE was the only key it recognized. Or suse was the only company at the time paying MS. SUSE may not have messed around with all the EU govs using SLES and overwriting windows on laptops and other machines daily.. they may have just paid MS their extortion funds day one.

This is from the support site for your board though... instructions for how to change the setting so you can use Windows 7. (which also doesn't support secure boot)
https://www.asus.com/us/support/FAQ/1016356

If you do test on that machine you'll have to let us know how it goes.

Thanks. I'm always open for trying Linux. Like I said in my original post on the previous thread, I've always wanted Linux to work and be viable without major headaches. It just never worked and was always a major headache. While this time seems a bit better, only time will tell at this point if I'll be able to stick with it.

The key shouldn't have mattered if I have secure boot off. I say shouldn't, but I agree with you, it's very possible OpenSUSE had already paid the piper. I know at the time Debian was refusing to and was looking into other options. No idea what they're doing now.

If I can track down my spare SSD, I can always just install it on it so I don't have to mess with my Windows install. We'll see.

 

[JSumrall]

One of the more aggravating 'gotchas' of running Linux in a Windows world is that the ACPI tables won't populate if you query BIOS with an OS identifier other than 'Windows'. There are usually Kernel modules (WMI stuff) or quirks you can use to help.

How would I know if my BIOS wasn't responding properly to the OS?

 

[JSumrall]

So I've been looking into what can be done to get HBOGo working under Linux. My first attempt has not been successful. I enabled 'Play DRM protected content' in Firefox and downloaded a recommended codec but neither worked.

The next step is to install Firefox and Flash for Windows and run it through Wine. Probably work on that tomorrow.

 

[JSumrall]

So I'm trying to get 5.1 sound to come out of Linux over HDMI. Anyone have any success or messed around with this before? I'm able to get stereo sound out fine but whenever I select 5.1 over HDMI it doesn't work.

 

[JSumrall]

And of course, after downloading that lib file no sound is playing out of Firefox.

*sigh*

 

[JSumrall]

Sound is working because I can test the speakers and I hear the test message, "Front Left, Front Right". Sound just isn't playing from Firefox D:

 

[Todd Walter]

How would I know if my BIOS wasn't responding properly to the OS?

Boot messages (type dmesg | less for the lot, or just dmesg | grep -i acpi | less for the specifics) and you'll see what the OS has detected. For example:

[ 0.024091] ACPI: [Firmware Bug]: BIOS _OSI(Linux) query honored via cmdline
​

 

[JSumrall]

*sigh*

I remembered having this problem before where applications were selecting a sound output option that wasn't currently connected or active and I had to find a way to change what it was using. I downloaded PulseAudio Volume Control and sure enough, Firefox was trying to output sound through HDMI. I was able to manually change the output to the sound card and voila! Firefox sound is now being output correctly.

 

[Todd Walter]

Sound is working because I can test the speakers and I hear the test message, "Front Left, Front Right". Sound just isn't playing from Firefox D:

This is a bug with Firefox; they decided to fuck over everyone who uses ALSA when they implemented their new rendering engine and make a hard dependency on Pulseaudio. The old code-path may be present and you can try activating it by:

security.sandbox.content.syscall_whitelist 16​

 

[JSumrall]

This is a bug with Firefox; they decided to fuck over everyone who uses ALSA when they implemented their new rendering engine and make a hard dependency on Pulseaudio. The old code-path may be present and you can try activating it by:

security.sandbox.content.syscall_whitelist 16​

Doesn't Ubuntu use Pulseaudio?

 

[Todd Walter]

Doesn't Ubuntu use Pulseaudio?

I use Gentoo, so I can't be sure but I would assume so. Soundcards get enumerated at boot so you cannot always be sure which one is going to get glommed on to first. In my case, the HDMI output on my Nvidia card is usually the first (and therefore, default) card. YMMV. Getting HDMI/5.1 to work was finicky for me as it never wanted to wake up my receiver over S/PDIF without using the iecset utility.

