[HN Gopher] Ubuntu 22.10 Kinetic Kudu
___________________________________________________________________
Ubuntu 22.10 Kinetic Kudu
Author : pantalaimon
Score : 277 points
Date : 2022-10-20 14:28 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ubuntu.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ubuntu.com)
| overshard wrote:
| I used to use Ubuntu for everything and was very happy in the
| massive Ubuntu ecosystem with a .deb for everything till I was
| forced to use Snap a few releases ago for installing even some
| basic utils I used on a daily basis. I then had Snap constantly
| hang on installs and just break for no apparent reason and waste
| my time debugging it. It didn't "just work" anymore.
|
| Swapped to Arch and haven't looked back yet, Arch took me a lot
| more work to get set up but once it was it's been pretty
| invisible, which is how I like my OS to be.
|
| I'd probably happily swap back to Ubuntu if I read somewhere that
| Snap was removed entirely/canceled or something.
| amelius wrote:
| I would love to switch away, but nVidia is forcing me to use
| Ubuntu on their Jetson series of products.
| severino wrote:
| I also use Ubuntu a lot, and while I'm disappointed about this
| Snap thing, I'm still not looking for alternatives.
|
| At least until 22.04 I could dodge snaps pretty easily, but
| now, since Firefox is now a snap package, things went worse, at
| least for me. I gave it a try and, while the experience was not
| as bad as I feared, I soon encountered problems with things
| like trying to use a smartcard reader for signing documents,
| something that used to work out of the box with the non
| sanboxed version of Firefox and now it's broken with snaps (or
| at least some weeks ago).
|
| I ended up downloading a Firefox tarball from the official
| site. I know you can use a PPA for that, but I don't feel
| comfortable having software as critical as a web browser from a
| third-party Ubuntu PPA.
|
| Maybe I should give Pop OS a try...
| pantalaimon wrote:
| I just switched to Chrome, it's available as a .deb from
| Google.
| tssva wrote:
| stevekemp wrote:
| I run Debian on all my systems, and to be honest firefox is
| something I always maintain separately.
|
| /opt/firefox contains the latest binary download from the
| official site.
|
| The application is one that updates frequently enough that
| the gain is worthwhile.
| bornfreddy wrote:
| This. The packages make sense for the apps that don't
| change frequently, but browsers don't match this
| description.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| It's the opposite of the way things should be. Package
| managers _should_ have the most utility for applications
| that update frequently, because isn 't the raison d'etre
| of a package manager to make updating programs easier?
|
| Some distros manage to get it right. I haven't had any
| trouble using OpenSUSE Tumbleweed's packaged Firefox.
| michaelmrose wrote:
| You are right its not the fact that it updates
| frequently. It is when the distro package is an inferior
| option either because of version or build options.
| chrisallenlane wrote:
| I've discovered a workflow I'm happy with.
|
| I run Debian stable on my workstation, and manage most of
| my packages with `apt`. As such, everything "just works,"
| and flawlessly.
|
| For the handful of packages that I want to upgrade
| aggressively, I manage them with Nix[1].
|
| I've been doing this for maybe two or three years, and
| despite a little extra complexity, it feels like a best-
| of-both worlds scenario. I get the rock-solid stability
| of Debian stable, but the one or two packages that need
| to stay cutting-edge are able to do so.
|
| I also don't have trouble with package conflicts, because
| the entire point of Nix is to prevent those kinds of
| problems.
|
| This has been great for me. Do recommend.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_(package_manager)
| kzrdude wrote:
| The package repository should be the off-the-shelf items
| in the grocery store, while installing separately is the
| big-ticket and custom made items. Installing apps
| separately doesn't scale very well, but it makes sense to
| just do it for firefox and certain others. IMO.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Firefox is "big ticket", but not "custom made"; one
| firefox package or installer should suit everybody fine.
| I think package managers can do very well with Firefox if
| the package is managed well.
| kzrdude wrote:
| It's the user's choice how to install Firefox for sure.
| The opa works fine on ubuntu
| josephg wrote:
| Exactly. I use Linux mint (without snaps) and Firefox
| works great. It updates pretty frequently through mint's
| software update tool, which is just running apt and
| installing package updates.
|
| All this talk of snaps and using PPAs sounds like a an
| unnecessary headache. What's the point of a package
| manager if it doesn't keep your packages up to date?
| nequo wrote:
| Firefox ESR is available in a PPA that is maintained by
| Mozilla. Even though that's a third party, that's as close to
| an official package as it gets.
|
| I'm just hoping that it will remain available until this snap
| thing subsides, or until I make the switch to GNU Guix or
| something.
|
| Edit: It seems that the latest stable Firefox is available,
| too.[1] I thought it was only ESR and that Ubuntu's switch to
| snap was requested by Mozilla. I'm confused.
|
| [1] https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa/+p
| ack...
| nvrspyx wrote:
| It seems like they've been including stable, non-ESR builds
| for at least the last few releases (I only went back a few
| pages of previous builds). Launchpad is confusing for me,
| but my impression is that they're using that PPA to build
| the stable release using the Launchpad service and then
| packing that build as a snap. It seems like they're just
| uploading the snap package rather than building it using
| Launchpad.
|
| If that's the case, maybe it's a limitation of Launchpad?
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| > Maybe I should give Pop OS a try...
|
| I'm a big fan: it's like Ubuntu, but with much of Canonical's
| divisive changes reverted, and with a few other improvements.
|
| I switched from Ubuntu to Pop!_OS a few releases back when I
| got a System76 computer. (I also use it on my Lenovo laptop.)
| smallerfish wrote:
| I wish Pop OS would tackle KDE. It's a much better DE
| (particularly if you like to customize), but there are very
| few (if any) distributions which have an opinionated tuned
| experience out of the box.
| dev_daftly wrote:
| They are transitioning COSMIC from gnome to be it's own
| standalone DE built on rust
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| KDE would be superb if it weren't so buggy. KDE is aimed
| in the right direction, trying to do and be all the
| things a desktop environment should do and be. But
| unfortunately the implementation is frequently deficient.
| Even seemingly basic things frequently break, like re-
| applying mouse preferences when you unplug and replug
| your mouse: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435113
|
| A couple more recent annoyances, of many: Plasma looks
| great but frequently my panels go missing and don't
| reappear until I restart plasma shell. Dolphin has all
| the functionality I want and looks great, but frequently
| fails to watch directories for new files, forcing me to
| F5. Lots of little things like this turn into death by a
| thousand papercuts.
| smallerfish wrote:
| Yeah, hence my wish that somebody with strong opinions,
| financing and some energy would adopt KDE as the main
| distro.
|
| There are some very prolific people involved in the KDE
| project, but from my understanding some of the distros,
| e.g. Kubuntu, are conservative and slow to contribute
| anything.
| imiric wrote:
| That might be the case, but is there an alternative with
| a similar feature set?
|
| The latest GNOME versions are even buggier, and when it
| does work, it feels like a toy project compared to KDE.
| It's baffling to me that it's been years since the v3
| controversy, yet the project still doesn't feel as mature
| and polished as KDE Plasma.
|
| All v2 forks also feel like someone's hobby project to
| bring disparate tools together, rather than a cohesive
| desktop. I'm sure some MATE and Cinnamon fans would
| disagree, but IMO the modern desktop experience has moved
| on since 2010.
|
| Similarly with LXDE, Fluxbox and a myriad of others.
| These are great for certain environments, but none of
| them can compare to the polish that KDE has, let alone
| something like macOS.
|
| To be fair, I'm not bashing on minimalistic or window
| manager-only setups. I've been using bspwm on Void Linux
| for many years now as my main working environment, and
| wouldn't change it for the world. But when I want to stop
| being productive, consume content, and not have to
| troubleshoot issues on my machine, I prefer to use a more
| featureful environment with a friendlier UI. Since macOS
| is out of the question, and Windows is purely for gaming
| (and even that is going away, thanks to Valve), KDE is
| pretty much my only choice on Linux. Which I've been
| enjoying for a few months now on NixOS.
|
| But I do wonder if there is really a DE that can compare
| to it. AFAIK more ambitious projects like elementary OS,
| Deepin and Solus are still experimental, to the point
| where I don't even keep track of their updates.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| I'm afraid I don't have a great answer. Right now I'm
| using LXQt with Kwin as my window manager; LXQt replaces
| Plasma and solves a lot of my problems with KDE, but
| isn't as slick as Plasma when Plasma is working. I
| replaced Dolphin with PCManFM, which isn't quite as slick
| either but it's adequate and seems to reliably watch
| directories for updates. I've stuck with some KDE
| applications, like Okular which has never disappointed
| me.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| Does System76 have a sustainable business? My concern would
| be putting time invested into their tech, then later
| finding support gone wrong.
| bobthecowboy wrote:
| Well they've been in business for over a decade, so
| that's something. Does that translate into maintaining
| PopOS indefinitely? Eh....
