3 ms·

If geeks and their desktops are out, the only thing remaining for Ubuntu is server and cloud. That is okay, actually, but a bit sad.

by sgt 5y ago

nvrspyx 5y ago
I mean, that's where large majority of their efforts have been for the last couple of years, at least. It's self-inflicted.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  There is no money in desktop, it is self inflicted by the Linux community themselves.
  - nvrspyx 5y ago
    You're right. Self-inflicted was the wrong term to use here. I just meant that Canonical themselves, in some part, have been pushing the desktop crowd away, even if it's a feedback loop between Canonical and the community like you allude to. I just wish they had followed a similar approach as Red Hat have, where they're still able to place a significant amount of effort into the desktop side of things thanks to their enterprise offering and specialized focuses, like embedded systems for automobiles, which I believe is where much of the Pipewire work came about for example. That's not to say Red Hat is perfect or a crowning example of a Linux company "done right". Rather, it's just an example.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      Red-Hat officially abandoned the Linux desktop citing exactly this as a reason, that is why they became the most successful commercial distribution. As a refresher, here is the announcement. https://lwn.net/Articles/56947/ https://lwn.net/Articles/56947/ For Red-Hat naturally there needs to exist some form of desktop for enterprise customers, but that is as much as they care, which also reflects on GNOME decisions, as they have most of the main developers on their payroll.
      - torginus 5y ago
        I'd say that's a bit harsh - they've been employing a lot of the Wayland, Pipewire and Gnome people for example. I'm pretty sure they've been involved in a lot more core Linux Desktop projects but those are the examples I could think of in a minute.
  - behnamoh 5y ago
    Definitely this. As much as I like Linux, the community hasn’t been that great. So much man-hour wasted on reinventing the wheel. There’s just too much diversity in the Linux world, from distros to desktop mangers to package mangers to …
pjmlp 5y ago
Ubuntu has long realised that Red-Hat was right in that regard.
Andys 5y ago
Except with snaps, its like using a desktop OS on a server, which is not really OK.
- washadjeffmad 5y ago
  That feels most correct to me, too. Snaps are an easy way to deallocate personnel from Desktop duties without harming Server. It sounds more like an attempt at a cost-saving measure than something that benefits customers.
- justsomehnguy 5y ago
  For the last 20 years the the only things which made the difference between the Windows Server and Windows not-server were the things which weren't available on the client SKUs at all (like Active Directery and so on). The worst offenders were the software which doesn't allow you to install if you aren't running a servrr SKU, oyherwise I haven't any difference between a client or a server SKUs
ekimekim 5y ago
I stopped using ubuntu on my servers and in my containers the day I tried to install a package, and it "succeeded", but then at runtime the binary I thought I'd installed just printed "This is now provided by a snap package, use that instead" and exited. I consider ubuntu completely unsuitable for server and cloud. I don't think there is any use case they are suitable for anymore. Which is definitely sad.
- imiric 5y ago
  That's ridiculous. The fact Snaps are automatically updated in the background, and users have to resort to half-assed workarounds[1], should be an absolute deal breaker for server use, where you want total control over when and if packages should be updated. [1]: https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/disabling-automatic-refresh-for-snap-from-store/707 https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/disabling-automatic-refresh-for...
  - worik 5y ago
    It depends on the server and maintainer.
- sgt 5y ago
  I cannot remember what software it was, but some of our Ubuntu servers 2-3 years ago tried to auto update from a running piece of software to a snap based version, which failed, and then the process was killed or shut down. Needed manual intervention to rescue. It was a bit shocking at the time and I should have made some notes about this.
- mmcnl 5y ago
  This is an extreme overstatement. I have used Ubuntu LTS server editions for years without issues. It's widely without much issues. Sure, things could be better, but "completely unsuitable" is laughable. You're free to pick something else if you don't _like_ it, but that doesn't mean that it's unsuitable for server usage for a fact.

