[HN Gopher] Canonical releases Ubuntu 23.04 Lunar Lobster
___________________________________________________________________
Canonical releases Ubuntu 23.04 Lunar Lobster
Author : el_duderino
Score : 84 points
Date : 2023-04-20 19:13 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (canonical.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (canonical.com)
| eis wrote:
| I just did the update on a workstation of mine. During the update
| to 23.04 the Firefox snap was _downgraded_ from 112.0.1-1 (latest
| /stable) to 111.0.1-2 (latest/stable/ubuntu-23.04). When trying
| to start Firefox after the reboot it will detect the downgrade
| and in order to prevent data corruption offer two choices: create
| a brand new user profile or quit. Oh Canonical, the Firefox snap
| fun never ends.
| elcritch wrote:
| Ugh, great another pointless name to memorize. I really have come
| to dislike the "cute names" Ubuntu uses and "Lunar Lobster" just
| makes me not want to. Not that Debian or MacOS are much better.
|
| Sure maybe they're great if you're dealing with it all day, but
| to I have to Google which version is newer half the time. Or sit
| there and sing the alphabet song to myself cause I forget if h or
| k comes first.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| Oh come on! Nobody actually refers to the versions by the fun
| names anyway, the date version numbers are what people search
| for when they need info. They're just a bit of fun.
| zokier wrote:
| Ubuntu release names are alphabetical, that makes them great.
| oriettaxx wrote:
| how much $$ do they want for security patches? ;)
| voytec wrote:
| I'm sure you'll learn this from ads in motd, apt (if it's still
| working) and possibly new places which Canonical's suits found
| suitable for ads placement.
| frant-hartm wrote:
| Is it really that hard?
|
| https://ubuntu.com/pricing/pro
| 988747 wrote:
| [dead]
| transfire wrote:
| I have yet to install a snap that failed to fail. Usually it
| seems to do with accessing drives. For instance Firefox will not
| open the Downloads folder and will not open file dialog for email
| attachments in gmail.
| dcminter wrote:
| Check you haven't accidentally uninstalled xdg-desktop-portal-
| gtk - sounds like an issue I had with that cause.
|
| (I loathe snaps, but they do mostly work IME)
| joshxyz wrote:
| nodejs snap, there will be errors in using the vm context for
| javascript sandboxing.
|
| nodejs deb, there wont be errors.
|
| weird snaps.
| warner25 wrote:
| I got the upgrade to Fedora 38 on my machines today too (although
| I see the official release was a couple days ago).
|
| I'm curious about who gets excited about and uses these non-LTS
| Ubuntu releases. It seems to me that the five-year LTS offering
| is the main reason to use Ubuntu, if you want stability and don't
| like Debian and don't need to pay for RHEL. If you want fresher,
| why not Fedora or an Arch derivative?
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| It's a jack of all trades with no very particularly weak
| points, that allows me to just work. I'm done fucking around
| with config files because oops Arch wants to install glibc-
| alpha-rewrote-in-haskell.
|
| Want a recent kernel ? Ubuntu is relatively good at that. Want
| software that's more or less up to date, without needing the
| bleeding edge ? Their repos are good at that. Not in the repos
| ? You can probably add-apt-repository something and you'll be
| good to go. Need a reliable DE ? Gnome is fine. Hate Gnome ?
| It's alright, there's a KDE and Xfce version too. What's that,
| you want snaps ? Yeah, it's there. Flatpaks ? There too. Is
| more or less Debian compatible, which is pretty much the only
| distro you can expect people to properly package for ? Gotcha.
| Weird setups like Optimus that end up being broken in most
| places ? Works just fine. Proprietary nvidia drivers ? Sure.
|
| I'm done fucking around for hours getting Arch to not be crap,
| or Fedora to not use fucking pacman, give me apt. I just want a
| work distro that will handle 99% of what I throw at it without
| any issues.
| vegabook wrote:
| May sound trite, but Ubuntu feels more visually polished than
| any other distro. It's clearly in the Canonical DNA to actually
| care how stuff looks design wise which is an otherwise major
| failing across the other distros.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Historically, it's been popular as a user-friendly desktop
| distribution, in which case updating semi regularly to stay on
| a current version makes perfect sense
| themodelplumber wrote:
| Agreed, if you know how Ubuntu works fairly well, and want to
| maintain a relatively modern system feel, LTS might not even
| be the right track. I used to aim to upgrade to non-LTS plus
| an .01 or .02 at the very end, ideally.
|
| Moving to LTS later on as an experiment was extremely stable
| but I had to ask how much stability I really needed, as the
| excitement with my desktop was waning. :-)
| rcarmo wrote:
| I upgraded all my machines to 38 today (I stopped running
| Ubuntu on desktop due to snaps), _except_ servers (which are
| all Ubuntu LTS except hypervisors). I tend to stick to Ubuntu
| LTS on servers and never try .10 releases, let alone interim
| years...