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| I have no idea how healthy System76 is, but at least for
| my work, I could pretty trivially revert to Ubuntu if I
| needed to.
| fhd2 wrote:
| Recently converted to their hardware after a rather long
| line of Macbooks. Completely happy - everything. just.
| works. First Linux laptop I've had where I didn't need to
| fiddle with anything, way less than macOS.
|
| Regarding their business model, they do design the
| laptops (even if they don't produce them themselves), but
| I get their impression their competitive edge are two
| different things:
|
| 1. Branding/marketing (to non-mainstream users, but we're
| talking about them right now, so I guess it's working)
|
| 2. Software: Ensuring everything works smoothly. It's not
| just firmware and drivers - having their own distribution
| seems quite key, otherwise it's trickier to cater to
| _their_ users needs. Keeping it close to the most popular
| distributions seems smart to me.
|
| Pop OS clearly is a big deal for (2), but I think it even
| contributes to (1). Since they make money (apparently
| sustainably so) from selling hardware, and given that it
| appears Pop OS is an important driver of that business,
| I'd wager it's not going anywhere as long as they have a
| working hardware business.
| acomjean wrote:
| They seem to. They sell computers (with Ubuntu or
| Pop!_OS). I'm at least the 2nd one to get one at my work
| (that I know of). They're not "cheap", and if you know
| what they are and what you are doing you could just buy a
| similar model for a bit less and install linux on
| that.(they're rebadged clevos, I've replaced a fan on
| one..)
|
| But if you buy from them it comes with linux pre-
| installed (yeah!) which saves time and stress. It was
| easy and they do support you, and my 2 experiences with
| support where very good (Os and hardware). Plus Mat
| screens.
|
| I was skeptical about yet another distro, but after using
| I kinda like Pop!_os despite the name. Its my daily
| driver now. The "Pop shop" where it does upgrades and
| software installs is decent enough. It seems to let me
| choose "flatpack (flathub)" or "debs" for most software.
| I haven't had any issues with either, though looking
| though my list its vscode and gimp which are my flatpack
| installs..
|
| One great thing about Ubuntu and variants is that it's
| got a lot of software that works well with it.
| lambic wrote:
| I've had a System 76 laptop for a few months now and I'm
| pretty happy with it. They've done a good job with
| Pop!Os, it's the only distro I've found that has made
| Gnome usable for me out of the box.
|
| The only downside over my previous laptop (Dell XPS) is
| that I can no longer run 2 external monitors, the System
| 76 hardware just doesn't seem to be able to handle it.
| francislavoie wrote:
| They're a 17 year old company. I think they're pretty
| stable.
| 7speter wrote:
| >I'm a big fan: it's like Ubuntu, but with much of
| Canonical's divisive changes reverted, and with a few other
| improvements
|
| Hmm, I assumed that PopOS pretty much just added their own
| extra stuff to an Ubuntu install. I didn't realize they got
| rid of the default snap cruft?
|
| Anyways, the last time I used Pop it had this weird upgrade
| to nowhere thing happened where it prompted me to update
| and then the update files were nowhere to be found.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Canonical really showed their colors with Snap I think. The
| base concept is obviously one desired by many users, as
| evidenced by the existence of alternatives like Flatpak and
| AppImage which both(?) predate it, not to mention ROX AppDirs,
| GNUStep Application Bundles, and a few others.
|
| But Canonical insists on their own implementation which is
| entirely controlled by them. Only they have a Snap repo, they
| follow the hated Windows model of forced updates, etc.
|
| Someday I think Ubuntu will have to give up Snaps to remain
| relevant and switch to (probably) Flatpak, but they're going to
| lose a lot of users in the mean time.
| zmk5 wrote:
| I honestly hope not. I like the fact that other distros are
| trying things themselves. If you don't like it, just switch
| to a different one. Whats the point of different distros if
| they all do the same thing?
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| I think I was bit by snap (Firefox refusing to start) - I just
| don't have the mental energy to learn what snap is and why I
| can't or shouldn't just use apt-get like I always have. Or do I
| have to use both now? (edit: if you want to quickly answer
| great, but I'm really putting my frustrations into words)
| akvadrako wrote:
| You don't have to use Snap at all. I've been using latest
| Ubuntu for a few years and I just uninstall it after every
| major upgrade.
|
| I do use flatpak for a lot of stuff, but it's better than Snap
| in many ways: it's faster, you can upgrade while apps are
| running, it allows third party repos, etc...
| gauddasa wrote:
| And also, you do not need administrative privilege to install
| Flatpak apps. Snap mandates administrative privilege. The
| only downside is accessing utilities from frameworks using
| command line is difficult and tricky in Flatpak.
| rcthompson wrote:
| They make it nearly impossible to avoid snap. Every couple of
| upgrades, they unconditionally run a script that forcibly
| removes the Firefox deb and installs the snap. Nothing I've
| tried has been able to prevent this. It seems to be hard
| coded somewhere.
|
| So it's kind of like saying "well you don't _have_ to stay in
| the pit " except you keep pushing me in the pit every time I
| climb out.
| Andys wrote:
| I'm not finding this to be the case, on every computer I
| now uninstall snapd completely and use the firefox-esr PPA
| (mentioned elsewhere), and I am able to apt-get dist-
| upgrade regularly with no problems.
| Jenk wrote:
| Arch does have a slight hangup - you can't pin versions of
| stuff without creating a whole new pkgbuild.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Snap is so bad that everyone who's not at Canonical (and
| probably even _most_ of them) can tell it should go away. It 's
| plainly not the right solution.
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| After 15 years switched to Mint Cinnamon, it's quite nice now.
| It is easier than ubuntu because removing snap is no longer a
| task.
|
| Next up need an alternative to Firefox, it's very disapointing
| how much has to be configured to turn off all the bullshit
| analytics, "colorways?", and get a blank new tab page.
| 6c696e7578 wrote:
| I don't think there'll be a good alternative until Firefox
| isn't the alternative to Chrome.
| umvi wrote:
| I use OpenSUSE Tumbleweed which is also rolling release, and
| the one thing that bugs me is that sometimes your tools are so
| cutting edge that it makes it hard to get older stuff. For
| example it's super easy to get python 3.10 working in
| Tumbleweed but super hard to get python 3.6 working.
|
| I needed specifically Python 3.6 to test something, and man
| that was hard to get working in Tumbleweed. First of all, it is
| not available in standard repos or pre-built on python's
| website. Second of all, downloading 3.6 source and building it
| fails because (apparently) the GCC version I have is too new
| and creates problems with the `-O3` flag passed during
| building. So now I have to install an older version of GCC that
| plays nice with python 3.6 source code...
|
| Eventually I just said "screw it" and used the docker
| python:3.6 image. Not quite as convenient as having a native
| python3.6, but "good enough". Not sure what I would do if that
| image became unavailable.
| int_19h wrote:
| That's exactly the kind of stuff that
| https://github.com/pyenv/pyenv is meant to handle.
| umvi wrote:
| I started down that route as well but was running into the
| same gcc issues as when compiling manually. I found this
| issue https://github.com/pyenv/pyenv/issues/2046 but the
| workaround didn't immediately work for me and I didn't dig
| any deeper.
| tmtvl wrote:
| I've also been using TW for a while now (6 or so years) and
| I've taken to using GNU Guix as an environment manager when I
| need a specific version of some software.
| smashed wrote:
| My first encounter with snaps was launching gcalc, the basic
| built-in calculator app.
|
| At some point after an update, launching that app would take
| multiple seconds. How could the most basic gtk app be so slow
| to launch.
|
| Investigating further, I found the update had transformed the
| normal gcalc package into a snap, probably just to prove how
| great snaps could be for desktop apps?
|
| What a bad way to introduce your latest tech canonical. From
| then on, my opinion of snaps was very negative and I still do
| everything possible to avoid them. Even if they are technically
| great or more secure, canonical messed up their introduction
| and are now stuck pushing a dead horse.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| That was also my first introduction to snap. Spent a while
| trying to figure out why the calc app was so slow all of a
| sudden. Switched to popos eventually.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| My last Kubuntu update (to 22.04) broke because, I think, I'd
| disabled snaps and the update required snap installs
| (including Firefox). The update had a "install snap version
| of Firefox" stage with the only option being OK/Yes ... so
| install broke. They were so up themselves that they removed
| the option to cancel snap install despite it not being for
| essential elements of the OS; I had to kill them installer.
|
| My first brush with fat-packages was Digikam stopping
| producing .deb packages, it put in so much overhead I
| couldn't run it on my (admittedly weak) system. The forced
| use of Firefox snap lost configuration, then failed to work
| properly (permission problems) ... it's like how the use of
| file managers via sudo was stopped, seemingly without a
| proper plan to replace it; make the new tech first, then
| implement it when it works! It's like going back to Windows,
| having fragmented app sources and forced updates that wreck
| everything.
|
| I'm not sure where to move to next, I came to Ubuntu years
| ago because I no longer wanted to do the config work
| necessary to run Slackware. Looks like Mint/Arch/Debian are
| contenders.
| remram wrote:
| Firefox is the only thing I had problems with, and this was
| quickly fixed by adding the Mozilla PPA. I haven't run into
| any snap problems (I apt-get purge'd snapd).
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| Tested Kubuntu after frustration with gnome 3+ and over a
| decade on Ubuntu, but was very disappointed. Someone more
| knowledgable than me strongly recommended KDE Neon (Ubuntu
| LTS-based distro by KDE themselves) over Kubuntu. Me, I
| figured I don't need K apps and a full-fledged desktop
| environment; ended up going back to Mac OS for now.
| zekrioca wrote:
| I second this. I understand how hard it may be to maintain
| software these days, and that's the whole point of snap, but
| the way it is implemented seems broken. It can simply break the
| whole system, it is like it uses one huge semaphore for all
| 'transactions' it commits in the 'snap database' (whatever it
| is) and if the transaction doesn't complete, the whole system
| stalls. Only recourse is reboot.
|
| Don't get me wrong, snap is like a great conceptual ideal, but
| it seems to work only for Ubuntu/Canonical developers (or to
| people with access to them), no one else. It is not well
| programmed/thought for some reason. Pretty stupid issues, and
| the read-only fs thing is also weird, how can one test things
| On-The-Go?
