The driver license is issued by a more stable entity than a corporation (your government... in countries like yours or mine, its a pretty dependable entity) and there is a good reason for it: A motor vehicle is a lethal instrument and your fitness to operate one should be put back into question every so often.

I'm still unsure why Microsoft should have the sole authority to change the OS on which all my game collection is dependant on and should they so desire, cease to support it (or do so at an arbitrary cost of their choosing) in a way where we can run our games without any possible recourse from the entirety of their user base.

I have couple of self-contained binaries in my path that I just downloaded from the internet and put there, a few packages installed with apt-get, the vs code editor, golang...

My data files (books, music, code, etc) are all in my home directory.

For everything else, I use containers or virtual machines (programmatically provisioned) so not a whole lot of labor there.

In this day and age, messy labor-intensive installations are operational negligence on the part of the tool developer and/or the OS platform (seriously, every OS should support containers natively at this point even if they have to implement a translation layer for Linux kernel stuff, it's just that good). With the right tech, It should all be very straightforward.

For sure, and not an issue for me as I store data on a different drive or partition to the OS.

One wonders why you would ever need to reinstall with Linux, if you are using VMs. Except perhaps where you are doing an OS upgrade and want that to be a clean install or are changing to a different flavor of Linux.

All sounds too complex to me, I like to keep things simple.
No doubt it is all about mindset, and I don't even use the cloud really, gave up on Google Drive for instance many months back when I discovered it was doing secret stuff. Hell I don't even do automated backups, preferring the manual approach, though I use controlled automation in that, with my own purpose built programs. I'm not a fan of NAS, and use many portable drives instead, as I don't relegate control easily or comfortably.

Maybe when I retire from doing all the stuff i do on my PCs, and swap to Linux from Windows in my twilight years, I might do things a little differently. Right now though it is too hard. No doubt it is me and the too many things I do.

I periodically back it up on a different drive as well, but my backup doesn't always have all the latest. I could probably automate that.

I'm running a lot in vms and containers, but not everything (a few things are just harder to virtualize or pass through a container... for example, my installing the nvidia drivers to make use of my large external screen for example or orchestratiing my virtualization layer from my physical host or mapping my text editor to my physical host display which I did in the past via a container, but it is a pain to setup). So over time, the quality of my operating system still degrades. It just does so at a rate that is a lot slower than someone who doesn't make uses of those abstractions.

That's the thing, if the os supports it, experts like me will make leveraging containerization for the layman a breeze.

In my past 3 workplaces, I had a whole dockerization workflow setup that was pretty much plug & play on Linux. But then everyone on a MacOS (a lot of devs work on Macs) had to run that containerization layer in a virtual machine (because it wasn't supported natively) and thus has to split their host's RAM in two and had to incur a significant virtualization performance penalty (whatever virtualization technology they were using on their Macs, I don't think it had the same performance characteristics as kvm).

Seriously, if mainstream OS vendors (especially Apple) had gotten their heads out of their *sses and worked harder to support Linux containerisation solutions natively, it could have revolutionized not only the ops world, but the way your average end-user consumes applications on their desktop.

When I first learned docker, I wasn't even thinking about servers. I just wanted to run all that crazy to manage tooling (databases, load balancers, 3 different versions of Python or Node, etc) more seemlessly on my local machine to troubleshoot production setups with a greater degree of fidelity locally.

Why do you feel the need to take sides? You can get games from both stores.

I get 80% of my games on GOG, and many I bought on Steam first, a few Epic ones, I have never really cared about DRM.
DRM Free is not the draw for me, I prefer it, but it's the offline installers I come to GOG for.
If Steam, or any other store offered client free offline installers, but with DRM, I'd take it in a flash.

Linux support is certainly better than ever before, but far from great for many games, and very erratic for Desktops only games.

All I would say is don't rely on Valve, they are providing support for their own product, if it doesn't benefit Valve, they don't support.
Take Steam Workshop, it had initial support, when the 1st plan for paid mods failed without ever going public, with the launch.
That you "Subscribe" to mods, not Download them, and must own the game on Steam to even do that, because that's all the Workshop has ever done, just download the mods to a Valve designated folder, nothing more.