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| > and don't like Debian
|
| why might somebody not like Debian?
| linsomniac wrote:
| The primary reason I'm using Ubuntu rather than Debian is the
| LTS. I know the general consensus is that "Debian is as
| stable as Ubuntu LTS", but we are still working on upgrading
| our 18.04 boxes a few months ago.
|
| We can't change all of our platforms as quickly as Debian
| retires old releases. Especially not while also doing our
| other operations work. In some cases we can just lay down the
| new OS and run Ansible and we're good, but in other cases
| porting to new OS releases can take months of effort.
| warner25 wrote:
| I thought Debian releases were good for the same five-year
| lifecycle.
|
| I expected the answer to the parent's question to be
| Ubuntu's support for non-free things out-of-the-box.
| [deleted]
| numeromancer wrote:
| Canonical releases Ubuntu 23.04 Luzer Lockdown
| als0 wrote:
| Does anyone else remember when Ubuntu releases
| felt...significant? Since 12.04 changes have felt incremental.
| [deleted]
| voytec wrote:
| Sure. Forcing snap by breaking apt was significant for all
| users valuing efficiency and non-commercial OSs.
| g8oz wrote:
| Some changes have been detrimental like trying to force Snaps
| onto people.
| illiarian wrote:
| I, for one, don't want significant releases. I want releases
| that focus on stability and fixing bugs. You want a significant
| release? Make it a one-in-five-years deal.
| zokier wrote:
| since 12.04 we have had unity->gnome, xorg->mir->wayland,
| upstart->systemd, python2->python3, iptables->nftables,
| addition of zfs, snap, livepatch, lxd, and dropping 32bit
| support.
|
| All of those were pretty major changes and definitely not just
| incremental. And that is just top of my head, I probably missed
| lot of things. On the other hand, most gnome2 era releases are
| pretty much a blur in my mind. What to you made those feel more
| significant?
| Veen wrote:
| Is that a bad thing? It's quite nice to have a stable and
| consistent OS.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| If it's even a thing at all? The incremental changes add up
| to a pretty huge deal, especially if using the LTS only.
| Scarbutt wrote:
| What macos releases felt significant?
| voytec wrote:
| For users, in a positive sense, something around Snow
| Leopard.
|
| For AAPL investors - every version after that is more
| "significant", especially after OS X was renamed to macOS and
| dark mode was used to keep nose-y media out of anti-privacy
| changes like user being _informed_ what is "shared with
| Apple" instead of being _asked_ whether anything should be
| "shared with Apple".
|
| Downhill after that - children are used in hideous manner by
| Cook to invade users' privacy, like scanning and profiling
| their files as a _pretense_ of looking for child porn. I find
| Cook 's use of child porn argument to spy on all users
| absolutely disgusting.
| sbuk wrote:
| You know they did a 180 on that, right?
| redeeman wrote:
| there is no going back. once you expose your way of
| thinking about your customers, its done
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| 1. It's free. 2. Boring is good. 3. Unlike Windows -
| significant but meh, more adverts in the product one paid for!
| eastbound wrote:
| > It's free
|
| I want to pay for my Linux.
|
| I'd write a wishlist but anyone could write another one, but
| I'd take any OS that convinces me to pay $300 a year.
|
| I'd pay for anything as nice as macOS (with the old control
| panel). I pay that price for my IDE and an OS is worth way
| more, open-source at that, which actually advances humanity.
| Linux is the VIIth wonder of the human civilization, a
| demonstration of human selflessness, as opposed to Windows,
| Linux will be here in 50 years becauE OSS is a donation of
| code to our children; Also no human construction has ever
| been so widespread across the world and even on other planets
| (Linux is powering the helicopter flying on Mars), of course
| I wish I could pay for... for a Linux that made me
| productive, not like Ubuntu.
|
| Also paying means it would actually receive good marketing
| teams.