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| > _I understand how hard it may be to maintain software these
| days_ ...*
|
| I can't see it being harder than during the forming years
| with ever-changing libs and tools. Haven't seen a new end-
| user desktop app on Linux for over a decade either.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Last time I poked at Desktop Linux I tried all three of the
| major solutions for this, and the only one I could tolerate
| was AppImage, but its ecosystem seemed a bit weak and its
| official (I think?) site & repo were... not confidence-
| inspiring.
| remram wrote:
| I always uninstall snapd first thing, as well as GNOME (I use
| KDE but the Kubuntu 22.04 installer crashes if using full-disk
| encryption). Apart from Firefox, for which I had to enable the
| Mozilla PPA, I haven't really run into anything where I was
| required to use snap.
| Ptchd wrote:
| rpdillon wrote:
| I strongly recommend Pop!_OS as a great solution for 'snapless
| Ubuntu '. I buy System76 machines with it, but also install it
| on a bunch of my other non-System76 machines. The whole family
| uses it.
| pizza234 wrote:
| I'm a "power" Ubuntu user, strongly anti-snap, but Ubuntu
| doesn't force users to use snaps.
|
| 22.04 has been very invasive by defaulting Firefox to a snap
| (there is still an alternative though, which is easy and well
| known, but still), but the repositories are still there in
| apt/deb format, with all the usual (thousands of) programs.
|
| There may be a few exceptions, but they're very likely programs
| that have never been in the standard repositories; Subsync is
| an example. This is a decisions of the developers more than
| Ubuntu.
|
| I can see another case being programs whose developers did not
| want to update dependencies, but I've never found such case.
|
| That said, I'm definitely afraid of a real push of snaps,
| although I'm not sure if Ubuntu itself will be involved more.
| At the very end, containerized packaging programs take space,
| and there's only so much that a distribution can provide
| (before enraging users).
| registeredcorn wrote:
| I'm interested to know: What made you choose Arch over Fedora?
|
| I had a somewhat similar experience to you and tried Fedora
| first and it works well. Fedora seems to follow the same "just
| work" direction that Ubuntu aimed/aims for, minus some aspects
| I wasn't a fan of. Since Fedora worked for me, I never bothered
| checking out any other distributions. Was there a big draw to
| Arch over some of the others, or was it just the first one you
| tried out and stuck with?
| dwaite wrote:
| Speaking for myself - Red Hat's package manager cratered on
| an upgrade in the past (early 2000s) when it ran out of user
| space, and my investigation was that I hit a pretty core
| issue with the package manager design itself.
|
| Since it isn't something where I can easily test if the
| problem still exists, I just avoided RPM completely. That
| means I have a knowledge and learning benefit in using other
| systems, and even in learning new (simpler) systems over
| investing in Fedora.
|
| The split between Fedora and RHEL is also not IMHO as clearly
| advertised as with other distributions, so I do worry that I
| will hit a very expensive support wall that might also
| require me to switch distributions.
| jrsj wrote:
| I've been using EndeavourOS lately. It's less of a distinct
| distro and more a really convenient Arch installer to get to a
| usable system quickly. And without all the extra BS of Manjaro
| -- once you've installed it, you're basically just running
| Arch. It installs packages directly from Arch, etc.
| mike256 wrote:
| I switched to Debian. Still able to use most of the debs but
| without those Snaps.
| 6c696e7578 wrote:
| Debian for everything.
| gtirloni wrote:
| I think you could have a very polished desktop with Fedora and
| flatkpaks (no daemon) without much work, but I'm glad Arch is
| working for you.
| abvavgjeremy wrote:
| Same, but I went with Debian as I wanted to stay in the .deb
| world.
| aliqot wrote:
| Let me start by saying Debian rolling release is the truth.
|
| That being said, I worry about the archaic community and
| contributor-tooling behind debian to be a barrier that will
| lead to its demise though. Makes me sad, but it is what it
| is. We are all getting old, and to us this interface looks
| normal, but to new people and those making the apps that the
| kids depend on, it looks like a shitshow of antiquated code.
|
| Nobody wants to interact with savannah, it's ugly, move those
| projects somewhere else.
|
| Nobody wants to use mailing lists or byzantine social
| arrangements through IRC just to get their package submitted.
|
| I've got to be real with you, not a lot of people give a shit
| about 'free' beyond price either. Make non-free the default
| and put 'free-only' as the apt option. I love free software
| and it hurts me to say it, but there's a reason why AUR is
| killing the game right now. It's easy to use, easy to enter,
| easy to see people using your code in a mainstream OS without
| having to opine to holy neckbeards for the mercy to allow
| your package to be published.
|
| Debian is a great OS, and I'd happily use it for the rest of
| my life if given the choice, but reality is staring me in the
| face that this won't last in its current form, and its
| current form won't be maintained if anything changes. It's a
| catch-22.
| massysett wrote:
| I look at all the distros Debian has outlasted and when
| people say Debian won't last I just bust out laughing.
|
| Those holy neckbeards are doing a great job maintaining
| this OS and it's got quite enough packages.
| pmontra wrote:
| AUR? Is that Arch User Repository (just googled it up) or
| something else?
| brnt wrote:
| I've also heard criticism of .deb being much more
| cumbersome than .rpm. Fedora is not my first choice, Debian
| is, but they are more new-dev friendly.
|
| Maybe Debian needs to port itself to use rpms and Fedora
| tooling.
| yakubin wrote:
| Debs are very easy to make and their structure is easy to
| understand for anyone who's been using Linux for at least
| a couple months. They're just tarballs with a couple
| special text files. What's hard is Debian's official
| tools to make debs, which are geared towards people who
| want to become maintainers of packages in official Debian
| repos. If you don't aim to become one, there are third-
| party tools which make it easy, such as cargo-deb or
| holo-build. If you don't want to use them, you may also
| even write a shell script which will produce a good
| package. Just use lintian to double-check whether
| everything is alright.
|
| RPM on the other hand is an over-engineered mess:
| <https://xyrillian.de/thoughts/posts/argh-pm.html>.
| Tangentially, YUM and DNF were the slowest package
| managers I've ever used. They're a real pain.
| aliqot wrote:
| Making the package generally isn't very difficult in
| comparison to flatpak, appimage, rpm. The problem is the
| old dusty path to getting a mentor/sponsor for your
| little insignificant utility to get introduced into the
| repos. Every doc/page you see will have swaths of
| (sometimes old) information that outlines endless
| procedure and arcane incantations required to find
| someone who may be online and not idle, who might just
| vouch for you... or they might endlessly critique your
| code and license.
|
| This whole process worked great back in the day, but now
| the kids will just go somewhere else or release outside
| of repositories.
|
| I know Ubuntu loves the smell of their own codes, but
| part of me thinks PPA was Canonical's way to address how
| difficult and crusty the process to get software into
| Debian is. To this day if you can get in Debian repos,
| Ubuntu will include you in theirs 'for free'.
|
| I feel so bad saying this.. Debian was supposed to be The
| One, imo. I've been at this linux thing since the mid
| 90s, I could not have predicted the current state of
| things decades ago. It truly disappoints me that things
| have gone this wrong with modern Linux, but I can't say
| it had a chance to play out any other way. You see the
| same with cryptocurrency (gasp!) where in order to
| achieve legitimacy in the eyes of the opposition a novel
| industry sought to emulate the legacy systems enough to
| be familiar and charm the opposing users, but ended up
| gaining users sold on that dream who lo and behold
| demanded an effigy to their old systems. We brought this
| on ourselves.
|
| Now we have Ubuntu aiming to be the new Microsoft at an
| org level, aesthetically emulating MacOS at a UI level,
| and meanwhile pretending to be a crossplatform user
| experience perfect for phone and desktop. I call
| bullshit. Ubuntu took the dark path after 10.04 and 10.10
| when Ubuntu Netbook Remix first reared its ugly head.
| Someone misunderstood the instructions, fed it after
| midnight, and now it's achieved its final form- Unity.
|
| This is 100% our fault, my generations fault. We didn't
| keep with the times and I don't see that changing fast
| enough.
| nsteel wrote:
| > Make non-free the default
|
| Didn't they just vote to do this?
| ixtenu wrote:
| No, the recent change [0] was to add non-free firmware to
| the official installer (instead of relegating it to a
| separate unofficial installer). GP, however, was talking
| about the apt repository: the non-free apt repository is
| disabled by default. This hasn't changed and is unlikely
| to ever change. The non-free apt repository be enabled
| via a trivial /etc/apt/sources.list edit.
|
| [0]: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Debian-Non-Free-
| Firmware-Resul...
| bxparks wrote:
| Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu but does not use snap. Doing "a
| lot more work" to install an OS does not sound appealing.
| pxeboot wrote:
| Installing Arch with the cli installer [1] is pretty
| straightforward these days. It only becomes a lot more work
| if you have very specific preferences on partition layouts,
| filesystems and bootloaders. In my experience, changing these
| things on Ubuntu was even more difficult and less documented.
|
| [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/archinstall
| mkl wrote:
| I haven't tried Arch, but in my experience changing those
| things in Ubuntu setup is simple and can be done in the GUI
| installer - I do it every fresh install. I haven't tried
| changing the bootloader; haven't had the need to.
| Nullabillity wrote:
| As Ubuntu gradually snapifies more and more stuff, Mint is
| either going to start falling behind or have to redo Ubuntu's
| packages (reducing any benefits of the Ubuntu heritage...).
|
| Mint might be an OK stopgap, but I wouldn't call it a long-
| term solution to Ubuntu's snap infestation. Just like you
| won't get a good OS by playing whack-a-mole with the various
| workarounds you have to do to avoid Windows' latest user-
| hostile bullshit.
| opan wrote:
| Mint also has a Debian Edition, and it could just become
| the main one.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| Ubuntu still gets most packages from Debian, so as long as
| they don't switch to Snap, everything should be fine.
| [deleted]
| pessimizer wrote:
| Mint is preconfigured Ubuntu that avoids a few user-hostile
| choices. Techies talking about choosing a Linux seem to
| careen between Ubuntu/Mint dead-simple consumer stuff and
| then the other way to Arch, when they decide that they're too
| _expert_ for Ubuntu (then to Macs, after they have one _very
| rough day_ with Arch.) Debian is nice, and simple. Takes a
| little bit of configuring to taste, but configuring the next
| Debian how you like isn 't going to be much different that
| configuring the last Debian how you liked. Keep a text file
| that reminds you of any weird config changes you make and
| why.
|
| It also upgrades in place nicely. Excellent distro for Ubuntu
| and Mint to base themselves in.
| nagyf wrote:
| Yeah, setting up arch for the first time takes time. For
| newbie users it is definitely not appealing process, and also
| I would not recommend it. It's not a long process, but you do
| everything yourself and all this in the terminal (no GUI
| installer).
|
| I learned a lot about linux when I decided to try Arch. And
| as OP, I also never looked back :)
| rgoulter wrote:
| My experience with Arch (which I tried after I'd used Linux
| Mint) was that for the first few weeks I was constantly
| consulting the Arch Linux Wiki to get anything done. -- I
| mean, yes, the emphasis is on "learned a lot".
|
| The Arch Linux Wiki is a fantastic resource.
| bombcar wrote:
| Installing Arch (or even Gentoo) is worth doing at least
| once just to learn a bunch about how the parts work
| together.
