• limelight79@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      Same here. What especially irritated me was that even though I installed the .deb firefox and followed the directions to disable snap firefox, occasionally Ubuntu went ahead and reinstalled snap firefox for me.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      For me it was when I was trying to use some Android tools and it tried to install the snap version. The snap version was broken of course.

      • ditty@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        When I first returned to Linux several years ago I started with Ubuntu, since it was the only distro I had used. I got confused when I installed Firefox and other apps via apt but instead got snap versions. This (very miniscule) gripe is enough of a reason for me to not recommend Ubuntu to new users anymore.

        • renzev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 days ago

          It’s not a miniscule gripe tho. Snap is still broken for many users, and relying on it for something as critical as a web browser is asking for trouble. Experimental technologies like snap should be opt-in for users who are willing to deal with the issues they create. Do they really expect a novice to see firefox’s filepicker not behaving correctly, and think “Aha, an XDG desktop portal issue! Let me drop everything I’m doing and go troubleshoot that” ? Ubuntu is meant to be linux for normies, they don’t have the time or the knowledge to deal with snap.

    • Pulsar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      Ubuntu was great, until Unity debacle, when I switched to Mint DE. Few years later I returned to an Unity free Ubuntu just to be welcomed with snaps and Ubuntu pro.

      • lengau@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        Canonical have made the same mistake three times as far as desktop environments are concerned, IMO:

        1. 2004: went with GNOME
        2. 2010: made Unity as a way to rid themselves of the hostility of the GNOME devs
        3. 2017: Instead of leaving GNOME in the dust, they went back.

        IMO using GNOME is an abusive relationship.

    • needanke@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      installs Firefox LSR

      (I am still very happy having made the switch to debian, although I would like to switch to plasma 6 at some point xD)

      • glitchdx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        I didn’t really understand what I just read, but it sounds like flatpack but different. I’m on mint, so I’m pretty sure it doesn’t affect me. The memes I’ve seen on the subject give me the impression that people don’t like it.

        • lengau@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          Snap is far more like nix. Flatpak deals with a limited subset of what nix and snap do (e.g. it can’t distribute kernel packages).

          While snap is certainly not without its problems, people repeatedly make massive negative claims about it that, while often based on a core of truth, are highly embellished to the point of being misinformation. (This is the same tactic I see with bad-faith political trolls, and with a similar result really - they’ll consistently try to use that core of truth to make far stronger claims than are defensible and, when it’s pointed out to them, they move the goalposts to a smaller, more defensible claim, only to repeat the bigger, debunked, claim later.)

        • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Yeah, it’s basically flatpak but with more problems and bugs. It’s from Canonical and some parts of it are closed source.

  • renzev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    One of my friends spent like a month distrohopping just to find a debian-based distro that fits these two criteria:

    • First-class support for KDE

    • Isn’t broken all the time

    Ubuntu fails both. KDE Neon excels on the first one, but fails harder than ubuntu on the second one. Kubuntu as well. Debian has horridly outdated packages, and he refuses to use nix/flatpak. Tuxedo OS is obscure and broken. Mint is great, but installing KDE takes some effort.

    He finally settled on Ubuntu Server with the native KDE package. Still has to do some weird incantations to banish snap tho.

    How did things get this bad?

    • Rolling Resistance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      When I used Mint, it felt like packages are outdated just like on Debian (based on Ubuntu LTS + needs time to rebase onto a new one).

      • renzev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        You are about to do something potentially harmful.
        To continue type in the phrase ‘Yes, do as I say!’

        But speaking seriously, I think he tried it for a while and didn’t like it either… not sure why specifically tho, I’ll ask him

    • lengau@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      I’d love to know what’s consistently breaking on KDE Neon for you. I’ve got some specific bugs I’m working through with their team, but I’ve never found it to be “always broken” (although I will say it is easier to break than Kubuntu IME).

    • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      Why not try Void. It’s fairly up to date regarding all packages, including KDE and it’s rock solid.

      • renzev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        He really insists on debian-based, I don’t really know why. And, while Void IS really solid, it isn’t exactly known for the most expansive package collection. Xournal, for example, is not available through XBPS (there is a xournal package, but it just installs xournal++), which is one of the programs he likes a lot. I told him it’s on nix, but he doesn’t want to use nix.

        But I agree, Void is amazing, I use it on my laptop. One little-known cool feature of Void is that its official docker images come in busybox/musl libc, busybox/glibc, and coreutils/glibc variants, it gives you a nice scale from most minimalist to most compatible.

        • 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          He could make his own templates for the packages… he doesn’t even have to rebuild. If he could at least find a .deb or .rpm package of the app/package he likes, he could use that and just repackage. That’s what I do for stuff I can’t find… and update them from time to time (like every few months or so).

