8 ms·

Honest question; why do you still use Ubuntu then? By now, Snap is such a fundamental part of Ubuntu that it begs the question whether Ubuntu is right for you

Honest question; why do you still use Ubuntu then? By now, Snap is such a fundamental part of Ubuntu that it begs the question whether Ubuntu is right for you if you want to avoid it. Why not use a derivative or upstream that makes different choices?

Shared404 4y ago
I also have an Ubuntu desktop which I've ripped snap out of. In my case, it's because my options are pretty much Ubuntu or Windows for this machine, and there's no contest there.
awill 4y ago
agreed. Ubuntu are trying to hard to differentiate themselves, and it usually just hurts them. I'm guessing they'll drop snap in the future and blame the industry (like they did with systemd and wayland)
cld8483 4y ago
Ubuntu is an African word which means "Afraid of Debian" Seriously though, just install Debian. It's not hard, the netinstaller may be text-mode but it walks you through the simple steps one by one just like Ubuntu's GUI installer. Anybody who's comfortable using Ubuntu in the first place should be able to get through the Debian installer just fine.
- aaomidi 4y ago
  If you’re using desktop, then honestly look into fedora or arch (EndeavourOS). I really am not sure why Ubuntu is still being used. I know it’s the main thing people recommend but it is awful for day to day desktop use due to its release cadence and holding packages back.
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    95% of "here's how to fix that braindead default that's giving you troule" or "here's what that misleading error message means and how to fix it" how-tos or whatever, for servers, are written either for Ubuntu or Red Hat (and friends) and sometimes the exact same steps won't work even on Debian. 3rd party commercial software often supports only Ubuntu or Red Hat, and you're on your own if you use it on something else. I've never liked RPM-based distros and specifically dislike Red Hat as a company, so, Ubuntu it is. (For work, where I just want something that won't make me "the asshole who chose [non-standard thing]". I prefer Void or FreeBSD or, sometimes, Debian, for my own stuff) [EDIT] Oh, right, specifically for desktop? Yeah, I'd go Void or Arch probably. Buuuuuut if it were for work, I'd just use Ubuntu, even on the desktop, so it wouldn't be my fault when it misbehaves.
    - WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
      I’m a Fedora user and I consult ArchWiki all the time.
    - aaomidi 4y ago
      Yeah definitely, I think that the availability of information for Ubuntu makes it very attractive. I meant more so for people who are somewhat active on these discussions but still go with Ubuntu.
- XorNot 4y ago
  Ubuntu packages get updated on a much faster cadence then Debian in my experience.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    By design, yes. Debian prioritizes stability over being on the cutting edge. If you always want the latest and greatest, Debian isn't the right distro for you.
    - cld8483 4y ago
      Debian Sid makes a pretty good "rolling release" distro for home/hobby use at least, although I prefer OpenSUSE Tumbleweed for this.
      - kelnos 4y ago
        Sid is unstable (by definition and design)b wouldn't recommend as a daily driver. Testing is a decent rolling release distro, though.
        matthews2 4y ago
        Testing isn't rolling release. Every 2 years, testing becomes stable, and stable becomes oldstable.
        abenga 4y ago
        Not if you explicitly use the word "testing" in your apt config though, no? But yeah, after the hard freeze, changes do slow down until it stable is released, then there is a flood of changes.
      - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
        But you will still be subjected to Debian crazy rules regarding applied patch sets. Nowadays you can get a full featured, well integrated and properly working user land on Linux with next to zero customisation with systemd and Gnome. I really recommend using a distribution which stays as close to vanilla as possible.
- jacooper 4y ago
  If you are using Ubuntu Pro(free or not) Debian isn't really an alternative. Also I am not sure if Debian is as fast as Canonical in patching CVEs. I like Debian, but after (free)Ubuntu pro, it really became attractive for me as a small server operator, its even better than free RHEL.
  - POPOSYS 4y ago
    Would you please like to explain why it is better? Thanks!
    - jacooper 4y ago
      Free kernel livepatching, the whole Ubuntu universe is supported(more than 20 thousand packages), 10 years of support, compliance help. Its also much easier to install on cloud servers than RHEL.
    - diffeomorphism 4y ago