 

[Lunar]

I don't know about it installing on everything. If something is too new Linux really struggles. I haven't tried to install it on my main rig which had so many problems the last time I tried. But I'm generally pleased that it loaded pretty easy on my 3820 desktop and I got almost everything working that I needed (Netflix, Amazon Video, Flir Cloud Client). The only thing not working is HBOgo and I haven't really dug into that yet.

So I've been looking into what can be done to get HBOGo working under Linux. My first attempt has not been successful. I enabled 'Play DRM protected content' in Firefox and downloaded a recommended codec but neither worked.

The next step is to install Firefox and Flash for Windows and run it through Wine. Probably work on that tomorrow.

Too solve this issue I'd recommend installing Chrome and see if that works. What I've found is that in situations where enabling DRM in Firefox doesn't work, Chrome will. You can just download the .deb file from the Google Chrome website and install it either via GNOME Software, gdebi (unfortunately no longer included in Ubuntu by default but a quick apt-get away), or dpkg -i from the command line.

EDIT: I'd like to clarify that I have no idea if this will actually work as I don't have HBOnow/go, but it's worth a shot.

I prefer Kodi to flex. I've configured a house wide multimedia setup using android tablets as controllers running Kore with an Ubuntu server running TV Headend and a combination of x64 Ubuntu and RPi3b front ends all running Kodi.

There's something truly satisfying about setting up a full house wide multimedia setup free from any corporate influence that works so well that it actually gets the wife acceptance factor.

I too prefer the Kodi frontend, but for me the holy grail has been a Plex Server backend for indexing along with the plexkodiconnect addon to allow Kodi to act as a frontend for the Plex server. I was using a mariaDB instance to host the kodi backend to sync playback and watched info, and that was great until Kodi killed it for me. So now I rely on Plex to maintain that data, and it's working great so far.

"Secure boot" adds no benefit. If you want to keep it on, it's possible. I suggest turning it off. It's a device for Microsoft to attempt to discourage users from using any other operating system. Linux distributions have to pay MS for a signature right now, just for their OS to not show up with signature issues. A scam, if you ask me... The reason it's a scam is that I could develop some malware software, package it, and pay MS $99 for my signature. Then, you install the software thinking that all is fine. When, in fact, you've compromised your PC at a cost of $99 to me. And, who wins? MS because they just got paid for doing nothing.

I suggest doing your own research around the topic.

While I don't use Secure Boot with Linux, I'd argue that Secure Boot isn't just so MS can discourage users from trying other operating systems. It does have a legitimate use case in trying to secure the boot process and protect from rootkits and other malware. Whether it's super effective at this is debatable, but that is its intended purpose. You can tinfoil hat it all you want, but I doubt AMD and Intel would've jumped on board and added support for it if its purpose was expressly to prevent other OS' from booting correctly, considering they both are heavy contributors to Linux and Open Source.

 

[ChadD]

Thanks. I'm always open for trying Linux. Like I said in my original post on the previous thread, I've always wanted Linux to work and be viable without major headaches. It just never worked and was always a major headache. While this time seems a bit better, only time will tell at this point if I'll be able to stick with it.

The key shouldn't have mattered if I have secure boot off. I say shouldn't, but I agree with you, it's very possible OpenSUSE had already paid the piper. I know at the time Debian was refusing to and was looking into other options. No idea what they're doing now.

If I can track down my spare SSD, I can always just install it on it so I don't have to mess with my Windows install. We'll see.

Even an old spinner if need. More just to see if you can get it up and running then anything. I understand not wanting to mess with what is working now. For a long long time I kept a windows drive around for games. Can't hold that against anyone... Linux gaming gets better all the time but ya the industry is still very much locked in to Microsofts DX orbit.

It sounds like you have discovered most things are pretty smooth these days. The stuff that can still be fun in general is DRM stuff and Gaming stuff.... its annoying but $ drives those industries and MS has paid a lot of money to keep things locked to Windows. (side note on the DRM stuff I heard you mention HBO at one point. I can't say I have any experience I'm Canadian we have no HBO streaming options at all... having said that, their DRM I understand is a real pain. I have heard tell that one work around is to install a windows copy of firefox under wine... it sounds like a terrible work around to me still if its super important perhaps its something to try anyway.)

