6 ms·

I installed Ubuntu onto a physical machine recently because I needed to use a Linux package for something real quick. Upon trying to install the incredibly com

I installed Ubuntu onto a physical machine recently because I needed to use a Linux package for something real quick. Upon trying to install the incredibly common package I was given some error about it not existing and some nonsense about using snaps. I don't care about learning how to use snaps, I just want to get something done. I quickly installed Debian instead and got back to doing the work I needed to do. It really soured my opinion of Ubuntu - a distro I first used back when they were still mailing out CDs. This furthers my negative opinion of Canonical and solidifies my position that I'll never use Ubuntu again. Debian it is for me if I need Linux.

tailspin2019 6y ago
I too have started to notice some increased “friction” when trying to setup Ubuntu these days. Like you, I don’t care about “snaps” (though in my ignorance I’m willing to accept I may be missing out on something useful...) Even when you go to their Download page for Server, the first option is not a download link but some blurb about “Multipass” which I’m pretty sure is not what the majority of people are looking for when they click a menu option called “Download” for a server OS. But this LinkedIn crap is just awful and surprises me coming from Canonical.
- Hasz 6y ago
  I've used snap for setting up a Nextcloud server. It was honestly pretty easy, and it auto updates. I'm normally not a fan of autoupdates, but for a publicly accessible service, it is appreciated. However, I've never packaged anything for snap, so not sure how it is to use.
- simosx 6y ago
  That's the page, https://ubuntu.com/download/server https://ubuntu.com/download/server You get three options to run Ubuntu server. The first option is to run Ubuntu server in a VM, and most users will want to run Ubuntu server in a VM. Multipass is a tool that helps you run Ubuntu server in a VM. Multipass is just a front-end for KVM when you use a Linux distribution. If you use Windows, it is a front-end for Hyper-V, etc. The second option is to perform a manual installation, which means that you get the ISO and do your thing. Between the two, most people would want to install Ubuntu Server in a VM rather than on baremetal. I think it makes sense to put that first. If a person is a power-user, then can read on and select Option 2. I see that there is a perceived negativity on anything Ubuntu that if something is different, it is perceived as something bad is happening.
  - stonesweep 6y ago
    Canonical now goes far, far (far) out of their way to hide the normal ISO installers. I mean, they try and bury them so deep that I can only find them now by googling for the name of the ISO I already have. Find your path to this page easily from the landing pages: http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-legacy-server/releases/focal/release/ http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-legacy-server/releases/foca...
    - lord_erasmus 6y ago
      What search engine are you using ? The first result when typing "ubuntu iso" in Google leads to a page where the first button is a link to a direct download. For "ubuntu server iso" it's pretty much the same, with just one extra click
      - stonesweep 6y ago
        We are not talking about the same thing - those first hits are the "Live" ISO not the actual installation ISO; the "Legacy" (their word) installation ISO is the 7th link down on Google for "ubuntu server iso" below the Google injected "People also ask:" with a bunch of whatever you call those things they put there (forum and mailing list links usually).
        efreak 6y ago
        Doesn't the live cd present a boot menu with a direct install option like others do? If not, that's even more annoying; it already requires a DVD these days because they have to include too much software, they should certainly be able to include a tui installer.
        stonesweep 6y ago
        I've read that starting with 21.xx they won't even produce ISO media with the normal installer on it, we'll get the Live version and nothing else. Time will tell.
slim 6y ago
I used to be a ubuntu user from the time they were mailing cds like you. I abandoned ubuntu for debian when they started doing strange things with my desktop like putting the window controls on the wrong side of the window for no other reason than user lock in. Last week my son installed ubuntu on his cheap tablet pc. it worked flawlessly : wifi, sound, track pad and even touch screen. on screen keyboard worked. even the wacom tablet worked out of the box. when he was on windows he had to install a driver for it to work! so I guess I'm not mad at ubuntu anymore. it's just not for me. or any linux geek. it's for windows users.
- simosx 6y ago
  Those windows controls on the left was the result of UI experiments. The mouse travels less when the controls are on the left. Imagine launching an application with the launcher on the left, and when you want to close to close the application, you have to move the mouse aaalllll the way to the right. It is not a breathtaking innovation as OS/X had been doing it already. You can learn to use the windows controls on the left. I got used to using them and it takes a few days to feel at home. When sadly Ubuntu switched back to GNOME Shell and reverted this change, it felt really unnatural to have those windows controls on the wrong side. Still, you get used to it after a few days.
- mdoms 6y ago
  > it's for windows users Honestly as a half-half Windows user the stupid window controls on the wrong side is a big enough turn-off for me that I won't even consider Ubuntu. I think it's for Mac users.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  > putting the window controls on the wrong side of the window for no other reason than user lock in. How does that cause user lock-in?
simosx 6y ago
Most likely you tried to run a command, this command was part of a package that has not been installed, and Ubuntu suggested to you to install a specific deb or snap package. There is a usability package 'command-not-found', which is a handler for the shell and runs when the command you tried to run, was not found. You mentioned though that you tried to install a package, the package was not found and got a suggestion to use snaps or something. There is no such thing as far as I know. There are two packages, 'chromium-browser' and 'lxd'. In Ubuntu 20.04, both these packages are now only available as snap packages. If you try to install them with `apt install`, you get a notification that they are now only available as snap packages, and the installer transparently installs the snap package for you. This has been discussed a lot before implementing, and also here. The gist is that when you `sudo apt install chromium-browser`, you want the installation to work, not get an error message to run `sudo snap install chromium` instead.
- ducktective 6y ago
  Well, personally, I'd have very much preferred an abrupt error and a recommendation to install the thing with snap. After all `apt` is reserved for apt-managed applications not some general "install-please" meta command. I thought failing fast and general transparency was a Linux/UNIX motto. Just my 2c. I'm not well-versed in sysadmin stuff.
- somehnguy 6y ago
  I didn't try to run a command, I ran this exact script: https://github.com/ct-Open-Source/tuya-convert/blob/master/install_prereq.sh https://github.com/ct-Open-Source/tuya-convert/blob/master/i... Actually you could be right - that script does run `python3` after apt-get'ing everything it needs. Anyway.. I didn't look into it any further because I didn't feel like investing any time into learning the 'Ubuntu way'. I installed Debian instead and it worked perfectly without any grief. It also worked perfectly on PopOS when I used it a few days later on a different machine. Canonical can make whatever changes they want of course, I've just become increasingly less patient when it comes to machines not acting how I have come to expect. So I'll just stick to what works. Oh man - I'm becoming one of those old dudes...
Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 6y ago
I seriously don't get the hate... snaps are easy to manage, probably more secure than adding a bunch of PPAs (what many are doing blindly as soon as apt fails them), and I didn't notice any performance hits using them. And it seems like it's probably far easier to simply create and maintain a snap than the alternatives. If this means creators distributing and packaging their programs on their own more often rather than unreliable package maintainers being in the driver's seat, what's to lose here exactly? From the user's perspective the interface is also very lean and clutter free. $ snap search x $ snap list $ snap info x $ sudo snap install x I've interacted with snaps to a bare minimum, and I am sure all of those are correct. I am sorry, but "some nonsense about using snaps" -> "I quickly installed Debian" -> "this furthers my negative opinion of Canonical". Talk about Canonical getting a bad rep for pretty much everything they do...
- somehnguy 6y ago
  You might be right about snaps being great. I'm not giving them a fair shot, you're completely right about that. Here is the thing from my perspective though - I have never had any trouble with apt that has made me think 'I wish to use something else'. Apt works. It does what I expect it to. When you're just trying to get something that should be simple done the last thing you want to do is spend a bunch of time learning a new system that you didn't even ask for. When I try to use a project that includes a quick startup script that is rendered broken by something I don't even want...well I just move on. No big deal really, I'll just use Debian and if eventually I hit a point where I want something else I'll give it a try on my own time/terms. Not in the middle of trying to do something else.

