CUDA 10 Installation .run vs .deb inconsistency

When installing CUDA 10 using the .deb(network) method, #apt-get install cuda, steam can’t launch, throwing up a “glXChooseVisual failed” window. According to, the .run method installs a 32 bit compatibility layer.
Query: Is there work currently being done to make the .run match the .deb installation methods? I prefer to using the .deb method for simpler updates and metapackages.

You can choose to not install the 32-bit compatibility libraries or openGL libraries with the runfile installer.

If you prefer to use the .deb method, just use the .deb method.

I do want the 32 bit compatibility libraries, mainly for Steam’s 32 bit launcher. I installed the .runfile yesterday and it downloaded the 410.48 driver. My question is, why is there inconsistency between the two installation methods that isn’t provided in the installation docs and if this is a known issue.

I am guessing here: The .run installer is under full control of NVIDIA, the .deb installer is not under control of NVIDIA.

My standing advice for many years has been to use exclusively use .run installers on Linux, as that method has never failed me. Other people may have made different experiences, of course. I don’t use Steam.

Hmm, I find that to be quite interesting. It’s just that I don’t think that’s the reason. The .deb is distributed by nvidia, as is the .run file. If the .run file acts as a script obtaining software that the .deb can’t include due to licensing issues, they could add it as a hard dependency or at least adequate documentation, maybe in the pre-install instructions.