At some point you'll have to experiment with DXVK. Its not a polished product yet by any means (rumor is Valve is behind it so perhaps it will be at some point).

 

[ChadD]

So I've been looking into what can be done to get HBOGo working under Linux. My first attempt has not been successful. I enabled 'Play DRM protected content' in Firefox and downloaded a recommended codec but neither worked.

The next step is to install Firefox and Flash for Windows and run it through Wine. Probably work on that tomorrow.

Sorry. Always finish reading a thread before you reply. o7

 

[NoOther]

"Secure boot" adds no benefit. If you want to keep it on, it's possible. I suggest turning it off.

Eh, it can provide a benefit, especially if you are using your own certificates. How much of a benefit is certainly debatable. I generally turn it off myself.

It's a device for Microsoft to attempt to discourage users from using any other operating system. Linux distributions have to pay MS for a signature right now, just for their OS to not show up with signature issues. A scam, if you ask me... The reason it's a scam is that I could develop some malware software, package it, and pay MS $99 for my signature. Then, you install the software thinking that all is fine. When, in fact, you've compromised your PC at a cost of $99 to me. And, who wins? MS because they just got paid for doing nothing.

I suggest doing your own research around the topic.

This is a bit inaccurate and comes along with many other misconceptions about UEFI and Secure boot. The real problem is that there is no official standard manufacturers have to meet, they can implement UEFI however they wish. UEFI can support Secure Boot where you can load your own certificates or Linux specific certificates, it does not only rely on Microsoft certificates. Linux distros only have to pay a fee if they want to have "Microsoft" certificates for their distros. It is an easy button for lazy manufacturers who don't want to give the user all available options in the UEFI.

 

[ChadD]

Doesn't Ubuntu use Pulseaudio?

Yes. Most major distros install pulse, its an excepted standard at this point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PulseAudio
Pulse is a sound server... that handles all the sound software makes. So a chrome developer doesn't have to access the ALSA kernel drivers directly. It also solves issues that come up with more then one piece of software attempting to access the same hardware at the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Linux_Sound_Architecture
ALSA is the kernel sound driver device architecture.

Its not as confusing as it seems at first. In windows drivers are a thing... so there is a sound card driver, and often people see software mixers made by companies like Realtek ect that often has extra features over the basic windows sound system mixer. Its sort of the same idea. ALSA is a framework for the sound drivers... and is lower level. Pulseaudio is a framework for software packages to interface with the sound system without having to know everything about your sound hardware, as there are 10s of thousands of different sound devices supported by the kernel.

If your into pro audio you will hear about Jack or Jack2 as well. Those are low latency frameworks used in pro audio production. Jack is to Linux as... ASIO is to windows.

As to your specific issue. Its something that happens on windows as well if you have multiple sound card options, although I admit windows is a bit better at selecting a global default out of the gate. Pulse audio and Linux audio in general is one area where Linux is making improvements almost monthly.

Linux audio is one aspect of Linux that is really making strides the last few years. There was a political more then anything push against pulse at one point and IMO it held things back a bit. Some Linux people want to access ALSA directly... but that isn't tenable long term imo (and the pulse teams opinion) Software needs a more abstract framework layer.

Anyway just so you know its something that isn't just a "it will improve thing" It will be improved in 4.18 kernel as a matter of fact.
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1806.0/04044.html
"– Fix the long-standing issue with the device registration order;
the control device is now registered at last"
I'm not sure this fix is going to properly order HDMI sound devices... but there are people working on making things smoother out of the box for people with multiple devices.

 

[NoOther]

*sigh*

I remembered having this problem before where applications were selecting a sound output option that wasn't currently connected or active and I had to find a way to change what it was using. I downloaded PulseAudio Volume Control and sure enough, Firefox was trying to output sound through HDMI. I was able to manually change the output to the sound card and voila! Firefox sound is now being output correctly.

