12 ms·

I really like Pop Os. I've always liked Debian descended distros, and prior to this I was using Ubuntu. While I like it, I always found a lot of rough edges esp

I really like Pop Os. I've always liked Debian descended distros, and prior to this I was using Ubuntu. While I like it, I always found a lot of rough edges esp. when it came to proprietary drivers, etc. where things didn't always work without some tweaking. Pop Os on the other hand seems to "just work" - it is like a polished version of Ubuntu with a nice selection of apps in the Pop Shop. Theme is pretty nice as well as a bonus.

giancarlostoro 4y ago
I'm always looking for a "developer" distro, and POP_OS! feels to be the only one that fits that niche for me.
qbasic_forever 4y ago
Yep I've had the exact same experience. I love that pop is setup out of the box to work well with flatpaks and flathub too--I rarely have to mess with out of date debs, the pain of snaps, etc. The gnome extensions they pack in for tiling windows, adding desktop icons, are fantastic too. It just works.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  The fact that they include flatpaks together with normal packages is confusing though. They appear just the same in the pop_OS store and there are many duplicates because of that. Very inconsistent behavior for installation: flatpaks require no specific rights but normal packages require sudo password. Not a good UX in that regard.
  - nu11ptr 4y ago
    While I would prefer more debs personally, the flatpaks are clearly marked as such in the store
    - tehbeard 4y ago
      The confusion is there's no info on what's different between them presented to the user. I know vaguely that flatpak is "like docker" in terms of wrapping dependencies. I have no clue how that translates to missing features of compatibility issues with other apps. Even knowing which is more up to date isn't shown. Or why i should pick one over the other. The multiple packaging types confounded my efforts to debug an issue I had with VLC, as i initially thought it was a flatpak permissions problem.. No evidence, just hearsay by what i'd seen of flatpak in general online.
      - diffeomorphism 4y ago
        Does it matter? People that care know and people that don't know don't need to care.
        tehbeard 4y ago
        Yes it does? If it doesn't matter, why are there two or even 3 options at times for the same software with little detail as to why? And if the packaging difference does matter (as it did for my vlc issue, one solution only worked for the deb), then an explanation for newbies should be given as to the general expectations for each package type. Or should I just "git gud" and go digging through ppa/flathub? mailing lists to find a 2013 reply to a post?
        diffeomorphism 4y ago
        If it did matter there would be detail as to why. It doesn't. One of them was buggy, but again does not matter which one. > or should I just "git gud" The opposite. Just blindly click on one. If it works you are done, if not click on a different one. You are really, really overcomplicating this for no reason.
        ekianjo 4y ago
        Nope, this is a very good point. Because for example you can't use Python/Selenium with a Flatpak version of Chromium, while you can with .deb version on Pop_OS. If you have no clue what the difference is between both of them, you would have no idea why it's not working in one case and not in the other.
- pmontra 4y ago
  No snaps is good but 1. Slack is a snap. Do you have to run it in the browser? I don't know if desktop sharing works well there, it's been years since I only used their app (Electron?) 2. Is flatpack optional or are there some mandatory flatpack apps that are part of the system? I'd like a deb only system. 3. Contrary to some of us I don't want to use a tiling window manager. Can I keep using my heavily customized Gnome Shell or do I have to use whatever System 76 created for Pop_OS?