Skyrim Workshop was intended to devastate Nexus Mods, but was so poorly done, and so restrictive, in the first iteration, that it had entirely the opposite effect. Then when Fallout 4 was due, the Workshop got the only real update it has ever gotten, fixing some of the worst flaws.

Newell couldn't understand why Skyrim modders hadn't just bent over to take his Loot Box mods up the ass, just like CSGO, and TF2 did, Multiplayer gamers being far more accepting of microtransactions than single player gamers, is why.
Which just shows how little Valve cares about the Steam's biggest Fangirls.

It appears that the Steam Deck, is going to succeed, so expect good low end Linux support, but you'll see nothing the Steam Deck can't benefit from via Valves efforts, and GPU Driver Support is still second class, especially on the Nvidia side.

Plus, why is it you expect GOG to support Linux?
It's the devs, or publishers responsibility to provide platform support, not the stores.
Do you expect Steam to support Consoles?

Even when Devs have Linux versions, they can choose not to release them on GOG.
KOTOR 2 come to mind, when Aspyre made the Linux version of that game, GOG didn't get it.
Know why? That was the "big" launch title that Valve used for Steam OS, it was Steam that blocked it coming here.

Nothing is stopping devs from providing Linux support with any store, and Valve isn't doing it for your benefit either. only Newell's.
They stopped supporting Linux fast enough when the Steam Box, and Steam OS failed to sell, and will do so again if Valve stops benefiting from providing it.

I expect only one thing from GOG
To sell me the games, and I'm grateful that GOG still makes the offline installers, because you can be damn sure they wouldn't exist otherwise.

Galaxy only exists because Devs stopped making functional multiplayer, first the Consoles used their walled gardens to force devs to use their sold Networking Client as the games Client. Then Steam did the same thing, partly out of necessity, to get PC portson Steam, but wasn't then around 2010 big enough to charge for it.

Then in 2012, Steam ditched curation opened the floodgates, and all the "Good Old Games GOG had cultivated went up on Steam.
Right at the time the latest trend was that every single player Game had to have a multiplayer mode, which forced GOG to make a Store Client, or go bust.

I remember plenty of single player games, on Steam, but not GOG in 2012 to 2015, citing the lack of a store Network Client as the only reason for not having a GOG release. The fact we never asked for, wanted, or would ever play their crappy half assed modes, made no damn difference.

I was very happy when Galaxy Finally released, but even happier that it was an optional, store client.
I opted out, and I had no intention of ever using it, and still don't.

You do you, but stop expecting GOG to do what GOG has no responsibility for, and no GOG Deck to give them a reason to do so.
Instead get onto those game devs, that have a Linux version on Steam, but not here.
Ask them why not, its their game..
So it's their decision, or their publishers to make, not GOGs.

I feel like the offline installer having DRM kind of defeats the purpose of it. Why would you want offline installer with drm in it? The installer could have some DRM that would stop you from playing the game or installing on different devices.

gOg has an official app, called Galaxy. there is no official Linux version of Galaxy, but there is one for Steam.

what developers see is that if they have a game for Linux, then gOg will not support it for their app, meaning that people who prefer to use an app (and many do) to manage their game, and have things like time tracking, cloud saves and achivments, are going to be left out. Linux versions of games on gOg will therefor be "second rate citizens" compared to Windows versions here on gOg. Under these conditions I can see why developers do not offer Linux versions of games on gOg, and this is gOg's fault.

It isn't GOG's fault at all, it's all about circumstances, and the circumstances due to numbers is in Steam's favor when it comes to Linux.

Steam don't likely care about Linux gamers, but what they do care about is market dominance and profit. Steam has the Lion's share of customers (gamers) of which a small but significant portion for them are Linux Gamers, enough to make it viable for them, and likely an imperative to support Linux gaming.

Not so other stores, including GOG. Windows gamers are GOG's bread and butter, and without them GOG would not survive. For GOG to support Linux right now is a penalty and a cost, a quite significant loss when you consider how close they run to the edge. Despite that, and the server storage and delivery costs, they do provide Linux versions of many games. That should be applauded, considering the circumstances.