Are you stuck on using firefox? Have you tried using Chrome? I have had far more success with it than Firefox.

 

[NoOther]

Yes. Most major distros install pulse, its an excepted standard at this point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PulseAudio
Pulse is a sound server... that handles all the sound software makes. So a chrome developer doesn't have to access the ALSA kernel drivers directly. It also solves issues that come up with more then one piece of software attempting to access the same hardware at the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Linux_Sound_Architecture
ALSA is the kernel sound driver device architecture.

While we are on this particular subject, I was looking for Debian packages the other day for a decent equalizer in Linux as apparently my Debian box does not have one pre-installed. Back in the day I used equalizers in Linux with few problems, now I can't seem to find any, at least in the Debian packages. Any suggestions?

 

[ChadD]

While we are on this particular subject, I was looking for Debian packages the other day for a decent equalizer in Linux as apparently my Debian box does not have one pre-installed. Back in the day I used equalizers in Linux with few problems, now I can't seem to find any, at least in the Debian packages. Any suggestions?

https://github.com/wwmm/pulseeffects

I'm not on a .deb distro myself my experience with debian based stuff like ubuntu is mostly non GUI stuffs. Having said that I believe the pulse effects project has a flatpak installer and a PPA they maintain.

 

[NoOther]

https://github.com/wwmm/pulseeffects

I'm not on a .deb distro myself my experience with debian based stuff like ubuntu is mostly non GUI stuffs. Having said that I believe the pulse effects project has a flatpak installer and a PPA they maintain.

I will have to try the source, the pulseaudio extensions that were available in the library didn't provide anything.

 

[ChadD]

I will have to try the source, the pulseaudio extensions that were available in the library didn't provide anything.

https://github.com/wwmm/pulseeffects/wiki/Package-Repositories#debian--ubuntu

May want to try using the PPA the project suggests. Or use the flatpak.

 

[Mazzspeed]

I too prefer the Kodi frontend, but for me the holy grail has been a Plex Server backend for indexing along with the plexkodiconnect addon to allow Kodi to act as a frontend for the Plex server. I was using a mariaDB instance to host the kodi backend to sync playback and watched info, and that was great until Kodi killed it for me. So now I rely on Plex to maintain that data, and it's working great so far.

That is actually a really good idea. So by running the Plex server backend all devices are synced to the last viewed location within a movie so you can resume where you left off on any device?

 

[Mazzspeed]

So I'm trying to get 5.1 sound to come out of Linux over HDMI. Anyone have any success or messed around with this before? I'm able to get stereo sound out fine but whenever I select 5.1 over HDMI it doesn't work.

I had issues with this on my HTPC. I had to add my user to the audio group to pass sound over HDMI, something about protected audio path.

Open a terminal window and enter the following command, swap 'user' with your username, log out and back in just to ensure the setting applies:

sudo adduser $USER audio

 

[Lunar]

That is actually a really good idea. So by running the Plex server backend all devices are synced to the last viewed location within a movie so you can resume where you left off on any device?

Exactly. So far it's working like a champ. I've used this functionality with Kodi on my Shield TV in the living room, Fire TV in the bedroom, and my desktop running Kodi on Linux.

 

[scharfshutze009]

Given the conversation in this thread: https://hardforum.com/threads/linux-in-the-news.1964808/ I decided I'd once again give Linux a try to see if my position regarding the OS still stands or if things have improved since I last gave it a a year or two ago.

For over 15 years I have tried to use Linux to replace Windows either completely or enough to use it on all of my machines save the one I use for gaming. This efforts have always failed to provide the results I wanted and I always ended up back with Windows on all of my machines.

So, today I'll give Linux another shot. I'm looking for the following to prove this experiment a success.

1. Installation needs to just work. While sometimes I run into problems installing Windows, it's pretty rare and for the most part it just works.

2. For the most part, once the OS is up and running, I should be able to do basic functions like check email, browse the web, access info- and enter- tainment without more than basic hassles.

3. There are some applications that are a 'must have' such as my security systems' live camera view software. Once (and if) I'm able to get Linux up and running I'll be looking into whether or not the software is supported on Linux.

