3 ms·

I agree, Arch is amazing. I haven't been using it for a few years, I've been on Ubuntu in an attempt to be closer to how a "normal computer user" would experien

by mort96 4y ago

I agree, Arch is amazing. I haven't been using it for a few years, I've been on Ubuntu in an attempt to be closer to how a "normal computer user" would experience Linux. But every single time Ubuntu Softwate messed something up, every single time I get a notification to close Firefox in <13 days to avoid disruptions, every time I click the "update all" button on Ubuntu Software and it tells me it can't because the Snap Store is running (as a background process which I can't close through the UI), I get the urge to go back. At this point, it's only inertia which keeps me on Ubuntu, I don't want to take the time to set stuff up anew. But at this rate, I'm sure I'll finally make the switch sooner rather than later. I'm not philosophically against Snap as an idea. But what I am against is all the absolutely terrible UX decisions and bugs which Canonical evidently considers "acceptable". It makes the whole Linux desktop look like a joke. Maybe it's time to realise it is a joke. That Linux will remain a programmer OS and an OS for locked-down consumer devices, but not a general consumer desktop-style OS. And maybe we should recognise that in such a world, there is no space for Ubuntu Desktop.

emj 4y ago
I never have a problem with this, but I do shutdown my computer everyday. I do actually use arch as well but a lot less than Ubuntu and Debian, my feeling is that Arch is a lot more trouble than Ubuntu and Debian. I am very conservative with my desktop I always want to be able to work, I've had zero problems with that attitude running Ubuntu since it was just an idea. All problems I've had were self inflicted and there are many foot guns for sure.
- mort96 4y ago
  I also shut down my computer every night. If it works for you I'm happy for you, but it's more trouble than Arch was for me. The stability is nice while it lasts, but I've had way too many major things break when upgrading to a new release. The most extreme case was the time Ubuntu 19.10 broke GDM, so anyone with an nvidia card and auto-login enabled had their system bricked. This is even though I reported the issue a long time before the release, and there were very reasonable workarounds proposed in the issue discussion in good time to fix the issues before release. Ubuntu 21.04 released with a nextcloud-desktop application which segfaulted on launch. I also reported this a long time before release, and it was ignored because they had already frozen the packages they import from Debian, so I had to deal with a desktop which couldn't sync my files. I haven't experienced similar huge issues in Arch, but more importantly, when an issue does occur, I can expect a fix to be out in days, not weeks or months.
  - emj 4y ago
    I only see problems with LTS. I do agree that there are some stability issues with Ubuntu that just don't get fixed, but this is mostly an issue with the other releases. This is the problem with staggered releases your fix might very well take 6 months. Arch has severe problems in my mind especially in stability, but as you say it is easier to fix stuff and that is a huge plus. It's just a trap I try to avoid for my desktop! Thanks for the explanation makes a lot more sense now!
    - mort96 4y ago
      I do truly believe that Ubuntu will be a lot more stable if you stay away from the "interim" releases. When I bring these things up with people, I do get the impression that Canonical looks at the non-LTS releases as more of a sort of public beta test to ensure the eventual LTS is solid. For the sort of stuff I do on my computer, using libraries which are up to 2 years out of date is incredibly painful; even the 6 months between interim releases is a problem sometimes. So if you use the LTS, and the outdated packages isn't an issue for you, it makes sense that you'd be pretty happy with it. And maybe that's a use-case I'm underestimating.
      - emj 4y ago
        I just do not trust new stuff being stable enough for a daily driver, but I still use it because I have to. As a developer I do not feel that this is an issue for me. I understand why it can be an issue.
  - pmontra 4y ago
    This is why I stay on LTS versions. I'm about to install 22.04 on a new SSD. I'll dual boot 20.04 to work until I'm confident that I can setup 22.04 with all the GNOME extensions I need to have a sane desktop, plus all the software I need to do my job. Actually maybe I'll give a try to Debian 11, no snaps there.
    - everybodyknows 4y ago
      Care to share what GNOME extensions you like? I've gone so far as to hack its CSS files, but that's not a happy place to be.

by mort96 4y ago

emj 4y ago

I never have a problem with this, but I do shutdown my computer everyday. I do actually use arch as well but a lot less than Ubuntu and Debian, my feeling is that Arch is a lot more trouble than Ubuntu and Debian. I am very conservative with my desktop I always want to be able to work, I've had zero problems with that attitude running Ubuntu since it was just an idea. All problems I've had were self inflicted and there are many foot guns for sure.

mort96 4y ago
I also shut down my computer every night. If it works for you I'm happy for you, but it's more trouble than Arch was for me. The stability is nice while it lasts, but I've had way too many major things break when upgrading to a new release. The most extreme case was the time Ubuntu 19.10 broke GDM, so anyone with an nvidia card and auto-login enabled had their system bricked. This is even though I reported the issue a long time before the release, and there were very reasonable workarounds proposed in the issue discussion in good time to fix the issues before release. Ubuntu 21.04 released with a nextcloud-desktop application which segfaulted on launch. I also reported this a long time before release, and it was ignored because they had already frozen the packages they import from Debian, so I had to deal with a desktop which couldn't sync my files. I haven't experienced similar huge issues in Arch, but more importantly, when an issue does occur, I can expect a fix to be out in days, not weeks or months.
- emj 4y ago
  I only see problems with LTS. I do agree that there are some stability issues with Ubuntu that just don't get fixed, but this is mostly an issue with the other releases. This is the problem with staggered releases your fix might very well take 6 months. Arch has severe problems in my mind especially in stability, but as you say it is easier to fix stuff and that is a huge plus. It's just a trap I try to avoid for my desktop! Thanks for the explanation makes a lot more sense now!
  - mort96 4y ago
    I do truly believe that Ubuntu will be a lot more stable if you stay away from the "interim" releases. When I bring these things up with people, I do get the impression that Canonical looks at the non-LTS releases as more of a sort of public beta test to ensure the eventual LTS is solid. For the sort of stuff I do on my computer, using libraries which are up to 2 years out of date is incredibly painful; even the 6 months between interim releases is a problem sometimes. So if you use the LTS, and the outdated packages isn't an issue for you, it makes sense that you'd be pretty happy with it. And maybe that's a use-case I'm underestimating.
    - emj 4y ago
      I just do not trust new stuff being stable enough for a daily driver, but I still use it because I have to. As a developer I do not feel that this is an issue for me. I understand why it can be an issue.
- pmontra 4y ago
  This is why I stay on LTS versions. I'm about to install 22.04 on a new SSD. I'll dual boot 20.04 to work until I'm confident that I can setup 22.04 with all the GNOME extensions I need to have a sane desktop, plus all the software I need to do my job. Actually maybe I'll give a try to Debian 11, no snaps there.
  - everybodyknows 4y ago
    Care to share what GNOME extensions you like? I've gone so far as to hack its CSS files, but that's not a happy place to be.