[bipson]

I think your conclusion falls under the term non sequitur. It does not show anything about Canonical's financial incentives or their strategy, your statement is basically stating an assumption what the reason is.

Further I would argue it is irrelevant to the initial argument.

What has Canonical to do with it? Neither "Linux", "Linux Desktop", "Linux Gaming" or "AMD graphics under Linux" are in any way tied solely to Canonical or what Canonical does. Again, am I missing something?

[jhasse]

> It does not show anything about Canonical's financial incentives or their strategy, your statement is basically stating an assumption what the reason is.

Fair point.

> What has Canonical to do with it? Neither "Linux", "Linux Desktop", "Linux Gaming" or "AMD graphics under Linux" are in any way tied solely to Canonical or what Canonical does. Again, am I missing something?

Ubuntu is the only official supported distribution by Steam and GOG (they also support Linux Mint, but it's based on Ubuntu).

[shmerl]

RedHat and Valve do way more for Linux gaming than Canonical. So I agree with the above, Canonical's decisions aren't affecting Linux gaming that much.

[jhasse]

If that was the case, why doesn't Valve support Fedora or RHEL/CentOS, but Canonical's Ubuntu?

[shmerl]

Because Valve assume majority of users are using Ubuntu or derivatives. Which doesn't contradict what I said above. RedHat developers contribute a lot to Mesa. Canonical isn't exactly known to do that.

[jhasse]

If the majority of Linux gamers use Ubuntu, that means that Canonical has something to do with gaming on Linux ;)

[shmerl]

Something yes, but not improving it directly. Besides, Ubuntu proper isn't even the most used distro probably. Mint is likely more used.

My point is, those who work on Mesa (OpenGL / Vulkan) and Linux graphics stack have way more direct impact of Linux gaming (they are fixing bugs that affect games, improve performance, add new functionality and so on).