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| > I want to pay for my Linux.
|
| Go for it: https://ubuntu.com/pro/subscribe.
| eastbound wrote:
| We need a serious talk about that attitude.
|
| It's been systematic that each time someone says "I'd pay
| for a good linux", they're given the link as if to assume
| we're not already paying. You forgot that I want a nice
| OS in exchange.
|
| Moreover, I _left_ Ubuntu. It's software that I can't be
| convinced to use even if it were free. Canonical's
| choices (with Unity at the time, but also the mouse
| issue, and so on) are of the rare kind that they can
| convince someone to uninstall it and go buy 2x more
| expensive hardware to run macOS.
|
| What's missing is, I'd pay good money, but I don't want
| to fiddle around with the OS. I'd pay for the betterment
| of the OS, but with distribs, if you pay, you're still
| not the customer.
|
| And I pay for Debian. But it's not my desktop OS.
| vlunkr wrote:
| This would be easier if there were only one Linux desktop
| environment. However, that would be antithetical to the
| whole idea of Linux.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Making Linux significantly better to use on the desktop
| would require taking tight control of the GUI stack [EDIT:
| really, the entire _multimedia_ stack] to de-balkanize it
| and integrate & standardize its various layers, which
| would also mean modifying practically every program that
| uses it (which is why one can't just declare some GUI stack
| their official one and be done with it--the overall
| experience will still be super-janky).
|
| That's... let's go with _unlikely to happen_.
| dmonitor wrote:
| https://www.redhat.com/en/technologies/linux-
| platforms/enter...
|
| Is this not the theory behind Red Hat?
| Arnavion wrote:
| At the OS level, the amount of money spent on developers
| will not be satisfied by a small number of individual users
| paying $300/year. At that level the funding comes from
| enterprise customers.
|
| You're welcome to use that $300/year to sponsor individual
| projects / developers.
| aendruk wrote:
| Release notes:
|
| https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LunarLobster/ReleaseNotes
|
| (Can't see Canonical's site behind the tracking popup.)
| themodelplumber wrote:
| Looking this over..enterprise stuff, more enterprise stuff, third
| party dev tools upgraded as usual, which is great...and oh what's
| this?
|
| > Updates for running snaps download in the background and are
| applied automatically when the app is closed.
|
| Boom, that's a big one.
|
| > Users and administrators can now pause automatic updates of
| specific snaps as long as desired.
|
| What, wow.
|
| Something tells me the usual critics still won't be satisfied,
| but these are both a big deal and tell a story about listening to
| the improvements that were desired by users.
|
| > Ubuntu 23.04 includes GNOME 44, delivering further usability
| improvements with a focus on new quick settings options for
| bluetooth device management and dark mode.
|
| Not a small change...
|
| > The Firefox snap also benefits from significant performance
| gains on the Raspberry Pi with hardware accelerated rendering.
|
| Q: Is this limited to Raspberry Pi, or not so much?
|
| The Steam changes also seem like potentially huge conveniences to
| me.
|
| Nice job Ubuntu team! Satisfied user since 2004 here; I do switch
| between the various buntus (kurrently Kubuntu) & love to discover
| other distros too.
|
| I was thinking back today...Ubuntu was awesome to me when I
| Photoshopped and Netflixed in Windows in 2009 [1], played with
| various hardware & learned to stream video to some of those
| devices on the WLAN, like my n810 [2] (does VLC encode & stream
| the given RSS feed at this point in time? That was part of the
| experiment...), and got really into creating my own journaling
| and notetaking methods for life-improvement purposes and extreme
| weight loss [3] in recent years. It's supported everything I
| wanted to do and has effectively run my local business admin &
| creative this whole time as well.
|
| Being a Linux enthusiast since the late '90s, this is way more
| than I would have dared hope for! Very happy to reflect on all
| those experiences.
|
| 1. https://www.friendlyskies.net/images/435t.jpg
|
| 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7PYUZ5z1wM
|
| 3. https://www.friendlyskies.net/images/396t.png
| voytec wrote:
| > Something tells me the usual critics still won't be
| satisfied, but these are both a big deal and tell a story about
| listening to the improvements that were desired by users.
