OBS Portable

[EmersonSilva]

Hello, I need to install more than one portable OBS on an Ubuntu server, what would be the most correct procedure? I've done this in Windows, but in Ubuntu I don't have much skill. Thanks.

 

[AaronD]

Why? You don't even need portable to use different settings, even at the same time. obs --help in a terminal to see how. :-)

Do you want different versions, easily selectable later?

 

[EmersonSilva]

Why? You don't even need portable to use different settings, even at the same time. obs --help in a terminal to see how. :-)

Do you want different versions, easily selectable later?

Thank you, I will check this option. I have a USB stick with an OBS portable setup for Windows that I use frequently in different places. I also need to take an Ubuntu version with me in a USB to use when I need it. If you can help me or indicate how to do it, I will be grateful.

 

[AaronD]

Thank you, I will check this option. I have a USB stick with an OBS portable setup for Windows that I use frequently in different places. I also need to take an Ubuntu version with me in a USB to use when I need it. If you can help me or indicate how to do it, I will be grateful.

So you don't need multiple at all? Just have it entirely on a USB drive? That's a completely different question.

Portable executables are one of a very few places where Windows seems to do better than Linux.

Windows applications tend to be self-contained anyway, with their own copy of whatever dependencies they have, so it's easy to just install it to a removable thing, put that removable thing on a different machine, and run it there too. But you end up with a bunch of copies of the same dependency: one for each app that wants it.

Linux installs dependencies on the system, not with each app, so there's only ever one copy of each dependency, and everything uses that shared copy. That saves some storage space, but it also makes it harder to make sandboxed or portable things.

There have been some efforts to create a self-contained sandbox environment on Linux - snap and flatpak for two examples - that have all of the dependencies bundled with each individual app kinda like Windows does, but the problem there is getting the permissions worked out to access the system resources that it needs. Windows is open enough that the permissions don't matter as much - probably a holdover from the old "single-user god" mentality - but Linux is NOT trusting by default and therefore requires explicit instructions to allow that access.

Then the question becomes, "Can you have those permissions open on all machines that you plug the USB drive into, even if they're never seen it before? And if so, how?"
If the answer to that is yes, I would not be surprised if the Linux community calls it a security hole and fixes it, because it could just as easily be a virus and you certainly do NOT want *that* to have those permissions!

 

[EmersonSilva]

So you don't need multiple at all? Just have it entirely on a USB drive? That's a completely different question.

Portable executables are one of a very few places where Windows seems to do better than Linux.

Windows applications tend to be self-contained anyway, with their own copy of whatever dependencies they have, so it's easy to just install it to a removable thing, put that removable thing on a different machine, and run it there too. But you end up with a bunch of copies of the same dependency: one for each app that wants it.

Linux installs dependencies on the system, not with each app, so there's only ever one copy of each dependency, and everything uses that shared copy. That saves some storage space, but it also makes it harder to make sandboxed or portable things.

There have been some efforts to create a self-contained sandbox environment on Linux - snap and flatpak for two examples - that have all of the dependencies bundled with each individual app kinda like Windows does, but the problem there is getting the permissions worked out to access the system resources that it needs. Windows is open enough that the permissions don't matter as much - probably a holdover from the old "single-user god" mentality - but Linux is NOT trusting by default and therefore requires explicit instructions to allow that access.

Then the question becomes, "Can you have those permissions open on all machines that you plug the USB drive into, even if they're never seen it before? And if so, how?"
If the answer to that is yes, I would not be surprised if the Linux community calls it a security hole and fixes it, because it could just as easily be a virus and you certainly do NOT want *that* to have those permissions!

Great explanation. Honestly the most coherent answer I've ever heard on this subject.

I've been looking for a solution to this for some time now, but no one has shown such a clear view on this and presenting an important security issue.

I will follow your advice using the "multi-instance" option leaving only the Scene Collection, Profile and my files needed for streaming on a USB drive.

Thank you very much!!!