|
| Heck, even just reading the installation guide gives you
| a better understanding of how a Linux machine operates.
| krn wrote:
| > Swapped to Arch and haven't looked back yet, Arch took me a
| lot more work to get set up but once it was it's been pretty
| invisible, which is how I like my OS to be.
|
| I think that Fedora Workstation[1] is a #1 alternative to
| Ubuntu in terms of smoothness and ease of use. And if .deb is a
| requirement - then simply Debian.
|
| [1] https://getfedora.org/en/workstation/
| pantalaimon wrote:
| eh Fedora requires many additional steps to get hardware
| accelerated video decoding or proprietary drivers working.
|
| With Ubuntu it's all out of the box.
| timemct wrote:
| Nobara Project[1] helps with this. It is somewhat gaming-
| on-linux focused, but for some, like myself, that's a win.
| I use it on both my desktop (Intel CPU, AMD GPU) and my
| Thinkpad T480: works great on both.
|
| [1] https://nobaraproject.org
| brnt wrote:
| Seconded. Fedora is very much NOT an all-ready-out-of-the-
| box experience, unless you are a FLOSS dev.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| You don't need to be a developer, the average computer
| enthusiast is capable of googling the matter figuring it
| out. It may not be appropriate for the "colloquial
| grandmother" sort of user, but you certainly don't need
| to be a computer programmer to figure it out. There's a
| lot of ground in-between those.
|
| My dad is a retired accountant and a computer enthusiast
| since the 80s. Never a programmer, but he does this kind
| of stuff. Has managed his own linux installations for
| about 15 years.
| brnt wrote:
| Googling =\= ootb.
| MichaelCollins wrote:
| Able to google =\= FLOSS dev
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > Fedora is very much NOT an all-ready-out-of-the-box
| experience, unless you are a FLOSS dev.
|
| Nah it's pretty close if you have an integrated Intel or
| AMD system, you really don't need closed-source drivers
| for much except Nvidia these days. Chrome is in the non-
| free Fedora repositories (or can be installed easily from
| the website with an .rpm) and that's all most normal
| users need.
| brnt wrote:
| Plus codecs, plus font rendering, plus cutting edge being
| too cutting edge sometimes.
|
| Like I said, FLOSS devs don't rely on closed blobs so
| they don't have this problem.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > codecs
|
| Most websites people care about use open codecs these
| days (Google and Netflix use VP9 and AV1, both are open
| and royalty-free).
|
| Never had an issue with font rendering. And cutting edge
| being too cutting edge might be an issue with some dev
| things but having up to date Gnome and apps is fine.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Do they stroll restrict nonfree audio/video codecs?
|
| I would use fedora, but I want my repository set limited
| to trusted sources only. Core repositories are RedHat
| endorsed, afaict the user managed ones are not.
|
| I want the ability to say that packages are from
| maintainers that are well trusted in a court of law. I
| cannot do that with fedora due to this, Ubuntu seems to
| be my only solution and it's rapidly becoming unusable (I
| don't hate snap, but it's broken my workflow).
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Another good alternative could be openSUSE:
| https://www.opensuse.org/ - also pretty smooth, with user-
| friendly configuration tools, and no snap nonsense. WSL users
| might also be interested in using that for their distro
| instead of Ubuntu.
| tesseract2 wrote:
| I used to use opensuse around 2010, and had very pleasant
| experience with it. Things just worked, and their Yast tool
| was very handy. I used to joke that opensuse is the
| Mercedes of linux distro :).
|
| I am wondering why it isn't more popular. Is there any
| sentiment/experience people would like to share about this
| distro?
| stinkytaco wrote:
| It's the second biggest Linux company behind Redhat, so I
| think it's reasonably popular. It's also been a while
| since I used it, but I'll also point out that it's
| developed primarily in Germany, so it's entirely possible
| it's just not as popular in the English speaking
| community.
|
| However, the licensing agreement with Microsoft put many
| people in the open source community off, so I think
| that's contributed to its decline among hobby users.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Ubuntu does a pretty good job marketing-wise, many people
| start they journey with Ubuntu and never look for other
| distros. Or on the other hand, they end up on
| advanced/continuous-maintenance distros like Arch Linux.
| ghostpepper wrote:
| Do you really think 'continuous maintenance' is an
| appropriate category for Arch? That hasn't been my
| experience.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| If you go to an Arch community and you say you haven't
| updated your system in a month, they will be mad.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| I went to flavours of Ubuntu (Pop/Mint) to Manjaro, to
| Fedora.
|
| I love fedora, it just works. I've had 1 issue so far, NVidia
| GPU on Dell XPS 15. Had to disable noveau and its rock solid.
| RScholar wrote:
| Kind of creepy, but you just described, step for step, how
| I ended up running Fedora's KDE Spin on all my boxes over
| the past year. I really wanted to like Manjaro, I mean the
| AUR is incredible and their visual design even uses all my
| favorite colors, but despite my best efforts it felt alien
| to me in a way I can't well articulate.
|
| Now enter Fedora for the past 4-5 months and I have to say
| I'm rather impressed. In particular, their package archives
| seem to keep current with a lot of the software I rely on
| far better than Debian/Ubuntu. Using dnf feels much more
| familiar than pacman ever did, and as of now I feel like my
| search for a daily driver has ended. I would recommend
| anyone else that's not happy with the experience of Ubuntu
| anymore to do likewise and see how Fedora feels in its
| place.
| bitL wrote:
| My main gripe with Snap was the loss of configuration whenever
| it decided to update a package on its own. Imagine running
| OwnCloud as a Snap and losing all metadata when OwnCloud
| updated itself for some reason.
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| Is there an easy way to get Arch on WSL?
| tyingq wrote:
| Snap has also ruined Ubuntu for me, and I've moved to Debian
| and/or Alpine depending on the use case.
| shinjitsu wrote:
| I've loved ubuntu for a while as well, but snaps are making me
| want something new - any suggestions for a "I'm middle aged
| with children so I need an it just works distro"?
| nehal3m wrote:
| I was in the same boat and switched to Fedora 6 months ago on
| desktop and laptop, the Cinnamon spin. It gets out of the way
| and up until now has just worked. No hardware issues except
| for the fingerprint reader.
| mikae1 wrote:
| _> any suggestions for a "I'm middle aged with children so I
| need an it just works distro"?_
|
| The latest and greatest recommendation is now openSUSE
| Tumbleweed (rolling yet stable). Fedora was the
| recommendation of 2021. Manjaro was the recommendation of
| 2020. Try one and see if it works on your hardware. If not,
| pick the next one. :)
| wooque wrote:
| I don't why people make so much fuss about snap. Just purge
| snap and stop complaining.
|
| I did this when I run Ubuntu.
|
| Ubuntu still is offers pretty polished and reliable OS that is
| easy to install and has most third-party support.
| psanford wrote:
| Because more and more things are only packaged as snaps.
| wooque wrote:
| Only Firefox is shipped as snap on default install.
|
| But Firefox packaged by Ubuntu was always gimped as they
| didn't enable certain optimizations like PGO/LTO so
| official tar.gz from Mozilla was superior anyway. (They
| fixed this recently for snap). I think it's similar for
| Chromium.
|
| So I didn't use snaps and I never been in situation that I
| needed to use snap.
| psanford wrote:
| Firefox isn't the only thing that has been switched off
| .deb and to a snap. LXD, for example, has been shipping
| as a only a snap for years.
|
| But even if it were only firefox, telling people they
| should download tarballs instead of having their distro
| ship packages is really missing the point.
| yakubin wrote:
| The problem is when you instruct a colleague to check
| something using nmap, they install nmap using snap and are
| surprised it doesn't work, while you are left wondering what
| the hell is wrong with their computer, oblivious to the
| footgun Canonical put into their distro; until you remember
| again after a decade+ of not using Ubuntu. Canonical
| shouldn't push out broken things like that. It's supposed to
| be a distro where stuff Just Works(TM).
| jonesnc wrote:
| I'm on Ubuntu Server 22.04, and I've never had to use Snap. Is
| it exclusively a Desktop thing?
| pmontra wrote:
| The letsencrypt certbot package has been a snap for a long
| time. It's their recommended choice even on Debian
| https://certbot.eff.org/
| Andys wrote:
| Its a good opportunity to switch out certbot for something
| else, there are some great alternative options on github
| garblegarble wrote:
| No some server packages are snaps -- e.g. lxd
| e12e wrote:
| Yeah, lxd was the first one I noticed (with the implication
| that it's not likely to work on eg Debian - but rather be
| canonical-only thing).
|
| I see juju is recommended to be installed via snap, and
| landscape is recommended to install via juju:
|
| https://juju.is/docs/olm/installing-juju
|
| https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/landscape-beta-juju-
| installat...
|
| https://ubuntu.com/blog/landscape-beta-test-the-landscape-
| se...
| simion314 wrote:
| I have a ubuntu server, I needed an app that is not in the
| repos, I found a snap of it, it worked great (it is a CLI app),
| so there are good use cases for this tech, it needs probably
| more optimizations but hopefully it does not get killed, some
| competition is good.
|
| Btw I used Arch , when I had time and tinkering with software
| was still pleasurable( I could do a full dual boot install
| without any documentation in one hour but this kind of stuff
| displease me this days)
| compsciphd wrote:
| I used to defend snap with the idea that it makes sense for
| some apps, i.e. "firefox" where updating firefox while its
| running is bad news.
|
| Except, snap can't update applications while they are running!
|
| i.e. try to do a snap refresh while firefox is running, nothing
| to update, because its running, quit it wait for all processes
| to die and then refresh, and it will update and cause you to
| wait 30-60s while it does it, and then you can restart firefox.
|
| This has to be one of the most idiotic design decision ever
| made by a containerized application system showing the
| designers don't understand containerization at all.
|
| one of the primary points of containerization is the ability to
| have multiple copies of an application running in parallel
| using different "application images". One should be able to
| upgrade (i.e. install a new image in parallel to the old one)
| without disrupting existing execution environments.
|
| Basically all firefox has to do is
|
| 1) if a container is running for the current user, execute
| firefox in its context
|
| 2) if no container is running for the current user, create a
| new container
|
| 3) every so often, garbage collect old images that don't have
| containers running for them.