|
| Critic here. apt is still handicapped and snap is still being
| pushed down users' throats for profit. Improvement of undesired
| change resulting in less user control than the state before
| undesired change is an act of pulling the wool over people's
| eyes. snap is an unfriendly garbage with which you never know
| if you should use `--classic` without trial and error. Doing
| small fixes to this garbage doesn't fix the fiasco that
| handicapping apt to push snap was.
| silisili wrote:
| Same exact complaint. I'm fine with snaps existing. I'm even
| fine with it being the default. But I should be able to
| easily avoid using them, and apt sure as hell shouldn't be
| tricking people into them. The fact that they had to even do
| that shows that people didn't want them.
| tzs wrote:
| How is apt handicapped? I Googled but didn't find anything.
| nixcraft wrote:
| They are talking about forcing snap even when you type `apt
| install firefox` or `apt install lxd`. The Ubuntu will
| redirect to the snap package (e.g. `apt install firefox` ->
| `snap install firefox`).
| grumpyprole wrote:
| Wow that's pretty misleading
| phil9909 wrote:
| One example: `apt install firefox` installs the snap
| variant (which the user probably just uninstalled to
| replace it with the apt variant, as it is installed by
| default.)
| wmf wrote:
| Install Debian.
| NexRebular wrote:
| Or run ubuntu as lx-zone on illumos.
| dcow wrote:
| Ubuntu feels like the macOS of Linux distros. Debian still
| feels like... a Linux distro. I haven't used Ubuntu in
| awhile though maybe I should try again just to compare to
| my Debian machine.
| pmontra wrote:
| I switched from Ubuntu 20.04 to Debian 11 at the end of
| 2022. If you gave me the updated laptop without telling
| me anything I'm not sure that I'd notice any difference.
| ithrow wrote:
| How do you handle chromium in Debian stable? It always
| lags behind significantly behind chromium/chrome
| releases.
| capableweb wrote:
| The trick: Don't use Debian Stable, use Testing. Despite
| it's name compared to "stable", Testing is pretty stable
| in my experience.
|
| - Chrome Stable - 112.0.5615.137
|
| - Debian Bullseye (stable) - 108.0.5359.94
|
| - Debian Bookworm (testing) - 112.0.5615.49
|
| Most people I know who run Debian for personal desktops
| uses Testing, not Stable. Vice-versa for servers.
| doubled112 wrote:
| The security repo that is added by default has newer
| Chromium packages
|
| https://wiki.debian.org/Chromium
|
| https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-
| package/c...
|
| - buster 90.0.4430.212-1~deb10u1
|
| - bullseye 108.0.5359.94-1~deb11u1
|
| - bullseye (security) 112.0.5615.121-1~deb11u1
|
| - bookworm 112.0.5615.49-2
|
| - sid 112.0.5615.138-1
| skovati wrote:
| My philosophy has been to let the distro package manager
| handle system packages (kernel, OpenSSL, etc) but then
| use flatpak [1] to install user progs like Chromium and
| VSCode so I get bleeding edge releases and sandboxing.
|
| [1]
| https://flathub.org/apps/details/org.chromium.Chromium
| forty wrote:
| I use Firefox ESR with Debian stable + backports, and the
| internet seems to work as far as I can tell (I'm not
| doing anything fancy with it though)
| monsieurgaufre wrote:
| That's what i don't get about all the snap complaining. If
| you know what a snap is, you're already an outlier. If it
| bothers the user so much, why don't they go straight to the
| source to begin with (aka Debian)? You can get to the exact
| same setup.
| silisili wrote:
| I haven't tried Debian in a decade or so, in fairness,
| but it used to be the case that -
|
| a) ubuntu had newer packages
|
| b) ubuntu had a much nicer installer
|
| c) ubuntu had nice defaults/polish on the ui and fonts
|
| Maybe Debian has changed since, but that's why I'd been
| hesitant to install it in the past.
| doubled112 wrote:
| The current stable Debian (11) is two years old. Of
| course it has older packages than distros released more
| recently.
|
| Debian 12 is newer than 22.04 right now, and probably
| about the same as Ubuntu 23.04. It's in hard freeze, and
| soon to be released though.
|
| The Debian live DVDs are using the Calamares installer
| now, if that's more your style. Debian's normal installer
| is still the same as it always was.