When GOG started, it was all about DRM-Free, not OSes. And it was all about survival, and still is, which means Windows. Until Linux gaming numbers improves enough, it will always be about Windows, with Steam being the only likely exception due to their almost monopoly. Many of us wish it were otherwise, but reality wins every time.

None of us know what the future may bring, but hopefully improved circumstances for Linux gaming.

Ultimately it is the growth in numbers of Linux gamers, and the willingness of developers and publishers, that will determine how widely Linux gaming is supported, and whether other stores besides Steam find Linux games viable.

Steam really only have one true competitor right now, Epic, and many would even challenge that notion. Epic have certainly pulled out all the stops in their war with Steam ... but in what state is their Linux support?

You aren't making any sense, you said you don't care about drm but the offline installers you do. Then you do care about drm since that is the point of offline installers.

long rant apart - it is not gOg's fault that they do not make Galaxy for Linux? whos fault is it then? who are telling them not to do so?

What you have here is reasons for gOg to not support Linix, but this is still gOg's decision. all you are doing is providing a rationale for that decision. (and you are only guessing that this was gOg's rationale)

I am not saying that supporting Linux is a good or bad decision, I am not saying that gOg have good or bad reasons for their choice. but it was gOg that took that decision, so the blame for it is on no one else than them.

(or are you saying that gOg as a business do not make business decision?)

Two Gatekeepers! How... how do you know that sign!?
☂☄☂
Sign here ☒ to get colorful umbrella ☔

shhhhh. we are not allowed to talk about this. be quit.

No you clearly don't understand the difference between DRM (Proof of purchase Systems), Store Clients (Galaxy, Steam, etc), and Offline Installers (Floppy/CD/DVD/Blue Ray Disc based installers, or Downloaded GOG Installers).

These are three separate distinct, things, that can Stand alone, or be combined in any combination, or even all three at once.

Store Clients can deliver both DRM Free Games, or have DRM Games
Offline Installers can deliver DRM Free Games, or DRM Games.
Offline installers can (and do) include the Store Client, and Store Clients can (and do) include offline installers.

Are you too young to remember, the DRM that came with Disc based games, even before the Internet existed.

The point of offline installers is to provide games, without needing a Store Client (Centralised Game Installation Manager).
Whether bought on Disc in a Brick, and Motor Store, or downloaded in a web browser (or even via P2P Network).

DRM free has never been the point of offline installers, they have always had only one single point, which is installing a game.
GOG made DRM Free a selling point for GOG Games, but let's consider if they had not.

All the GOG games provided before Galaxy launched in 2015 would have had DRM, and still you would have needed an offline installer to INSTALL GAMES WITH DRM, or how else did we get our Good Old Games, when they originally released on Disc with DRM.

I had DRM on my Commodore 64 games, and they were installed by Audio Cassette in 1982, it blows my mind that you don't get the fact that DRM, Store Client, and Offline Installer, are unique separate things that can be put together in any combination.

gog installers were about installing the game indeed but offline is the keyword. you mine a well just buy steam games since you are fine with not owing games.

What is it about the concept of No Store Client that you don't you understand?
I don't want a Store Client. So I require Offline installers to achieve that.

I like DRM free, given a choice between DRM Free, and not DRM Free, I choose no DRM.
I dislike Store Clients more than I dislike, DRM though.
So if my choice was DRM Free with Steam Client, or Steam Offline Installer with DRM.
Then I'd take the DRM, to get rid of the Store Client.
I'd still choose GOG over Steam every time, because GOG give me both of them.

What do you mean fine not owning games?
Do you think being DRM Free means you own your GOG games, any more than with DRM.
It's the Offline Installer that ensures you can install the game if GOG goes bust, not being DRM free.
If you have any old Disc Based games, with DRM (Likely requires a Product Key), you can still install them today, even if Dev and/or Publisher went bust decades ago.

Have you never bought Software that requires a Product Key? That is DRM.
None of us own games on GOG, we can't sell them, so we can't own them, like we could with those old disc based installers.
Yes, I'm fine with that, but that's because I have no desire to sell any of my games.

Your logic is baffling. You actually do own the GOG games you buy with offline installer. But if that's what you think then okay.