The first system I'll be installing Linux on is a secondary desktop with the following hardware:

MSI Intel X79A-GD45(8D) Motherboard
Intel Core i7-3820 Processor
32GB DDR3 PC3-12800 Memory
256GB SSD
Seagate 600 SSD 240GB Hard Drive
MSI 770 GTX Video Card

That's plenty good enough to try Linux again with because the most Ubuntu Desktop requires is as follows:


Recommended system requirements:

• 2 GHz dual core processor or better
• 2 GB system memory
• 25 GB of free hard drive space
• Either a DVD drive or a USB port for the installer media
• Internet access is helpful

If things with Ubuntu don't work out try Fedora 27 or later if available because steam can be natively installed in that as well as Ubuntu now using the DNF command instead of apt-get or dpkg if the installer is already downloaded directly or with the wget command in terminal also known as cmd to windows users or former windows users. The only major thing lacking in Linux so far seems to be touchscreen support and VR (Virtual Reality), but I could be wrong about that or support could be very minimal and if so Linux still has a lot of great features anyway either way.

Here are the minimum requirements for Fedora 27 at least if not later:


Hardware Overview
Fedora 27 provides software to suit a wide variety of applications. The storage, memory and processing requirements vary depending on usage. For example, a high traffic database server requires much more memory and storage than a business desktop, which in turn has higher requirements than a single-purpose virtual machine.

Minimum System Configuration
The figures below are a recommended minimum for the default installation. Your requirements may differ, and most applications will benefit from more than the minimum resources.

• 1GHz or faster processor
  
  
• 1GB System Memory
  
  
• 10GB unallocated drive space

Low memory installations
Fedora 27 can be installed and used on systems with limited resources for some applications. Text, VNC, or kickstart installations are advised over graphical installation for systems with very low memory. Larger package sets require more memory during installation, so users with less than 768MB of system memory may have better results preforming a minimal install and adding to it afterward.

For best results on systems with less than 1GB of memory, use the DVD installation image.

Display resolution
Graphical Installation requires 800x600 resolution or higher
Graphical installation of Fedora requires a minimum screen resolution of 800x600. Owners of devices with lower resolution, such as some netbooks, should use text or VNC installation.

Once installed, Fedora will support these lower resolution devices. The minimum resolution requirement applies only to graphical installation.

Graphics Hardware
Minimum Hardware for Accelerated Desktops
Fedora 27 supports most display adapters. Modern, feature-rich desktop environments like GNOME3 and KDE Plasma Workspaces use video devices to provide 3D-accelerated desktops. Older graphics hardware may not support acceleration:

• Intel prior to GMA9xx
  
  
• NVIDIA prior to NV30 (GeForce FX5xxx series)
  
  
• Radeon prior to R300 (Radeon 9500)

CPU Accelerated Graphics
Systems with older or no graphics acceleration devices can have accelerated desktop environments using LLVMpipe technology, which uses the CPU to render graphics. LLVMpipe requires a processor with SSE2 extensions. The extensions supported by your processor are listed in the flags: section of /proc/cpuinfo

Choosing a Desktop Environment for your hardware
Fedora 27’s default desktop environment, GNOME3, functions best with hardware acceleration. Alternative desktops are recommended for users with older graphics hardware or those seeing insufficient performance with LLVMpipe.

Desktop environments can be added to an existing installation and selected at login. To list the available desktops, use the dnf grouplist command:

# dnf grouplist -v hidden | grep desktop
Install the desired group:

# dnf groupinstall "KDE Plasma Workspaces"
Or, use the short group name to install:

# dnf install Mate-desktop-environment

If you need to use a distribution that doesn't support native installation fo steam if you desire steam use PlayOnLinux.

 

[JSumrall]

Even an old spinner if need. More just to see if you can get it up and running then anything. I understand not wanting to mess with what is working now. For a long long time I kept a windows drive around for games. Can't hold that against anyone... Linux gaming gets better all the time but ya the industry is still very much locked in to Microsofts DX orbit.