tailspin2019 6y ago

I too have started to notice some increased “friction” when trying to setup Ubuntu these days. Like you, I don’t care about “snaps” (though in my ignorance I’m willing to accept I may be missing out on something useful...) Even when you go to their Download page for Server, the first option is not a download link but some blurb about “Multipass” which I’m pretty sure is not what the majority of people are looking for when they click a menu option called “Download” for a server OS. But this LinkedIn crap is just awful and surprises me coming from Canonical.

Hasz 6y ago
I've used snap for setting up a Nextcloud server. It was honestly pretty easy, and it auto updates. I'm normally not a fan of autoupdates, but for a publicly accessible service, it is appreciated. However, I've never packaged anything for snap, so not sure how it is to use.
simosx 6y ago
That's the page, https://ubuntu.com/download/server https://ubuntu.com/download/server You get three options to run Ubuntu server. The first option is to run Ubuntu server in a VM, and most users will want to run Ubuntu server in a VM. Multipass is a tool that helps you run Ubuntu server in a VM. Multipass is just a front-end for KVM when you use a Linux distribution. If you use Windows, it is a front-end for Hyper-V, etc. The second option is to perform a manual installation, which means that you get the ISO and do your thing. Between the two, most people would want to install Ubuntu Server in a VM rather than on baremetal. I think it makes sense to put that first. If a person is a power-user, then can read on and select Option 2. I see that there is a perceived negativity on anything Ubuntu that if something is different, it is perceived as something bad is happening.
- stonesweep 6y ago
  Canonical now goes far, far (far) out of their way to hide the normal ISO installers. I mean, they try and bury them so deep that I can only find them now by googling for the name of the ISO I already have. Find your path to this page easily from the landing pages: http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-legacy-server/releases/focal/release/ http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/ubuntu-legacy-server/releases/foca...
  - lord_erasmus 6y ago
    What search engine are you using ? The first result when typing "ubuntu iso" in Google leads to a page where the first button is a link to a direct download. For "ubuntu server iso" it's pretty much the same, with just one extra click
    - stonesweep 6y ago
      We are not talking about the same thing - those first hits are the "Live" ISO not the actual installation ISO; the "Legacy" (their word) installation ISO is the 7th link down on Google for "ubuntu server iso" below the Google injected "People also ask:" with a bunch of whatever you call those things they put there (forum and mailing list links usually).
      - efreak 6y ago
        Doesn't the live cd present a boot menu with a direct install option like others do? If not, that's even more annoying; it already requires a DVD these days because they have to include too much software, they should certainly be able to include a tui installer.
        stonesweep 6y ago
        I've read that starting with 21.xx they won't even produce ISO media with the normal installer on it, we'll get the Live version and nothing else. Time will tell.