|
| these concepts are so simple, even docker basically does it!
|
| and that's my rant for the day.
| Jenk wrote:
| Polite FYI:
|
| When a statement has many examples it is correct to use
| "e.g.," which is an abbreviation of _exempli gratia_, which
| in turn is Latin for "for example." For example: There are
| many emotions a person may feel, e.g., happiness.
|
| When a statement has only one logical conclusion it is
| correct to use "i.e.," which is the abbreviation of _id est_
| which in turn is Latin for "that is." For example: It was the
| same colour as a clear summer's day sky, i.e., blue.
| teekert wrote:
| Til, thanx.
| elgenie wrote:
| My mnemonic is "i.e." = "in essence" and "e.g." = "example
| given". The real phrases being abbreviated are, of course,
| the Latin ones.
| sumitgt wrote:
| Agreed!
|
| Snap can't even update snap-store because it is running in
| the background.
|
| There is no way for a non-tech savvy person to even figure
| out how to get past that error.
| znpy wrote:
| in the specific case of firefox, two different instances of
| firefox (no matter their version) cannot both use the same
| firefox profile at the same time (i tried).
|
| You either have to ask the user to restart firefox (that
| would be the sane choice) or corrupt user data.
|
| But i agree that snap sucks. Snap sucks particularly bad
| because they also push it where it's not only unnecessary but
| also detrimental to the user experience.
|
| Simple dumb example: i had gnome-calculator in my toolbar. I
| sometimes need to make basic calculations, it's easy and I
| keep it handy. I realized that gnome-calculator (a 500k
| binary) was taking 30 fcking seconds to appear. Turns out it
| was "updated" to a snap, and now launching it meant for stuff
| to be mounted around and for snap to do whatever it wanted
| with my time.
| curt15 wrote:
| Flatpak updates work pretty much the same way. The new
| version is installed into a parallel directory and takes
| effect the next time the application is restarted.
| tetha wrote:
| So I'm not nuts. My work laptop recently changed from
| Fedora using flatpak to Ubuntu using snap and with flatpak,
| I'd get a couple notifications "Hey, XYZ was updated" and
| on the next reboot, it was new. With snap, I have to
| shutdown the application, update it in a console and
| relaunch it. Meh.
| binwiederhier wrote:
| I've been on Ubuntu 22.04 for a few weeks now, and every now
| and then Firefox will create a popup notification that says
| "Firefox needs to be closed to update (12 days left)". When I
| close it and re-open, Firefox is still not updated. Even when
| I go to the Software Center and update all apps, it
| apparently doesn't update snaps.
|
| I'm not entirely sure if Firefox is updateable via the UI.
| It's truly awful; and that's coming from an Ubuntu lover.
| hellcow wrote:
| Yup, you need to shutdown firefox, open a terminal, run
| 'sudo snap refresh', wait for it to complete, then re-open
| firefox.
|
| Agreed that the process sucks :)
| PenguinCoder wrote:
| Does running a standard `apt update/upgrade` update the
| snap packages, even it they're in use?
| Avshalom wrote:
| apt doesn't touch snaps at all afaict
| mrighele wrote:
| Ubuntu 22.04, got fed up with snap firefox, removed it and
| installed it from a ppa, pinning appropriately
|
| I still get notifications that to update the snap ai need
| to close firefox, so I wonder what is really happening...
| huggingmouth wrote:
| I uninstalled the snap version and installed the flatpak
| one. No more lying pop-ups (I close firefox but it never
| updates when I reopen it).
|
| Bonus, I don't need to be root to update it!
| thomaslord wrote:
| Firefox is a particularly interesting case because it has a
| bunch of issues that only exist when it's installed via snap.
| I just recently ripped out the default snap version and
| installed via the official PPA, and Firefox seems to be
| running much smoother now.
|
| For basically any app I use that's installed via snap, I
| eventually run into a gamebreaking issue and have to remove
| the snap version and find a normal .deb to install from.
| Whether it's customization issues (setting up custom fonts in
| VS Code didn't work) or stability issues (the tab bar in
| Firefox windows freezing up), there always seems to be some
| kind of problem
| echelon wrote:
| Snap makes sense, but it'll take time for the dust to
| settle. Just like Unity / Wayland.
|
| Applications like Firefox, IntelliJ, Chromium, etc.
| shouldn't be tied to system dependencies managed by apt.
| They should be entirely monolithic and hermetic.
|
| Long term this deb vs snap approach will make sense and be
| good for Desktop Linux.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| If you say so, but I don't see why it should be forced on
| Ubuntu users by Canonical until then.
| rbanffy wrote:
| It's just 6 or 7 years. Give them time.
| throwup wrote:
| > it'll take time for the dust to settle. Just like Unity
| / Wayland
|
| There's a particular irony to this statement. Before
| adopting Wayland, Canonical tried to do their own thing
| with Mir[1]. Years later they gave up and reluctantly
| adopted Wayland. Their investment in Snap rhymes with
| this. Snap is an inferior competitor to Flatpak, and in
| the end it's likely the dust will settle for Snap the
| same way it did for Mir--in the dirt.
|
| Canoncial as an organization has some serious NIH
| syndrome and they are putting "Linux on the Desktop"
| through a lot of unnecessary pain.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_(software)
| asdajksah2123 wrote:
| I don't think Snap is an inferior solution, as much as
| Canonical is trying to put Snap where it doesn't belong.
|
| AFAICT, Snap is a pretty good solution for server side
| apps. This is pure speculation (and I don't even know if
| the timelines line up), but I suspect Canonical developed
| Snap for server apps, but something made it economically
| non viable (maybe the popularity of Docker?) and so they
| now needed to generate money through it some other way
| and they decided to do it by using it as a workstation
| app distribution mechanism, and by locking it down for
| enterprise.
| seiferteric wrote:
| Actually brings up a good question of why can't dpkg/.deb
| just support having multiple library versions? My
| understanding is that it is not support, but if it was,
| then couldn't that obviate the need for snap?
| bayindirh wrote:
| Many people are unaware that "so naming" [0] solves
| multiple versions of the same library problem.
|
| My Debian installation regularly has two or three
| versions of the same library (e.g. libx264) installed
| while packages update and start to use newer versions of
| the same library.
|
| [0]: https://tldp.org/HOWTO/Program-Library-HOWTO/shared-
| librarie...
| rbanffy wrote:
| > but it'll take time for the dust to settle.
|
| I remember seeing it demoed at Canonical in 2015 or so.
| It's been 7 years. How much longer should we wait?
| theamk wrote:
| Is snap enough of improvent over deb to replace it?
| Sometimes yes.
|
| Is snap enough of improvement of Flakpak to ignore
| community standard and deal witb all the user hostile
| craziness like non-removable updater? No way.
|
| I hope it goes the way of the Mir and upstart - replaced
| with a competitor and silently removed.
| donio wrote:
| > Snap makes sense, but it'll take time for the dust to
| settle. Just like Unity / Wayland.
|
| That comparison is not helping to sell it.
| bayindirh wrote:
| > Snap makes sense...
|
| No. When we have flatpak and appimage, snap makes zero
| sense. I just see it as a way to implement a centralized
| walled garden into the OS, and don't install Ubuntu
| systems even in VMs for five minute test drives.
|
| The way Canonical rolled it out is flat out insulting to
| the free software community and distro culture, IMHO.
|
| It's too late here to write about its technical problems,
| so I'll leave it at that.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| I don't disagree but that won't change the fact that snap
| completely broke my Firefox workflow, and doesn't
| gracefully allow me to restart Firefox (rather
| inconsistently have tabs crash unexpectedly).
|
| Snap is immature, and not ready for production
| deployment. The way Ubuntu/parent company have pushed
| snap has been damaging to its image.
| cgriswald wrote:
| > i.e. try to do a snap refresh while firefox is running,
| nothing to update, because its running, quit it wait for all
| processes to die and then refresh, and it will update and
| cause you to wait 30-60s while it does it, and then you can
| restart firefox.
|
| Oh, it's worse than that. When there is an update available
| but firefox is running you get:
|
| > % snap refresh
|
| > All snaps up to date.
|
| It doesn't even _tell you_ there is an update and that you
| need to close firefox to get it. In fact, it tells you there
| isn 't one.
| AaronFriel wrote:
| This seems broken, full stop.
|
| Can Firefox itself, when installed via Snap, notify the
| user that it needs security updates? If so, can users
| effectively do that, or do they have to know this
| incantation of closing, waiting, running a terminal
| command, and restarting?
| rbanffy wrote:
| That's a step backwards. The whole point of package
| managers is that the system manages software updates and
| the software itself can be completely oblivious to that.
|
| Snap done properly it'd download and install the new
| version, point launchers to that and prompt the user to
| restart running snaps.
| eptcyka wrote:
| > one of the primary points of containerization is the
| ability to have multiple copies of an application running in
| parallel using different "application images". One should be
| able to upgrade (i.e. install a new image in parallel to the
| old one) without disrupting existing execution environments.
|
| Would you like to run a completely new Firefox with a
| completely new profile whenever you update it? You do know
| that you can't use the same profile even with the same
| version of Firefox in two separate Firefox instances
| concurrently, right? If the updater was aware of snap and
| snap aware of the application it's updating, you could have a
| graceful update procedure that serializes the current state
| and reloads the new container, but that's a lot of hoops to
| jump through, and the jumping must be coordinated between
| multiple stakeholders.
| theamk wrote:
| literally the first point of parent post was:
|
| > if a container is running for the current user, execute
| firefox in its context
|
| So there is no need for snap to fancy serialization, just
| have new and old firefox ready, and keep using old one
| while it has running processeses. And if the old one exits
| for any reason, start new one instead.
|
| That's all snap has to do! But it does not, because it
| really likes to make strange texhnical decisions for some
| reason.
|
| (For "coordination", snap could make a common file in old
| app dir like "bin/new_version_availablec, and if firefox
| detects it, it shows that "your browser needs to be
| updated" button. I would not be surprised if something like
| this already exists in firefox. But I doubt snap would use
| this approach because it is not complex enough for it :) )
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| They're not asking for multiple uses of the same profile.