  • vala@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    IMO the biggest issue with snaps in the sandboxing. Makes so many apps unusable for development.

  • Mio@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    12 days ago

    I am against container as they are slower to start and much bigger. I think they solve the problem the wrong way. Next step is probably a VM…

    Firefox have always been possible to run without container so what is the problem for all Linux distributions that containers solve? Nowadays developers have do to both… That did not less the load.

    • renzev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      I like your comment a lot because you can substitute a lot of different things for “snap” and it still ends up sounding like a very reasonable opinion

      I feel like I would be more okay with leaded gasoline if it didn’t still have a lot of very real flaws.

      I feel like I would be more okay with anarcho-capitalism if it didn’t still have a lot of very real flaws.

      I feel like I would be more okay with PFAS-coated cookware if it didn’t still have a lot of very real flaws.

      I feel like I would be more okay with single-use plastic bags if it didn’t still have a lot of very real flaws.

      I feel like I would be more okay with cryptocurrencies if it didn’t still have a lot of very real flaws.

      I feel like I would be more okay with generative AI if it didn’t still have a lot of very real flaws.

      I feel like I would be more okay with eating highly processed meat if it didn’t still have a lot of very real flaws.

  • originaltnavn@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    This is literally the reason why I switched over to Debian. At least back then, snaps wouldn’t work if the home folders were not under /home/<username>, breaking all computers on the system I helped run.

  • NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    I don’t have a problem with snaps as a technology. If you want to use them, then who am I to judge?

    But what I do have a problem with is when I don’t have a choice and I am being forced to use what the distro maintainers think is good for me. That is what finally made me quit Ubuntu and switch to Fedora.

      • Penta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        Well snap itself isn’t proprietary, the backend server distributing the snaps is.

        • frazorth@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          Explain how this distinction matters in the real world?

          Snap distribution is as much a part of snaps as Snapd.

          Who cares that part of it is open source if other parts aren’t?

          • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            13 days ago

            If Canonical folded Snap could be taken over by others who could build new server software for it, either from scratch or based off the other projects to develop alternative servers for it, and modify snap to accept multiple repos like that. That’s the difference, also just being able to fork snap like that. Though the fact it hasn’t been done says something about how many real snap enthusiasts there actually are.

            • frazorth@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              12 days ago

              If Canonical folded, someone else could come along and reinvent everything on the server side. And that makes it Open Source?

              • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                12 days ago

                What makes it open source is the fact that the parts which matter most are open source. The part that installs on the system is open source, and because of that it can be more easily tweaked and modified to accept other servers. In actuality it can be modified to do so right now, it’s just that there is little reason to do so because the amount of people enthusiastic about snap isn’t very large, as it has many other problems besides just the centralized server infra.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      when I don’t have a choice and I am being forced to use what the distro maintainers think is good for me.

      That’s the case on literally any distro.
      And just like on literally any distro, you can also install Firefox from FlatPak, the Mozilla repo or from source.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 days ago

        Except on Ubuntu it just installs the snap regardless. If you don’t pay attention you may not even realize that it is a snap. Also the snap store is controlled exclusively by one company with a questionable history.

        • superkret@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 days ago

          Read my comment again:

          install Firefox from FlatPak
          the Mozilla repo
          or from source

          In none of these cases will Ubuntu be able to install it from snap instead.
          Only the Firefox “package” in the Ubuntu repos actually just links to a script that installs the snap.

    • lengau@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      Couldn’t the same argument be made for any distro? They give you what they put in their repos. If you want a deb package, use the mozillateam PPA (which is built on Canonical’s hardware, same as Mozilla’s snap of it).

      • EddyBot@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        the difference is that the folder/package structure for other package manager is open and well known
        everyone can host their own i.e. apt, pacman or Flatpak repository with little effort

        the required folder/package structure for snaps is no longer open and you cannot change the default snap repository either easily

      • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 days ago

        IIRC, the issue was that - unless you take steps to explicitly prevent it - Ubuntu would occasionally reinstall the snap version. I don’t remember the details, been a while since I had to dance that dance, but I recall it being one of the things that put me off snap in particular, Ubuntu in general and sparked my search for a different distro.

        I’m now on Nobara, a Fedora-based gaming-oriented distro maintained by GloriousEgroll (who also maintains the popular Proton-GE)

        • lengau@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          12 days ago

          Like with any time you’re trying to select a specific source for a package, you need to set apt configuration to prefer that source. It’s standard apt behaviour with a standard way to configure it.

          • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 days ago

            Correct me there, but wasn’t the “select source” thing intended to be about different deb sources?