  - czx4f4bd 4y ago
    1. There's a Slack flatpak based on the .deb distribution. You could also install the .deb directly from Slack. 2. I'm not sure how mandatory flatpak is. I suspect it's optional, but I'd suggest testing removal on a non-essential install before committing to it. 3. The tiling feature is completely optional and can be disabled easily in the settings.
  - qbasic_forever 4y ago
    Flatpak is optional, it's just setup out of the box so if you want to flatpak install stuff it just works. Their app center also shows flatpaks but has a drop down where you can pick either the deb or flatpak version if both are available. And the tiling extension is off by default. It's just a little toggle in the (very nice) settings dialog to turn it on or off. You can totally uninstall it too as it's just a regular gnome extension (and you can even install it right now on non-pop gnome 3 systems).
  - airtonix 4y ago
thisiswrongggg 4y ago
I'm curious. With all these debian-based distros, why people don't just use debian? I mean it has to be sturdier than the downstream distros.
- EFreethought 4y ago
  My info might be out of date, but I think for a long time Debian was not including some audio codecs like MP3 because there are some patents around it. I think there are some proprietary drivers like NVidia that are also excluded. I think the Debian distro has always targeted/attracted free software purists.
  - anotherhue 4y ago
    You’re correct but fun fact: MP3’s patents expired
- tlamponi 4y ago
  I don't think there's a single answer to that, but I got a few points that may be the more prominent ones, in no particular order: a) Their (now changing) stance against unfree firmware files. This made the default adverdised installer fail most laptop installations due to the WIFI firmware not being available, so no internet to pull down the required packages to make it work. There were unofficial ISOs, but they were hard to find and so a frustrating experience if you didn't know about it. Same, but not as worse with other unfree stuff, like NVidia drivers, you are required to enable the non-free repos, which makes totally sense if you check it out more closely but still a bump in the road for users new(er) to Linux or only used Debian derivatives that often have a stance that is (relatively) less freedom oriented. As hinted, the firmware situation recently changed and will get better with the next major release next year. b) It's more universal and flexible to go in various direction, so it comes with a less opinionated out-of-the-box experience, for the better or worse (depending on your preferences). For example, Ubuntu provides a Server and a Desktop edition, and then all the semi-official Desktop spins for KDE, XFCE, ..., but Debian doesn't you can get it to move in either direction quite easily once you grasp its basics, but that naturally still is an overhead compared to just pulling a preconfigured "ready to fly" version ISO. c) It is definitively is sturdier, but due to their policies guaranteeing that it's also less bleeding edge, well at least if you use the stable release. You can run the Debian Sid version (unstable), but the project doesn't want to promote that to inexperienced users. FWIW, I run that on my laptops since years and got an excellent experience. It's a rolling edge version of Debian, fresh as Arch, but I just align a bit better with Debian (plus develop on it at work). There are surely some more, but those where the biggest three popping into my head. The great thing about Debian, they got quite a healthy relationship to most of their derivatives. Which could IMO only happen due to not being run by a major company or the like, but 100% community based. While that sometimes makes for slow turning mills, but still (or maybe exactly because of that) an excellent and safe foundation for their users, be it direct ones or indirect through derivatives.