      Ubuntu used to have security support for "main" only. All other software, e.g. in "universe" had patches trickle in from debian but no dedicated support. This is particularly problematic for long or extended LTS when debian has dropped the old stable release that would be pulling from. "Ubuntu pro" is basically trying to fix this shortcoming compared to debian and to pay for a security team for universe. It is available as a subscription. TLDR: If you use software from main it is completely irrelevant. If you use stuff from universe it is now as good as debian, if you pay (first 5 devices are free).
- mastazi 4y ago
  GP here. I use some tools that are Ubuntu specific. But I might look at Ubuntu derivatives such as Pop or Mint. As I said in my other comments, these are desktop/HTPC machines so, it's not as straight forward to change distro as it would be with a server.
  - johnny22 4y ago
    you would indeed be better off with pop or mint. ubuntu is gonna move more and more towards snaps.
  - mackrevinack 4y ago
    zorin is another decent distro as well. i was on pop for maybe 3 years and that was great but zorin has won me over for reasons i can't really put my finger on
- harry8 4y ago
  One reason is 3rd party software. Frequently there is a deb compatible with the last couple of ubu LTS releases. Seems like more frequently than Debian stable releases? There's always things you don't like, are not distro packaged, but have to install for reasons to get work done to get paid. Xilinx vivado being the first example for me that springs to mind but I'm sure there are others and I'm sure I don't know what the next one will be yet. I feel like when it crops up ubu LTS is a better bet than debian stable. I'd love to be shown to be wrong about that. Running with the crowd has some advantages. Many feet passing on the path before you trample more bugs before you get there etc. For anyone looking to use debian I highly recommend it and prefer it to any other distro.
  - kitsunesoba 4y ago
    Additionally if I recall correctly, Ubuntu is one of the few distros that's set up to handle secure boot correctly out of the box (with the other I know to do this being Fedora). This is nice if you're dual booting Windows 11. It's also probably going to increase the Ubuntu's representation in desktop Linux by virtue of booting without any EFI setup tinkering, because a lot of people's patience ends exactly where things cease to work as expected.
    - NegativeK 4y ago
      I dual boot with Windows 11 and Debian on a couple of systems and don't even notice secure boot.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    My problem with Ubuntu is that I can never get it to work right. Debian works right out of the box for me. (By "work right", I mean operate correctly -- I don't mean "work the way I want") Since there are so many people that don't have this problem, I understand that it's something I'm doing wrong -- but I have never been able to figure out what that is.
    - loloquwowndueo 4y ago
      I started using Ubuntu for the opposite reason: getting compiz working on Debian was a nightmare, but on Ubuntu, desktop effects just worked. This was well over a decade ago though :)
- wrycoder 4y ago
  Even better, install Devuan, which is Debian without systemd (the attempt to turn Linux into Windows). Many former Debian developers are now working on Devuan.
  - tmtvl 4y ago
    How exactly does systemd turn Linux into Windows? Does it... Prevent dynamic linking? Offer strong backwards compatibility? Add support for a very wide range of hardware? Put advertisements in the start menu? Cause unexpected reboots for updates? Send telemetry to the OS manufacturer? Force users to get an online account unless they know the secret way to bypass the prompt? Or is there a differentiator between Windows and Linux I am overlooking?
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      This has been re-hashed many times. What you should look at is the difference between Debian and Devuan. Or between Debian and OpenBSD, to understand what the systemd project is doing, and how it’s doing it. There are many of us that prefer Linux as it was before systemd.
      - wrycoder 4y ago
        Edit: I said “attempt”. Linux doesn’t have those extreme stupidities you mentioned, and probably never will.
  - linuxandrew 4y ago
    > systemd (the attempt to turn Linux into Windows) systemd was actually inspired by launchd, not Windows. But I guess systemd, Windows and launchd do share one thing in common which is not having a bunch of bandaid shell scripts hanging the system together.
    - quectophoton 4y ago
      Presumably they're talking about systemd as a whole, not just the tiny subset of systemd that is used as init system or service manager. I don't think I've seen anyone complain about systemd's init system or service manager; it's always about the remaining 90% of systemd's scope and its tight coupling between all its parts (the tight coupling being the main problem).
- mistrial9 4y ago
  no, this is not true. Debian requires manual configuration for some major parts to this day.