It sounds like you have discovered most things are pretty smooth these days. The stuff that can still be fun in general is DRM stuff and Gaming stuff.... its annoying but $ drives those industries and MS has paid a lot of money to keep things locked to Windows. (side note on the DRM stuff I heard you mention HBO at one point. I can't say I have any experience I'm Canadian we have no HBO streaming options at all... having said that, their DRM I understand is a real pain. I have heard tell that one work around is to install a windows copy of firefox under wine... it sounds like a terrible work around to me still if its super important perhaps its something to try anyway.)

At some point you'll have to experiment with DXVK. Its not a polished product yet by any means (rumor is Valve is behind it so perhaps it will be at some point).

Installing Firefox and Flash under wine is what I read as the solution as well. Not the most elegant of solutions, and I'm not sure if it's one I'll try or not. I'm going to ponder that decision for a while.

 

[JSumrall]

Yes. Most major distros install pulse, its an excepted standard at this point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PulseAudio
Pulse is a sound server... that handles all the sound software makes. So a chrome developer doesn't have to access the ALSA kernel drivers directly. It also solves issues that come up with more then one piece of software attempting to access the same hardware at the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Linux_Sound_Architecture
ALSA is the kernel sound driver device architecture.

Its not as confusing as it seems at first. In windows drivers are a thing... so there is a sound card driver, and often people see software mixers made by companies like Realtek ect that often has extra features over the basic windows sound system mixer. Its sort of the same idea. ALSA is a framework for the sound drivers... and is lower level. Pulseaudio is a framework for software packages to interface with the sound system without having to know everything about your sound hardware, as there are 10s of thousands of different sound devices supported by the kernel.

If your into pro audio you will hear about Jack or Jack2 as well. Those are low latency frameworks used in pro audio production. Jack is to Linux as... ASIO is to windows.

As to your specific issue. Its something that happens on windows as well if you have multiple sound card options, although I admit windows is a bit better at selecting a global default out of the gate. Pulse audio and Linux audio in general is one area where Linux is making improvements almost monthly.

Linux audio is one aspect of Linux that is really making strides the last few years. There was a political more then anything push against pulse at one point and IMO it held things back a bit. Some Linux people want to access ALSA directly... but that isn't tenable long term imo (and the pulse teams opinion) Software needs a more abstract framework layer.

Anyway just so you know its something that isn't just a "it will improve thing" It will be improved in 4.18 kernel as a matter of fact.
http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1806.0/04044.html
"– Fix the long-standing issue with the device registration order;
the control device is now registered at last"
I'm not sure this fix is going to properly order HDMI sound devices... but there are people working on making things smoother out of the box for people with multiple devices.

If there was an option to register a default that would probably solve the problem. Also, not having a way to manage which output device is being used by default is super annoying. I'm just glad I remembered the solution I found years ago because having to start from scratch again trying to figure this one out would have been mind numbing.

 

[JSumrall]

Are you stuck on using firefox? Have you tried using Chrome? I have had far more success with it than Firefox.

No I'm not stuck on any one browser. However, in this case, everything I've read says Chrome doesn't solve the HBOgo problem. I'm pretty sure the problem is HBOgo uses Flash to stream videos.

I also read that Firefox uses Google DRM tech so if it was a DRM issue, neither would work. Don't know how true that is. You know the internet. lol

 

[JSumrall]

I had issues with this on my HTPC. I had to add my user to the audio group to pass sound over HDMI, something about protected audio path.

Open a terminal window and enter the following command, swap 'user' with your username, log out and back in just to ensure the setting applies:

sudo adduser $USER audio

I'll give it a shot. Might be a couple of days before I can try it.

 

[Lunar]

With so many things going to streaming instead of ownership, what exactly are you hosting to stream throughout your house?

Totally forgot to answer this question before. Personally, I still buy Blu-Rays because I get both the physical and digital versions of the movie in question. BR also provides the best image and audio quality, especially audio. If you want to use the Lossless audio formats with your home theater, then you can't get that via streaming. Also, I personally don't like tying myself to any single streaming service.