giancarlostoro 4y ago

I'm always looking for a "developer" distro, and POP_OS! feels to be the only one that fits that niche for me.

qbasic_forever 4y ago

Yep I've had the exact same experience. I love that pop is setup out of the box to work well with flatpaks and flathub too--I rarely have to mess with out of date debs, the pain of snaps, etc. The gnome extensions they pack in for tiling windows, adding desktop icons, are fantastic too. It just works.

ekianjo 4y ago
The fact that they include flatpaks together with normal packages is confusing though. They appear just the same in the pop_OS store and there are many duplicates because of that. Very inconsistent behavior for installation: flatpaks require no specific rights but normal packages require sudo password. Not a good UX in that regard.
- nu11ptr 4y ago
  While I would prefer more debs personally, the flatpaks are clearly marked as such in the store
  - tehbeard 4y ago
    The confusion is there's no info on what's different between them presented to the user. I know vaguely that flatpak is "like docker" in terms of wrapping dependencies. I have no clue how that translates to missing features of compatibility issues with other apps. Even knowing which is more up to date isn't shown. Or why i should pick one over the other. The multiple packaging types confounded my efforts to debug an issue I had with VLC, as i initially thought it was a flatpak permissions problem.. No evidence, just hearsay by what i'd seen of flatpak in general online.
    - diffeomorphism 4y ago
      Does it matter? People that care know and people that don't know don't need to care.
      - tehbeard 4y ago
        Yes it does? If it doesn't matter, why are there two or even 3 options at times for the same software with little detail as to why? And if the packaging difference does matter (as it did for my vlc issue, one solution only worked for the deb), then an explanation for newbies should be given as to the general expectations for each package type. Or should I just "git gud" and go digging through ppa/flathub? mailing lists to find a 2013 reply to a post?
        diffeomorphism 4y ago
        If it did matter there would be detail as to why. It doesn't. One of them was buggy, but again does not matter which one. > or should I just "git gud" The opposite. Just blindly click on one. If it works you are done, if not click on a different one. You are really, really overcomplicating this for no reason.
        ekianjo 4y ago
        Nope, this is a very good point. Because for example you can't use Python/Selenium with a Flatpak version of Chromium, while you can with .deb version on Pop_OS. If you have no clue what the difference is between both of them, you would have no idea why it's not working in one case and not in the other.
pmontra 4y ago
No snaps is good but 1. Slack is a snap. Do you have to run it in the browser? I don't know if desktop sharing works well there, it's been years since I only used their app (Electron?) 2. Is flatpack optional or are there some mandatory flatpack apps that are part of the system? I'd like a deb only system. 3. Contrary to some of us I don't want to use a tiling window manager. Can I keep using my heavily customized Gnome Shell or do I have to use whatever System 76 created for Pop_OS?
- czx4f4bd 4y ago
  1. There's a Slack flatpak based on the .deb distribution. You could also install the .deb directly from Slack. 2. I'm not sure how mandatory flatpak is. I suspect it's optional, but I'd suggest testing removal on a non-essential install before committing to it. 3. The tiling feature is completely optional and can be disabled easily in the settings.
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  Flatpak is optional, it's just setup out of the box so if you want to flatpak install stuff it just works. Their app center also shows flatpaks but has a drop down where you can pick either the deb or flatpak version if both are available. And the tiling extension is off by default. It's just a little toggle in the (very nice) settings dialog to turn it on or off. You can totally uninstall it too as it's just a regular gnome extension (and you can even install it right now on non-pop gnome 3 systems).
- airtonix 4y ago

thisiswrongggg 4y ago

I'm curious. With all these debian-based distros, why people don't just use debian? I mean it has to be sturdier than the downstream distros.

EFreethought 4y ago
My info might be out of date, but I think for a long time Debian was not including some audio codecs like MP3 because there are some patents around it. I think there are some proprietary drivers like NVidia that are also excluded. I think the Debian distro has always targeted/attracted free software purists.
- anotherhue 4y ago
  You’re correct but fun fact: MP3’s patents expired
tlamponi 4y ago
I don't think there's a single answer to that, but I got a few points that may be the more prominent ones, in no particular order: a) Their (now changing) stance against unfree firmware files. This made the default adverdised installer fail most laptop installations due to the WIFI firmware not being available, so no internet to pull down the required packages to make it work. There were unofficial ISOs, but they were hard to find and so a frustrating experience if you didn't know about it. Same, but not as worse with other unfree stuff, like NVidia drivers, you are required to enable the non-free repos, which makes totally sense if you check it out more closely but still a bump in the road for users new(er) to Linux or only used Debian derivatives that often have a stance that is (relatively) less freedom oriented. As hinted, the firmware situation recently changed and will get better with the next major release next year. b) It's more universal and flexible to go in various direction, so it comes with a less opinionated out-of-the-box experience, for the better or worse (depending on your preferences). For example, Ubuntu provides a Server and a Desktop edition, and then all the semi-official Desktop spins for KDE, XFCE, ..., but Debian doesn't you can get it to move in either direction quite easily once you grasp its basics, but that naturally still is an overhead compared to just pulling a preconfigured "ready to fly" version ISO. c) It is definitively is sturdier, but due to their policies guaranteeing that it's also less bleeding edge, well at least if you use the stable release. You can run the Debian Sid version (unstable), but the project doesn't want to promote that to inexperienced users. FWIW, I run that on my laptops since years and got an excellent experience. It's a rolling edge version of Debian, fresh as Arch, but I just align a bit better with Debian (plus develop on it at work). There are surely some more, but those where the biggest three popping into my head. The great thing about Debian, they got quite a healthy relationship to most of their derivatives. Which could IMO only happen due to not being run by a major company or the like, but 100% community based. While that sometimes makes for slow turning mills, but still (or maybe exactly because of that) an excellent and safe foundation for their users, be it direct ones or indirect through derivatives.