| Assuming one profile, then the old image would keep being
| used until firefox shuts down entirely, and once that
| happens the new image would be used the next time firefox
| is opened.
|
| You don't need to serialize or reload anything.
| amluto wrote:
| No, but the issue here seems to be a problem with the
| underlying snap system, not with the concept. It should be
| possible to have multiple containers that, when run, access
| the _same_ persistent data. So the workflow would be:
|
| 1. Install and start Firefox. There is one container and
| one directory full of profiles.
|
| 2. Start the upgrade. This creates a second Firefox
| installation (container) sharing the same profile
| directory.
|
| 3. Try to run Firefox without quitting the old one. Does
| nothing because the runtime is smart enough to know that
| the old one is running. Maybe pop up a message suggesting
| restarting Firefox.
|
| 4. Quit Firefox. Start it again. The new one runs. All the
| data is still there.
|
| 5. The old installation goes away.
|
| The runtime has plenty of flexibility in how to make this
| work. There could be multiple containers. There could be
| one container with multiple parallel versions. There could
| be one container with a staged upgrade that can swap in
| essentially instantaneously once the container is idle
| (although this may fall apart on multi-user systems or
| where the containerized program regularly has multiple
| running copies of itself at once, e.g. a program like
| bash).
|
| But the fact that snap apparently has trouble with this
| seems a bit embarrassing.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| And snapd has all of the information it needs to do all
| of this. "Is Firefox Running?" is a tricky question in a
| traditional package install, because there's a number of
| ways you can launch a program and "ps |grep firefox"
| isn't quite right. But that's not the case for snapd! It
| is the executor and all launches to Firefox have to pass
| through it; If you launch Firefox while it's running and
| there's an update queued, it should be able to pass that
| on to the old version, while still being able to handle
| "This program is exiting and has an update queued, so
| let's update it now".
|
| Every critical piece of information is available to
| Snapd, and yet, they have chosen the wrong and broken
| implementation.
| dtx1 wrote:
| Almost like copy on write hasnt been invented yet. Just
| copy the profile on creation of a new instance
| noasaservice wrote:
| > I used to defend snap with the idea that it makes sense for
| some apps, i.e. "firefox" where updating firefox while its
| running is bad news.
|
| > Except, snap can't update applications while they are
| running!
|
| What's worse is the unblockable notifications.
|
| And I just de-snapped my xubuntu 22.04 , and doing so
| upgraded firefox-snap v113 to their repo v116 ! I mean, I
| thought the purpose was fully updated. Evidently not.
|
| Snap needs to die in a fire.
|
| https://haydenjames.io/remove-snap-ubuntu-22-04-lts/
| roter wrote:
| For me it is just Firefox that I don't want in snap form. The
| Mozilla team still puts out a .deb version via PPA [0]. You
| should probably also pin to this source so that the snaps don't
| get installed [1].
|
| [0]
| https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa?field...
|
| [1] https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-
| firefox-d...
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| I agree, and it's a little depressing to have the same "now I
| have to go fix that" relationship with two OSes, Ubuntu and
| macOS (I guess if I used Windows more than occasionally it'd
| three for three). Since I did all that on 22.04, I am a
| little nervous that it will get clobbered if I upgrade to
| 22.10...
| sosodev wrote:
| Maybe you would like Pop!_OS? It's mostly Ubuntu but with a lot
| of user friendliness considerations like the removal of snap.
| mkurz wrote:
| Same here. Ubuntu user since the beginning (2004). Switched to
| Arch half a year ago, will never look back. I don't understand
| why Ubuntu tries hard to scare away users from what used to be
| a solid OS with things like Mir, Unity, snap,... Even now the
| modified Gnome it comes with by default. I don't get it.
| pmontra wrote:
| I think that they are looking for a way to make money. A snap
| app store managed by them could be a source of cash. I'm
| still on 20.04 and maybe I'll switch to Debian or PopOS. I
| need to find the time to experiment. I'll buy a second SSD
| and dual boot.
| [deleted]
| znpy wrote:
| After years of ubuntu... I went back to Debian.
|
| For the few packages where I need a newest version I use flatpak.
|
| Ubuntu was basically unusable with their constant push of snap
| and other dumb solutions looking for a problem.
| Havoc wrote:
| They could really have held off on announcing it an extra couple
| hours till it is actually available
| Karupan wrote:
| Regardless of all the (rightful?) hate towards Ubuntu recently,
| it's worked great for me. Just last week I had a spare Microsoft
| surface laptop 1 and wanted to setup a headless server since
| Raspberry Pi's are ridiculously priced. Ubuntu 20.04 worked
| flawlessly out of the box whereas the Debian installer couldn't
| detect the laptop keyboard and I couldn't complete installation
| (just one USB port).
|
| Also it's just so much easier to find howto's for Ubuntu,
| especially if it's some weird hardware.
|
| Love Ubuntu for personal use!
| ctoth wrote:
| I'm not sure precisely why, but when I first saw ads in Apt(8) I
| decided I wouldn't be using Ubuntu for any more personal
| projects. On one hand they obviously need to keep the project
| alive. On the other hand, putting your own ads on top of
| something that fundamental to the system just felt ...
| weird/narsty?
|
| Reading state information... Done
|
| Calculating upgrade... Done
|
| Try Ubuntu Pro beta with a free personal subscription on up to 5
| machines. Learn more at https://ubuntu.com/pro
| 5e92cb50239222b wrote:
| Jump to Debian. It has always worked towards users' interests,
| and probably will continue doing that because pretty much all
| developers are volunteers and are running a democratically
| driven development process. I never understood why Ubuntu is so
| popular because it's 99.99% Debian, and only gives you a
| handful of things on top of that: predictable release schedule
| (which is a two-edged sword if you think about it), PPAs
| (same), proprietary drivers out of the box, and 10 years of
| support if you're willing to pay.
|
| I remember when Mark shipped Ubuntu CDs for free to anyone who
| requested them. Always wanted to get one, but never did because
| I was able to obtain Ubuntu ISOs through other means, so it
| didn't feel like the right thing to do. (Although we were using
| dial-up up until 2008 or so.) Those times seem to have passed
| long ago.
| huggingmouth wrote:
| Made the jump and couldn't be happier. One thing I noticed to
| keep in mind: Debian doesn't seem to be as proactive nor
| expansive as ununtu when it comes to security updates. I'm
| subscribed to both dsa and usn mailing lists and the updates
| conancal puts out are far more numerous and timely.
|
| Also, debians unattended upgrades packages leaves a lot of
| packages unupdated by default.
|
| Lastely, ubuntu releases have a well-defined and known life
| span. You know exacly what date support will end. Not so with
| Debian.
|
| If you're like me and willing to deal with these
| shortcomings, then I highly recommend switching to Debian!
| chevdev wrote:
| I would, if I used desktop Linux. I sort of do on my
| homelab sort of setup, but I'm specifically using Raspberry
| Pi OS because, well, my homelab is something like 30
| raspberry pi's doing various things (yes, I know this isn't
| a good idea, but that doesn't mean I want to stop doing
| it).
|
| I only have one laptop, and it's running something a bit
| more Redmond oriented.
| derefr wrote:
| (Specific, upstream-provided) PPAs are the main reason I use
| Ubuntu Server. Given that they're built against Ubuntu's
| separately-version-sequenced package ecosystem, I can't
| expect PPAs that install cleanly on Ubuntu to be able to find
| the same packages required to install cleanly on Debian. If I
| could, I'd just use Debian and then forcibly add the PPAs as
| apt sources.
| [deleted]
| chevdev wrote:
| Ubuntu was nice because, when it came out, Debian was several
| years out of date without having done a release. Ubuntu
| promised to do smaller, incremental releases and do LTS
| versions as well which is a promise they have kept. I
| remember trying Debian and having the choice of installing an
| old ass version of a program or setting up their leading edge
| version, which often caused problems with system stability.
| Ubuntu was a good balance - they had new software versions
| that worked.
|
| Not only that but for a long time their default gnome
| configuration worked very well (back when they had the top
| and bottom panel thing). Debian very much threw you into it
| and said "Here's Gnome, have fun!" and you had to spend hours
| on a second computer learning how to install a browser and
| configure it (and go through multiple iterations of startx
| failing because your config was not right, because you were
| learning stuff).
|
| I don't use either any more - most of my linux use is on
| Raspberry Pi OS, WSL, or in some container or something.
| mort96 wrote:
| Isn't it still unsupported to upgrade from one stable Debian
| version to another? I mean I know you can hack your way
| around it, just change the apt repos to point at the new
| release, run apt update, upgrade and dist-upgrade, and hope
| that not too much stuff breaks. But the nice thing about
| Ubuntu, especially for less technical people, is that the
| system will just prompt you to update when it's time, and the
| upgrade process is supported and well-tested.