Barrin92 4y ago
I don't personally remove snaps but if I did I'd still use Ubuntu for the sole reason that it is somehow the only distro that gets fonts right. I don't know what it is but on every other linux distribution font rendering looks horrible, and I could never figure out how to reliably fix it.
- jm4 4y ago
  It’s most likely not the rendering but the font itself. The Ubuntu font might be the best looking one around. It can be installed on other distros easily. Some have it packaged in their repositories. Switch fonts, turn on full hinting and you’re in business.
  - kombine 4y ago
    I don't think it's just one font. I recently switched away from Ubuntu to OpenSUSE TumbleWeed and on occasional webpages and applications I get these badly rendered fonts. I fixed them to some extent by installing additional fonts, but not completely.
    - jm4 4y ago
      I know what you’re talking about. IIRC, there’s a page in the OpenSUSE docs or in the forums covering the bad browser fonts. That’s an issue that’s specific to them. Haven’t seen it in another distro in many years.
mastazi 4y ago
Honestly just inertia. Those are not servers (where you could easily migrate to another distro taking advantage of infra-as-code tools), they are a desktop and a HTPC. I have accumulated a lot of custom dotfiles, Ubuntu-specific utilities and scripts over time, not all of them would work in another distro unchanged. Removing Snap is not that hard, the "hardest" part is making sure that Firefox is installed from the Mozilla PPA and even that takes just a moment once you have the script saved somewhere. By the way I had a look at some Ubuntu derivatives like PopOS or Mint and I might take the plunge at some point.
- NayamAmarshe 4y ago
  ZorinOS is Ubuntu but better.
  - mastazi 4y ago
    thanks, this is new to me, checking it out!
  - Bloomy22 4y ago
    Why?
dmonitor 4y ago
I use it mostly out of ignorance, but also because I’m fairly used to aptitude as a packet manager and kubuntu has a pretty solid distribution put together.
rhaway84773 4y ago
I use Ubuntu and it’s worked fine for years. I have no reason to switch, but I couldn’t really tolerate Snaps anymore. Unless I have another reason to reinstall Linux, it’s far easier to uninstall Firefox and the other handful of Snap apps and just use Flathub/flatpak exclusively. I just need to be careful I don’t pick the default store app when searching for software.
- mastazi 4y ago
  > I just need to be careful I don’t pick the default store app when searching for software. In my experience Ubuntu's default store app can be safely uninstalled once you have Flatpack's store app. In fact I recommend doing that as their functionality overlaps quite a bit (e.g. you will get duplicated update notifications if you have both stores installed). (The above assumes that you got rid of Snap. Otherwise you may still need the default one)
Thaxll 4y ago
Ubuntu is still a better experience than Debian on the desktop, many many packages are built and tested for Ubuntu and not debian. Ubuntu also as better hardware integration ( drivers ) and more modern kernels. AS a matter of fact it has many kernel for deferent usage. People use Ubuntu because it works just fine out of the box, you don't need to install a third party non free drivers to get your wifi card to work. I still have nightmare with debian because they used to not ship proprietary drivers so you would have to cary a USB stick in the datacenter with drivers on it to make network cards working.
wankle 4y ago
People used Ubuntu for years before they came out with snap. Why use something faddish and potentially unstable.
seabrookmx 4y ago
zfs is a single `apt install` away.
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  I thought Ubuntu lost interest in that and is letting it die? https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2023/01/ubuntu-zfs-support-status https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2023/01/ubuntu-zfs-support-statu...
  - seabrookmx 4y ago
    That article doesn't provide much context, but Zsys != ZFS. Zsys (and the surrounding effort in Ubuntu) are all about using ZFS as a root filesystem for Desktop Ubuntu and providing convenient features like snapshot on update (to facilitate rolling back a botched upgrade, for instance). To the article's credit, it does look like Canonical is letting this die on the vine (sadly). But that doesn't change the fact that ZFS itself is in the Ubuntu repos, tested against Ubuntu's kernels (it's a kernel module, so this is important), and _really easy_ to install: `sudo apt install zfsutils-linux`. Personally on my box, I boot off a small NVMe SSD formatted ext4 (installer defaults) and then have all my hard drives in a ZFS pool to store my data. If /r/zfs is to be believed, this is a common setup.
0thgen 4y ago
like mastazi, I also remove snapd immediately. I get all the benefits of ubuntu and lose absolutely nothing by removing snapd