slim 6y ago

I used to be a ubuntu user from the time they were mailing cds like you. I abandoned ubuntu for debian when they started doing strange things with my desktop like putting the window controls on the wrong side of the window for no other reason than user lock in. Last week my son installed ubuntu on his cheap tablet pc. it worked flawlessly : wifi, sound, track pad and even touch screen. on screen keyboard worked. even the wacom tablet worked out of the box. when he was on windows he had to install a driver for it to work! so I guess I'm not mad at ubuntu anymore. it's just not for me. or any linux geek. it's for windows users.

simosx 6y ago
Those windows controls on the left was the result of UI experiments. The mouse travels less when the controls are on the left. Imagine launching an application with the launcher on the left, and when you want to close to close the application, you have to move the mouse aaalllll the way to the right. It is not a breathtaking innovation as OS/X had been doing it already. You can learn to use the windows controls on the left. I got used to using them and it takes a few days to feel at home. When sadly Ubuntu switched back to GNOME Shell and reverted this change, it felt really unnatural to have those windows controls on the wrong side. Still, you get used to it after a few days.
mdoms 6y ago
> it's for windows users Honestly as a half-half Windows user the stupid window controls on the wrong side is a big enough turn-off for me that I won't even consider Ubuntu. I think it's for Mac users.
shadowgovt 6y ago
> putting the window controls on the wrong side of the window for no other reason than user lock in. How does that cause user lock-in?

simosx 6y ago

Most likely you tried to run a command, this command was part of a package that has not been installed, and Ubuntu suggested to you to install a specific deb or snap package. There is a usability package 'command-not-found', which is a handler for the shell and runs when the command you tried to run, was not found. You mentioned though that you tried to install a package, the package was not found and got a suggestion to use snaps or something. There is no such thing as far as I know. There are two packages, 'chromium-browser' and 'lxd'. In Ubuntu 20.04, both these packages are now only available as snap packages. If you try to install them with `apt install`, you get a notification that they are now only available as snap packages, and the installer transparently installs the snap package for you. This has been discussed a lot before implementing, and also here. The gist is that when you `sudo apt install chromium-browser`, you want the installation to work, not get an error message to run `sudo snap install chromium` instead.

ducktective 6y ago
Well, personally, I'd have very much preferred an abrupt error and a recommendation to install the thing with snap. After all `apt` is reserved for apt-managed applications not some general "install-please" meta command. I thought failing fast and general transparency was a Linux/UNIX motto. Just my 2c. I'm not well-versed in sysadmin stuff.
somehnguy 6y ago
I didn't try to run a command, I ran this exact script: https://github.com/ct-Open-Source/tuya-convert/blob/master/install_prereq.sh https://github.com/ct-Open-Source/tuya-convert/blob/master/i... Actually you could be right - that script does run `python3` after apt-get'ing everything it needs. Anyway.. I didn't look into it any further because I didn't feel like investing any time into learning the 'Ubuntu way'. I installed Debian instead and it worked perfectly without any grief. It also worked perfectly on PopOS when I used it a few days later on a different machine. Canonical can make whatever changes they want of course, I've just become increasingly less patient when it comes to machines not acting how I have come to expect. So I'll just stick to what works. Oh man - I'm becoming one of those old dudes...

Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 6y ago

I seriously don't get the hate... snaps are easy to manage, probably more secure than adding a bunch of PPAs (what many are doing blindly as soon as apt fails them), and I didn't notice any performance hits using them. And it seems like it's probably far easier to simply create and maintain a snap than the alternatives. If this means creators distributing and packaging their programs on their own more often rather than unreliable package maintainers being in the driver's seat, what's to lose here exactly? From the user's perspective the interface is also very lean and clutter free. $ snap search x $ snap list $ snap info x $ sudo snap install x I've interacted with snaps to a bare minimum, and I am sure all of those are correct. I am sorry, but "some nonsense about using snaps" -> "I quickly installed Debian" -> "this furthers my negative opinion of Canonical". Talk about Canonical getting a bad rep for pretty much everything they do...

somehnguy 6y ago
You might be right about snaps being great. I'm not giving them a fair shot, you're completely right about that. Here is the thing from my perspective though - I have never had any trouble with apt that has made me think 'I wish to use something else'. Apt works. It does what I expect it to. When you're just trying to get something that should be simple done the last thing you want to do is spend a bunch of time learning a new system that you didn't even ask for. When I try to use a project that includes a quick startup script that is rendered broken by something I don't even want...well I just move on. No big deal really, I'll just use Debian and if eventually I hit a point where I want something else I'll give it a try on my own time/terms. Not in the middle of trying to do something else.