            The issue is that what you expect to be a deb package manager ends up redirecting to snap anyway. It’s not a different source, it’s a different system. If I have to manually take steps to avoid using the distro vendor’s default sources because they just redirect to a system I don’t want to use, I might as well look for a different vendor.

            And so I did

            • lengau@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 days ago

              It’s literally a choice between what deb you want to get. One is a transitional package that installs a different package on the system (in this case the snap) as Debian transitional packages have done for decades, and the other is a third party package that provides the app rather than the transitional package. Just as when there was the ffmpeg vs. libav split, if you don’t want the transitional package to be installed and you want your third-party package from a different repository, you have to tell apt that.

              • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                10 days ago

                Thanks for that correction then. I wasn’t conscious of that detail.

                In any case, the issue remains that, if the vendor’s default repositories push for a type of package I don’t want, I either have to manually find and vet third party repositories I trust or find someone else to rely on for defaults I’m fine with.

                The difference between “I want a different source for a single package, so I’ll manually select a different source for that one” and “I don’t trust Canonical to select sources I agree with anymore” is one of scale. I’m fine with manually pinning the transitional package, uninstalling it and the snap (hopefully remembering to back up my profile before realising that it also deletes user data) adding a ppa, reinstalling it and reimporting my profiles just for firefox.

                But if I feel like I have to fight my distro vendor over not using their preferred package distribution system, it’s probably better to jump ship - other vendors have beautiful distros too.

                (Also, “you can just use a different source” is part of the reason people prefer not to use snap, where you can’t do that)

                • lengau@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 days ago

                  If you’re fighting your distro vendor over the choice of packages they’re providing in their repos, then yeah, you should probably use another distro. But that’s exactly what I was saying in my original comment above. If you don’t like rpms or flatpaks, you shouldn’t be using Fedora either, since those two packaging technologies are what Fedora uses for their distribution. For me the Linux Mint developers’ hostility to snaps (which in my experience tend to be the best trade-offs for my needs) is one of the many reasons I won’t use or suggest Mint.

                  KDE Neon provides their own packages in their repo that add Mozilla’s apt repository for Firefox as well as setting up the preferences. In fact, here’s the file, which gets placed in /etc/apt/preferences.d/org-kde-neon-packages-mozilla-org-pin:

                  # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR GPL-3.0-only OR LicenseRef-KDE-Accepted-GPL
                  # SPDX-FileCopyrightText: 2022 Harald Sitter <sitter@kde.org>
                  
                  Package: firefox
                  Pin: release o=packages.mozilla.org
                  Pin-Priority: 1000
                  
                  Package: firefox-*
                  Pin: release o=packages.mozilla.org
                  Pin-Priority: 1000
                  
                  Package: firefox-locale-*
                  Pin: release o=packages.mozilla.org
                  Pin-Priority: 1000
                  

                  The great part of KDE Neon’s approach to it is that since I do want the Firefox snap on my KDE Neon laptop, I can simply run sudo apt remove neon-repositories-mozilla-firefox firefox && sudo apt update && sudo apt install firefox to get the snapped version of Firefox.

                  Also, snapd keeps a snapshot of your per-revision configuration from an app for a while after you remove it. You can run snap saved to see all the current snapshots. It doesn’t remove your $SNAP_USER_COMMON directory for that snap (which is where the Firefox snap stores its profiles), so moving from the snapped Firefox to the version from apt is just a matter of moving the .mozilla directory out of ~/snap/firefox/common to ~/

  • superkret@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    8.10 was the last good Ubuntu. (It also had the best default wallpaper ever)

    If you look at the “improvements” in every release since, you’ll notice that shit like they do currently isn’t an accident:

    9.04 integrated web services into the main user interface.
    9.10 integrated Ubuntu One (Ubuntu’s OneDrive, upgradable for money) by default and introduced the slooooow Ubuntu Software Center
    10.04 integrated an interface to post on social media
    10.10 added app purchases in the Software Center
    11.04 made Unity the default
    11.10 removed Gnome as fallback to Unity
    12.04 introduced the buggy HUD
    12.10 added the famous Amazon ad lense to it by default

    and it goes on like this…

  • President@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    13 days ago

    Wait… I’m just about to switch over to Linux on a laptop and was going to use Ubuntu. This looks kind of cursed though?

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      Ignore the noise and go with Ubuntu LTS. When you get comfortable with that, you could try Debian.

      You could play it backwards too. Try Debian, if you can’t get it to do what you want, wipe and do Ubuntu LTS. But I do not recommend this path if you have no idea what you’re doing. People underestimate how difficult it is to do simple things when you don’t know how to, no matter how trivial.

    • tsugu@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      I would suggest not judging distros by what the online community says.

      Install Ubuntu and see whether you encounter any issues. If not, who cares about what some meme says.