If geeks and their desktops are out, the only thing remaining for Ubuntu is server and cloud. That is okay, actually, but a bit sad.

by sgt 5y ago

If geeks and their desktops are out, the only thing remaining for Ubuntu is server and cloud. That is okay, actually, but a bit sad.

nvrspyx 5y ago

I mean, that's where large majority of their efforts have been for the last couple of years, at least. It's self-inflicted.

pjmlp 5y ago
There is no money in desktop, it is self inflicted by the Linux community themselves.
- nvrspyx 5y ago
  You're right. Self-inflicted was the wrong term to use here. I just meant that Canonical themselves, in some part, have been pushing the desktop crowd away, even if it's a feedback loop between Canonical and the community like you allude to. I just wish they had followed a similar approach as Red Hat have, where they're still able to place a significant amount of effort into the desktop side of things thanks to their enterprise offering and specialized focuses, like embedded systems for automobiles, which I believe is where much of the Pipewire work came about for example. That's not to say Red Hat is perfect or a crowning example of a Linux company "done right". Rather, it's just an example.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Red-Hat officially abandoned the Linux desktop citing exactly this as a reason, that is why they became the most successful commercial distribution. As a refresher, here is the announcement. https://lwn.net/Articles/56947/ https://lwn.net/Articles/56947/ For Red-Hat naturally there needs to exist some form of desktop for enterprise customers, but that is as much as they care, which also reflects on GNOME decisions, as they have most of the main developers on their payroll.
    - torginus 5y ago
      I'd say that's a bit harsh - they've been employing a lot of the Wayland, Pipewire and Gnome people for example. I'm pretty sure they've been involved in a lot more core Linux Desktop projects but those are the examples I could think of in a minute.
- behnamoh 5y ago
  Definitely this. As much as I like Linux, the community hasn’t been that great. So much man-hour wasted on reinventing the wheel. There’s just too much diversity in the Linux world, from distros to desktop mangers to package mangers to …

pjmlp 5y ago

Ubuntu has long realised that Red-Hat was right in that regard.

Andys 5y ago

Except with snaps, its like using a desktop OS on a server, which is not really OK.

washadjeffmad 5y ago
That feels most correct to me, too. Snaps are an easy way to deallocate personnel from Desktop duties without harming Server. It sounds more like an attempt at a cost-saving measure than something that benefits customers.
justsomehnguy 5y ago
For the last 20 years the the only things which made the difference between the Windows Server and Windows not-server were the things which weren't available on the client SKUs at all (like Active Directery and so on). The worst offenders were the software which doesn't allow you to install if you aren't running a servrr SKU, oyherwise I haven't any difference between a client or a server SKUs

ekimekim 5y ago

I stopped using ubuntu on my servers and in my containers the day I tried to install a package, and it "succeeded", but then at runtime the binary I thought I'd installed just printed "This is now provided by a snap package, use that instead" and exited. I consider ubuntu completely unsuitable for server and cloud. I don't think there is any use case they are suitable for anymore. Which is definitely sad.

imiric 5y ago
That's ridiculous. The fact Snaps are automatically updated in the background, and users have to resort to half-assed workarounds[1], should be an absolute deal breaker for server use, where you want total control over when and if packages should be updated. [1]: https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/disabling-automatic-refresh-for-snap-from-store/707 https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/disabling-automatic-refresh-for...
- worik 5y ago
  It depends on the server and maintainer.
sgt 5y ago
I cannot remember what software it was, but some of our Ubuntu servers 2-3 years ago tried to auto update from a running piece of software to a snap based version, which failed, and then the process was killed or shut down. Needed manual intervention to rescue. It was a bit shocking at the time and I should have made some notes about this.
mmcnl 5y ago
This is an extreme overstatement. I have used Ubuntu LTS server editions for years without issues. It's widely without much issues. Sure, things could be better, but "completely unsuitable" is laughable. You're free to pick something else if you don't _like_ it, but that doesn't mean that it's unsuitable for server usage for a fact.