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| Everyday is like a new Ubuntu release on Arch Linux and in 8
| years I've only had to boot into a rescue environment one time
| and it was due to me using a non-standard configuration.
| chuckSu wrote:
| packetlost wrote:
| Idk, I've had systemd-resolved eat itself because of an update
| that added some new required config that I missed when running
| an update. Very annoying when dealing with headless servers.
| Arch is _fine_ for laptops, but I would not put anything that I
| rely on daily on Arch and I _certainly_ wouldn 't want to
| maintain a _fleet_ of Arch VMs /containers/whatever
| NegativeK wrote:
| I'm a little unclear about what you're trying to say. Is it
| that you've had success with rolling releases?
| RedShift1 wrote:
| Everybody has a story like that about every distro ever
| aliqot wrote:
| BirAdam wrote:
| Because those aren't distributions... those are independent
| operating systems that aren't related to Linux in any way.
| aliqot wrote:
| Say you're sorry.
| [deleted]
| Majestic121 wrote:
| BTW I use Arch
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| Semi related snap rant: I installed Firefox by adding a Mozilla
| repository into apt. Turns out the repository is nightly builds
| which have strange functional issues. There was no mention of
| this on the (rather poor) install guides I found on switching.
| g105b wrote:
| Who benefits from snap?
| sebow wrote:
| 22.04 LTS is probably gonna be my last go-to linux distro release
| for workstations and all-around. Going back to fedora after this
| goes EOL since the "snappy" shit, pro advertisements, and other
| things haven't stopped. I'm not mad or even annoyed because it
| fully expected it, but still somewhat disappointed.
| jaywalk wrote:
| I never knew there was an animal called Kudu. I just knew it from
| Azure: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/app-
| service/resource...
| [deleted]
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| of course the only comments so far are people complaining that
| Ubuntu sucks and their $PREFERRED_DISTRO is better
|
| I for one think Steam as a snap is a great idea, and was
| pleasantly surprised with them taking the feedback about the
| Firefox snap to heart and actually putting in the work to speed
| it up.
|
| I was gonna install 22.04.1 tonight (finally got fedup with
| Windows) but I'm gonna try this tonight instead and definitely
| give the Steam snap a try. The less I need to boot into Windows
| to play PC games the better.
|
| Congratulations to the team on another release.
| aliqot wrote:
| >less I need to boot into Windows to play PC games the better.
|
| Hard to give up smoking with a pack in your pocket.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| not gonna get an argument from me there, but I have over 1000
| steam games
| aliqot wrote:
| In my opinion, it's probably better to stick with windows
| until the drawbacks of running windows outweigh the
| meaningful percentage of those 1000+ games you still play.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > of course the only comments so far are people complaining
| that Ubuntu sucks and their $PREFERRED_DISTRO is better
|
| I haven't seen a single comment like that. Distinguish "Ubuntu
| sucks" from "snaps suck". Also, the comments about alternative
| distros seem to be along the lines of "these distros are the
| most similar to Ubuntu except without the snaps."
| silisili wrote:
| I don't think it's 'my distro is better' as much as it is
| people who loved ubuntu pissed off in the direction they went
| with Snaps. At least, that's my personal position.
|
| IMO, snaps have no reason to exist other than NIH. But, if they
| wanted to do it anyways, fine. But it should have always been
| opt in, and people could for example try out the Steam snap.
| Instead they made everything a snap mess that rarely works
| quickly or predictably .
| gibspaulding wrote:
| I liked the idea of snaps as something like the AUR.
| Basically a straightforward way to get un-trusted/closed
| source software installed without giving some random
| installer root on my system. Apps like Steam, Spotify,
| Discord, maybe even Chrome make a lot of sense since they
| don't really fit into a traditional open source distribution
| model, but I wish they'd stick with apt for anything open
| source.
| lostdog wrote:
| Flatpack already existing, and snap makes programs take 30x
| as long to run.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| can you use Flatpack for command line apps yet?
| jcastro wrote:
| Flatpak is focused on GUI apps only, for CLI apps you'd
| use whatever you're used to.
| [deleted]
| inetknght wrote:
| What makes a GUI app worth containerizing and CLI tools
| not worth containerizing?
| jcastro wrote:
| > What makes a GUI app worth containerizing and CLI tools
| not worth containerizing?
|
| Agree 100%, and podman/docker already exist.
|
| The way I do it is to use
| [Distrobox](https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox) to use
| whatever distro's userspace has the thing I need (I use
| either the newer devel version of ubuntu or alpine), so
| if I need a newer version of a CLI tool I can get that
| without conflating it with the OS layer. It's a similar
| workflow to how OSX and Windows WSL do it.
|
| So I'm just using the normal debian packages for
| everything, except it's in a nice split out container
| just for my userspace with access to all my data. This is
| the workflow from Fedora Silverblue, openSUSE's MicroOS
| and EndlessOS, which kind of forces you into the cloud
| native mindset, but you can run any distro this way.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| The Ubuntu Pro ads and this release have all come at an
| interesting time...
|
| Fedora and the stock Gnome eco-system are getting better and
| better... Debian voting to include non-free software. Google is
| using Debian for things these days, Steam switching to Arch...
|
| For myself, I'm now using OpenSUSE MicroOS (immutable root OS,
| everything else is containerized with Flatpak or Toolbox/Podman,
| repos based on Tumbleweed) and it really feels like the future
| (Fedora Silverblue is very similar). I thought that would be the
| direction Ubuntu takes but now it feels like Ubuntu is in some
| weird zone where lots of things are snaps, lots aren't, they're
| pushing Pro services with ads, it's getting more enterprise-y but
| they're also pushing containerized Steam, etc...
|
| That being said Ubuntu's always been a good experience so I'm
| sure it'll be fine but the direction they're taking is rather
| curious...
| zmk5 wrote:
| They are definitely going through some growing pains thats for
| sure.
| harel wrote:
| For the last year+ I've been thinking of moving from Ubuntu
| (after 17 years) and into Manjaro (arch). I even have it running
| on another older laptop and it's great. However, the fear of
| losing pace, even for a day because an unforeseen problem or
| missing something stops me. Ubuntu has always (mostly) just
| worked for me, and I know Manjaro will too but after so many
| years change is somewhat hard...
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| I liked Manjaro and Artix, but eventually the package databases
| somehow got confused and I couldn't upgrade them anymore
| without deleting files. However, Manjaro especially looks
| fantastic, and Artix doesn't come with systemd, which is a
| win..
| codalan wrote:
| I switched over to Linux Mint recently. There's no way I'm
| going back to plain old Ubuntu anytime soon.
|
| Cinnamon just works for me, and I still have apt to manage my
| packages.
|
| It's kind of the logical next step for dissatisfied Ubuntu
| users.
| ss108 wrote:
| "It also includes the latest toolchains and applications with a
| particular focus on the IoT ecosystem."
|
| Dude, the OS can't even handle two monitors half the time...
| xtracto wrote:
| It's 2022 and you got to go through crazy hoops and loops [1]
| to use an Nvidia card and an Intel integrated graphics chip in
| a dual monitor setup. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to do if you are
| using Nvidia drivers.
|
| Also, I recently tried to configure "touchpad gestures" (3 and
| 4 finger swipes) and man it was super painful (one method
| doesn't work (touchegg), the other is archaic and you have to
| restart the OS to change any settings (libinpu-gestures). Come
| on... it's 2022.
|
| [1] https://askubuntu.com/questions/593938/how-to-run-both-
| intel...
| brnt wrote:
| Tbh, I've used multi monitor setup for at least a decade now
| without doing anything but plug them in. That's on a variety
| of GPU manufacturer hardware.
| remram wrote:
| I'm using 3 monitors on my Ubuntu 22.04, with the nvidia
| drivers that were setup by the installer. It works fine.
|
| I'm not going for the crazy setup of your link though, where
| only some monitors should use the accelerated GPU. Not sure
| why you'd do that?
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > It's 2022 and you got to go through crazy hoops and loops
| [1] to use an Nvidia card and an Intel integrated graphics
| chip in a dual monitor setup. And it is IMPOSSIBLE to do if
| you are using Nvidia drivers.
|
| Sounds like an Nvidia problem... In the last decade I've had
| Intel and AMD laptops, both with integrated graphics, Linux
| has handled dual monitors just fine for all this time...
| pantalaimon wrote:
| I'm running 4 monitors without any issue...
| ss108 wrote:
| My cofounder is as well, on Xubuntu. Meanwhile, I've had
| multiple issues getting just 2 to work across years of using
| Ubuntu (there was a good few year span when I didn't have to
| fiddle with anything and it did just work). Recently, I had a
| second monitor running with my Ubuntu installation, but one
| day the monitor stopped working, and the next I couldn't
| build JS projects without running the command as root (?!).
| Switched to WSL and it's been great.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| > next I couldn't build JS projects without running the
| command as root
|
| I don't see how Ubuntu would be responsible for that,
| sounds like PEBCAK to me
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Run a build command once with sudo and you'll always have
| to. Until you fix it with chown.
|
| Hardware makes a difference as well as distribution, try
| live drives until one works well.
| rs_rs_rs_rs_rs wrote:
| It absolutely can and it sounds to me you're not even than
| capable of using an easy to use distribution like Ubuntu.
| ss108 wrote:
| I used Ubuntu for a number of years but got tired of shit
| periodically breaking, having to go through ridiculous hoops
| to set things up, etc. If wanting an OS that isn't a chore to
| maintain because I am busy and don't want to be an OS
| hobbyist, then color me "incapable".
| stabbles wrote:
| I upgraded from Ubuntu 20.04 to 22.04 recently, and am
| experiencing issues where Firefox feels sluggish and X hangs for
| a second when I type in the terminal too quickly. Makes me wanna
| move away from Ubuntu. Also the idea of these major updates where
| the package manager mutates half the filesystem for 30 minutes
| straight sounds like a super brittle procedure, and snaps seem to
| address this, except that it feels wrong to have every package
| vendor its deps. I'd like to have nixos without the learning
| curve please...
| remram wrote:
| I have this weird issue where _holding volume down crashes the
| entire desktop_. It is rather strange. No problem with other
| keys, no problem tapping volume down rather than holding it, no
| instability anywhere else that I 've noticed. It is the
| strangest thing.