|
| Debian is still more default, you set it up for yourself
| than Ubuntu. I don't like Ubuntu's defaults, but I know
| what you mean. GNOME's defaults are better now, if that
| helps out.
| forty wrote:
| For a/ you can use Debian testing and I think it's more
| or less the same.
|
| For b/ I don't install my OS often enough that it matters
| that much to me (I think on a laptop I went from Ubuntu
| 9.04 to 18.04 without ever re installing)
|
| These days I like old and stable and use Debian stable +
| backport (mostly for kernel) even for desktop, and I'm
| really happy :)
| zokier wrote:
| Ubuntu lts and debian release on pretty comparable
| cycles, so the newer packages doesn't really hold
| anymore. Debian installer is pretty straightforward these
| days imho, but I might be just used to it. Ubuntu has
| done more customization on the DE compared to pretty much
| everyone, with Debian you get closer to vanilla gnome
| experience. This can be seen both as pro and con.
| johnny22 wrote:
| or use a derivative like popos or mint. that way you get
| newer packages than debian.
|
| I am interested to see how they will fare in the long
| term as ubuntu moves farther and farther away from debian
| though.
| robocat wrote:
| > snap is still being pushed down users' throats for profit
|
| Unless you are paying for Ubuntu, there is little point
| complaining. Change distro if you don't like what they are
| doing - there's plenty of choice out there.
|
| Alternatively pay for Windows 11 and get way more
| advertisements!
| Y_Y wrote:
| I don't know any users who both know what snaps are and like
| them. Why did Ubuntu hit 18.04 and then decide to only make
| things worse in future?
| chrsig wrote:
| > Why did Ubuntu hit 18.04 and then decide to only make
| things worse in future?
|
| Oh, ubuntu beem making decisions that many users think make
| things worse since it was first released
|
| and yet it's still quite popular
| NathanOsullivan wrote:
| Snaps is just the latest in a long line of failed attempts to
| differentiate their desktop.
|
| Give it a few years and they will switch to Flatpack.
| icelancer wrote:
| I run selenium for a ton of tests and snap + chromedriver is
| easily one of the worst parts of the experience.
| jupiter_flyby wrote:
| Same. I had sucess with
| https://github.com/SeleniumHQ/docker-selenium
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| [dead]
| dopeboy wrote:
| User since the Hoary Hedgehog days. Congrats Canonical on the new
| release.
|
| Slight tangent - is 22.04 in a good place as a daily driver? I
| know it's an LTS release. Mostly recalling concerns around
| wayland and zoom playing well together. Running a thinkpad t15
| gen 2 if that helps.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| I use Kubuntu 22.04...dot 04 I think?, haven't tried Zoom yet
| but all of my video-related stuff has worked fine, from
| streaming to video editing to various games. It's been solid
| here FWIW. I'm considering turning on backports, for that
| quasi-rolling experience.
|
| Note, I don't generally take the upgrade path and install from
| scratch before migrating my home folder & cron jobs and all
| that. Apt-clone can help as well.
| hef19898 wrote:
| As total Linux noob, I run Ubuntu 22.04 as a daily driver on my
| private Lenovo X1 Extreme Gen 2. No issues whatsoever, runs
| better than Windows. Exception: battery life, but I only use
| the nVidia graphics regardless of OS, and even under Windows
| that didn't reault in great battery life.
|
| The sole caveat, not all of my Steam library has been ported to
| Linux. Other than that, I hardly ever boot Windows on that
| machine anymore.
| javier2 wrote:
| I want the Wireguard changes for GNOME 44, and 43 had lots of
| nice UI updates as well.
| 3836293648 wrote:
| I've never even had a good experience with the zoom app on X.
| But it all works perfectly with the web version on both X and
| Wayland
| linsomniac wrote:
| Been using 22.04 for ~a year now as my primary workstation. My
| main pain-point is that I can't do screen sharing or snapshots
| with Wayland. If I had it to do over again, I'd avoid Wayland.
| Also, Firefox as a snap has largely pushed me away from
| Firefox.
| dopeboy wrote:
| Does it work in X?
| linsomniac wrote:
| Unsure. It should. I went all in on wayland, and have
| decided to just use my mac for screen sharing and snipping
| rather than messing around with X. Is it easy to switch?
| Switching to Sway was easy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-20 23:03 UTC)