Imagine this:
You've purchased $400 in movies on Google Play over the last few years, and now in typical Google fashion they decide to kill off Google Play Movies. Well, seeing as you don't actually own the media you've purchased, you're out those movie purchases. Now, while I'd say it's unlikely that Google will kill off this service, they could also go out of business at some point. Also, buying movies digitally restricts you to a limited number of devices with which to watch the movies you've bought. What I like about BR is that my BR's will work in any BR player regardless of manufacturer. I also rip them to my NAS and use Plex to index them. So, with Plex+Kodi and ripping I get the convenience of streaming while retaining the full control of my media. Plus, why buy digital when they cost the same as buying the BR, but with the BR you get both the physical and digital versions typically?

Ultimately, it's all about freedom. I like having the freedom to choose how and on what devices I consume my content. I have a wide range of devices in my home from Linux and Windows PCs, NVIDIA Shield TV and Fire TV, phones and tablets, to an Xbox One and PS4. I can watch my movies on all of them with varying degrees of ease regardless of what service my digital movies are registered on. That is what we lose as we trust these large companies with being stewards of our data and purchases. We tie ourselves into their ecosystems, which is exactly what they want. And to be fair to them, that's perfectly fine. They provide a service and millions of people are happy to use those services. I personally want more control than that. I've come to terms with the fact that I'm going to have to buy games digitally on PC. It's just the way things have gone, but I'd also argue that the vast majority of games that I own I wont play more than once. On the other hand, I've watched every movie I own at least twice. I've amassed a large collection of movies over the last 15+ years, and the idea of not being able to continue watching them because the service I bought them on collapses for whatever reason just doesn't work for me.

 

[B00nie]

I rarely watch any movie twice so streaming is perfect for me. Saves money and is more convenient with not needing to pick up the physical media.

 

[JSumrall]

Totally forgot to answer this question before. Personally, I still buy Blu-Rays because I get both the physical and digital versions of the movie in question. BR also provides the best image and audio quality, especially audio. If you want to use the Lossless audio formats with your home theater, then you can't get that via streaming. Also, I personally don't like tying myself to any single streaming service.

Imagine this:
You've purchased $400 in movies on Google Play over the last few years, and now in typical Google fashion they decide to kill off Google Play Movies. Well, seeing as you don't actually own the media you've purchased, you're out those movie purchases. Now, while I'd say it's unlikely that Google will kill off this service, they could also go out of business at some point. Also, buying movies digitally restricts you to a limited number of devices with which to watch the movies you've bought. What I like about BR is that my BR's will work in any BR player regardless of manufacturer. I also rip them to my NAS and use Plex to index them. So, with Plex+Kodi and ripping I get the convenience of streaming while retaining the full control of my media. Plus, why buy digital when they cost the same as buying the BR, but with the BR you get both the physical and digital versions typically?

Ultimately, it's all about freedom. I like having the freedom to choose how and on what devices I consume my content. I have a wide range of devices in my home from Linux and Windows PCs, NVIDIA Shield TV and Fire TV, phones and tablets, to an Xbox One and PS4. I can watch my movies on all of them with varying degrees of ease regardless of what service my digital movies are registered on. That is what we lose as we trust these large companies with being stewards of our data and purchases. We tie ourselves into their ecosystems, which is exactly what they want. And to be fair to them, that's perfectly fine. They provide a service and millions of people are happy to use those services. I personally want more control than that. I've come to terms with the fact that I'm going to have to buy games digitally on PC. It's just the way things have gone, but I'd also argue that the vast majority of games that I own I wont play more than once. On the other hand, I've watched every movie I own at least twice. I've amassed a large collection of movies over the last 15+ years, and the idea of not being able to continue watching them because the service I bought them on collapses for whatever reason just doesn't work for me.

I too switched back to physical media for movies I purchase. Although I'm renting more than buying these days because if I don't like the movie, I don't watch it more than once. But if I do like it, I can generally wait to buy it when it's dirt cheap bargin bin.