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| Please update if it turns out you discovered negative sound.
| lvass wrote:
| If you just want to install packages, nix-env is really simple.
| nrabulinski wrote:
| Which, in my opinion, completely defeats the whole purpose of
| using NixOS. The last thing I want is a bunch of ad-hoc
| changes to my reproducible environment setup
| [deleted]
| nrabulinski wrote:
| If you look only at the new nix command and flakes and
| disregard all the "legacy" commands nix is very simple and the
| learning curve isn't much steeper than jumping to any other
| distro. The documentation around flakes is also much more
| complete and much higher quality on top of the NixOS discord
| being happy to help or point to where you can find the answers.
| jeffbee wrote:
| I've been tracking Kinetic dev and the way they do the kernel is
| baffling. It was static for months, then right before the kernel
| freeze they just merged in a huge pile of junk that they didn't
| understand, which broke a ton of important things including Intel
| iGPUs, Intel wifi, and even booting on Intel 11th generation and
| later CPUs. No integration tests or anything. With the release
| kernel i915 graphics are still glitchy as hell and Intel Wifi 6E
| doesn't work.
|
| I don't think the dev->freeze->release system works correctly.
| fulafel wrote:
| The regular as clockwork bi-yearly releases are one of the best
| things about Ubuntu. Ubuntu is the default supported Linux
| laptop/desktop env in so many tech orgs.
|
| If you use Ubuntu and want to help ensure it works for your env
| remember to test the upcoming release alphas / betas eg with USB
| boot stick and file bugs on Launchpad if you notice something
| broken.
|
| (Same goes for other distros your org may use, eg Debian, Fedora
| etc)
|
| Snaps mostly work great, and are a great improvement for keepign
| up to date sw available for people using LTS releases. This and
| the security improvements brought by the sandboxing greatly
| overshadow the sometime teething problems of the system.
| hn2017 wrote:
| Not sure why your downvoted. Ubuntu has been fairly reliable
| for years
| Shared404 wrote:
| Probably was due to this line:
|
| > Snaps mostly work great, and are a great improvement for
| keepign up to date sw available for people using LTS
| releases. This and the security improvements brought by the
| sandboxing greatly overshadow the sometime teething problems
| of the system.
|
| That being said, I do currently use Ubuntu 20.04 at work
| (with snap disabled) and it's been pretty great.
|
| E to Add: I don't think snap/flatpak are _inherently_ bad.
| Snap's implementation however does however cause lots of
| problems for me. While maybe these are just teething issues,
| flatpak is right there and works now, with acceptable
| sandboxing for my usecase.
|
| E2: spelling
| VLM wrote:
| The micropython support is interesting; most activity is on
| circuitpython but micropython supports older chips (the ESP8266
| and the very first OG original ESP32 are two examples of hardware
| I have on my desk).
|
| They both work, its just the odds are vastly higher of finding a
| library for circuit rather than micro and there's probably ten
| circuit python users for every micropython user. Although I "have
| to" use both.
|
| I thought that was interesting to throw in support of the less
| popular but wider range of hardware choice for microcontroller
| python and not even mention the other more popular option.
|
| (Side note what's up with UF2 firmware upgrades not working on
| ESP32-S2 chips, works on everything else, must be an interesting
| story behind that)
| gauddasa wrote:
| I am more interested in the wallpaper rather than new
| (anti)features.
|
| https://149366088.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/202...
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| I still run Ubuntu (actually Kubuntu) on one of my XPS laptops,
| where it actually runs great, but I'm slowly switching over to
| Void for my desktop/laptops, which I've been running on my
| servers for years; it does take more time to install (especially
| with RAID) but is so much nicer and simpler to deal with once
| installed (without _systemd_ or snaps).
|
| Void is kinda like what Debian used to be -- rough around the
| edges but really a great distribution once it's up and running.
| giobox wrote:
| It says a lot about the incredible success of the Raspberry Pi
| that headline features in Ubuntu releases are now aimed
| specifically at it.
| sixothree wrote:
| Too bad you can't get a W for less than $50 right now.
| noasaservice wrote:
| Because this matters: https://haydenjames.io/remove-snap-
| ubuntu-22-04-lts/
|
| I've been getting "Firefox is updating in $time days" as a
| unstoppable notification, because snap uses highest priority to
| jam notifications through.
|
| The best is to purge snap completely from the system. And the URL
| applies to 22.04, but likely also works mostly the same, with
| possibly more "snap list" crap to remove.
|
| If I could properly administrate snap, and if it followed my
| settings, I'd use it. But it doesn't provide for ANY sort of
| reasonable administration nor respectable defaults. So it gets
| the axe.
| wslh wrote:
| Does it solve the freezing with dual monitors? [1]
|
| [1] https://askubuntu.com/questions/1407630/os-freezing-with-
| dua...
| jasode wrote:
| I looked for the 22.10 download a few hours ago and didn't see it
| so I did a Google search and found today's comment about it
| possibly being delayed:
| https://askubuntu.com/questions/1436351/when-will-ubuntu-22-...
| [deleted]
| edub wrote:
| I'm downloading it from:
|
| https://releases.ubuntu.com/kinetic/
| https://releases.ubuntu.com/22.10/
| derefr wrote:
| Lot of people here with opinions about using Ubuntu as a desktop
| OS. Seemingly nobody here with opinions about Ubuntu as a server
| OS. Strange for a bunch of startup people who ship their SaaS
| backends on Linux servers.
| mort96 wrote:
| I use Ubuntu Server on all my headless stuff. It's boring, in
| the best way possible. I install it and set it up, run `apt-get
| update && apt-get upgrade` occasionally (I should enable
| unattended upgrades but I haven't), and otherwise don't have to
| think about it at all until it's time to upgrade to another LTS
| 2 years later.
|
| Those LTS to LTS upgrades are kinda painful, but not
| unexpectedly so, considering you're catching up to the past 2
| years of evolution in the whole ecosystem at once. On personal
| computers, I hate that model, but on servers, I'd much rather
| spend up to a day or two fixing stuff at a time of my own
| choosing once every two years, than spend less time fixing
| random issues which crop up at random intervals during a
| routine apt-get upgrade.
| suprjami wrote:
| I have a couple of personal servers I run on Ubuntu.
|
| I've used Alpine before and it's fine, but I want proper bash
| and full tools which is tedious to setup, and it doesn't do
| release upgrades automatically. Sometimes they make major
| changes like sudo-to-doas. Alpine needs a better versioning
| system and a release upgrader.
|
| I've also run Debian and found it unpolished and unreliable.
| For no reason whatsoever package updates just randomly reset
| all my preferences sometimes. This has happened to me multiple
| times over different packages and installs. Now I wouldn't run
| Debian if you paid me.
|
| Ubuntu Server has none of these problems and just works.
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| FWIW, Void is like a bigger version of Alpine; they even both
| have musl versions. (Interestingly, I've always found Debian
| quite reliable but agree that it definitely lacks the polish
| that Ubuntu provides.)
| tommica wrote:
| Just to add a bit of positivity in the sea of negativity - thanks
| for Ubuntu, it has been very impactful in the ecosystem!
| dm319 wrote:
| The comments are always a bit contrary to the topic here. I've
| used ubuntu since 2009, and I am still very much a fan. My
| preference is for ubuntuMATE, and I'll confess I'm not that
| keen on snaps, but overall, it's great to have an amazing free
| operating system to use like this.
| aliqot wrote:
| Ubuntu seems to be doing a speedrun of Microsoft's Embrace,
| Extend, Extinguish.
| bombcar wrote:
| Microsoft will buy Canonical before the decade is out is my
| thought.
|
| Then shall there be two distros of IBM and Microsoft, grinning
| at each other across a dead land filled with rottenness.
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| If they'd wanted a Linux distribution, they'd have bid on Red
| Hat back when it was up for sale, which was at least fairly
| profitable and fit in with their enterprise lineup.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| > Microsoft will buy Canonical before the decade is out is my
| thought.
|
| People have said this for a decade and it still hasn't
| happened... IMO it won't either. It's privately owned and
| even if they do go public it's doubtful they'll give away so
| many shares that they can be taken over... It's Mark
| Shuttleworth's baby and he doesn't seem to want to sell it.
| nickstinemates wrote:
| I think the ship sailed. Prime opportunity was when Ubuntu
| for Windows was launched.
| aliqot wrote:
| >when Ubuntu for Windows was launched.
|
| embrace
|
| extend <-- you are here
|
| extinguish
| ASalazarMX wrote:
| Also, they know that extinguishing Ubuntu would mean IT
| people hopping to the next friendly distro. You can't put
| back the Linux rabbit in the hat.
| aliqot wrote:
| I think this is very likely. They bought Lennart, and Github,
| afterall.
| nix23 wrote:
| Yeah but themself and not other's...maybe they don't understand
| the meaning of it?
| aliqot wrote:
| I don't understand your comment, but would like to make the
| observation that Canonical vis-a-vis Ubuntu is trying to make
| Ubuntu as ubiquitous as Windows when it comes to someones
| 'first' Linux system, or as a Linux system that "Just works"
| and are abusing this position (in my opinion) to push forward
| proprietary and regressive technologies like Snap. Open
| source does not negate something being proprietary. There are
| many 'one format' packages out there, flatpak and appimage
| being two great ones. Snap is two steps back, no steps
| forward, but it has that Ubuntu logo which conveys authority,
| and that's about as un-Linux like as it gets.
|
| By virtue of power-of-authority, they're quite literally
| forcing this garbage on the greater linux ecosystem that
| other people simply don't even know exists. Ask anybody on
| the street if they know what a Linux is and if the answer
| isn't 'no', the ones who can respond will say something like
| 'oh yeah, i have ubuntu on my thumb drive'.
|
| If you'd have told me this would happen in 1995, I'd have
| said you're nuts and gone back to hammering dents out of my
| Yggdrasil install as I chuckled.
| lvass wrote:
| More like continuously trying to reinvent the wheel and giving
| up.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| They're trying to answer or get ahead of Red Hat but failing
| every time. Systemd beat Upstart, RH-captured Gnome beat
| Unity (and helped ensure Systemd was the easiest way to go
| for a general-purpose desktop distro, in the process),
| Wayland beat Mir, and Flatpack may not win but Snap sure as
| hell isn't gonna.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Yup. Seems like they consistently invent their own thing
| that's different than what RH/Suse/etc... come up with, then
| give up and just use that thing (Upstart vs. Systemd, Mir vs.
| Wayland, Unity vs. Gnome Shell and now Snap will probably
| lose to Flatpak...).
| zmk5 wrote:
| I think the Linux community's reflexive hatred of anything
| Canonical does is a major turn off. Unity wasn't bad, and
| judging by how much Wayland has struggled I am curious what
| would have happened if Mir was still around.
| Mikeb85 wrote:
| Wayland's fine if you don't use Nvidia (which seems to be
| true of many things that Nvidia breaks).
|
| That being said, I didn't mind Unity or Mir.
| talkingtab wrote:
| the only releases I see are the amd64 (desktop and server)
|
| https://releases.ubuntu.com/22.10/
|
| is the raspberry pi version available or going to be?
| Theizestooke wrote:
| The only reason I still use Ubuntu is that their font smoothing
| is superior to everyone else straight out of the box. I tried to
| recreate the steps on Fedora, but couldn't come close.
| seabrookmx wrote:
| Also ZFS being a single "apt install" away is pretty sweet.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-20 23:01 UTC)