Shared404 4y ago

I also have an Ubuntu desktop which I've ripped snap out of. In my case, it's because my options are pretty much Ubuntu or Windows for this machine, and there's no contest there.

awill 4y ago

agreed. Ubuntu are trying to hard to differentiate themselves, and it usually just hurts them. I'm guessing they'll drop snap in the future and blame the industry (like they did with systemd and wayland)

cld8483 4y ago

Ubuntu is an African word which means "Afraid of Debian" Seriously though, just install Debian. It's not hard, the netinstaller may be text-mode but it walks you through the simple steps one by one just like Ubuntu's GUI installer. Anybody who's comfortable using Ubuntu in the first place should be able to get through the Debian installer just fine.

aaomidi 4y ago
If you’re using desktop, then honestly look into fedora or arch (EndeavourOS). I really am not sure why Ubuntu is still being used. I know it’s the main thing people recommend but it is awful for day to day desktop use due to its release cadence and holding packages back.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  95% of "here's how to fix that braindead default that's giving you troule" or "here's what that misleading error message means and how to fix it" how-tos or whatever, for servers, are written either for Ubuntu or Red Hat (and friends) and sometimes the exact same steps won't work even on Debian. 3rd party commercial software often supports only Ubuntu or Red Hat, and you're on your own if you use it on something else. I've never liked RPM-based distros and specifically dislike Red Hat as a company, so, Ubuntu it is. (For work, where I just want something that won't make me "the asshole who chose [non-standard thing]". I prefer Void or FreeBSD or, sometimes, Debian, for my own stuff) [EDIT] Oh, right, specifically for desktop? Yeah, I'd go Void or Arch probably. Buuuuuut if it were for work, I'd just use Ubuntu, even on the desktop, so it wouldn't be my fault when it misbehaves.
  - WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
    I’m a Fedora user and I consult ArchWiki all the time.
  - aaomidi 4y ago
    Yeah definitely, I think that the availability of information for Ubuntu makes it very attractive. I meant more so for people who are somewhat active on these discussions but still go with Ubuntu.
XorNot 4y ago
Ubuntu packages get updated on a much faster cadence then Debian in my experience.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  By design, yes. Debian prioritizes stability over being on the cutting edge. If you always want the latest and greatest, Debian isn't the right distro for you.
  - cld8483 4y ago
    Debian Sid makes a pretty good "rolling release" distro for home/hobby use at least, although I prefer OpenSUSE Tumbleweed for this.
    - kelnos 4y ago
      Sid is unstable (by definition and design)b wouldn't recommend as a daily driver. Testing is a decent rolling release distro, though.
      - matthews2 4y ago
        Testing isn't rolling release. Every 2 years, testing becomes stable, and stable becomes oldstable.
        abenga 4y ago
        Not if you explicitly use the word "testing" in your apt config though, no? But yeah, after the hard freeze, changes do slow down until it stable is released, then there is a flood of changes.
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      But you will still be subjected to Debian crazy rules regarding applied patch sets. Nowadays you can get a full featured, well integrated and properly working user land on Linux with next to zero customisation with systemd and Gnome. I really recommend using a distribution which stays as close to vanilla as possible.
jacooper 4y ago
If you are using Ubuntu Pro(free or not) Debian isn't really an alternative. Also I am not sure if Debian is as fast as Canonical in patching CVEs. I like Debian, but after (free)Ubuntu pro, it really became attractive for me as a small server operator, its even better than free RHEL.
- POPOSYS 4y ago
  Would you please like to explain why it is better? Thanks!
  - jacooper 4y ago
    Free kernel livepatching, the whole Ubuntu universe is supported(more than 20 thousand packages), 10 years of support, compliance help. Its also much easier to install on cloud servers than RHEL.
  - diffeomorphism 4y ago
    Ubuntu used to have security support for "main" only. All other software, e.g. in "universe" had patches trickle in from debian but no dedicated support. This is particularly problematic for long or extended LTS when debian has dropped the old stable release that would be pulling from. "Ubuntu pro" is basically trying to fix this shortcoming compared to debian and to pay for a security team for universe. It is available as a subscription. TLDR: If you use software from main it is completely irrelevant. If you use stuff from universe it is now as good as debian, if you pay (first 5 devices are free).
mastazi 4y ago
GP here. I use some tools that are Ubuntu specific. But I might look at Ubuntu derivatives such as Pop or Mint. As I said in my other comments, these are desktop/HTPC machines so, it's not as straight forward to change distro as it would be with a server.
- johnny22 4y ago
  you would indeed be better off with pop or mint. ubuntu is gonna move more and more towards snaps.
- mackrevinack 4y ago
  zorin is another decent distro as well. i was on pop for maybe 3 years and that was great but zorin has won me over for reasons i can't really put my finger on
harry8 4y ago
One reason is 3rd party software. Frequently there is a deb compatible with the last couple of ubu LTS releases. Seems like more frequently than Debian stable releases? There's always things you don't like, are not distro packaged, but have to install for reasons to get work done to get paid. Xilinx vivado being the first example for me that springs to mind but I'm sure there are others and I'm sure I don't know what the next one will be yet. I feel like when it crops up ubu LTS is a better bet than debian stable. I'd love to be shown to be wrong about that. Running with the crowd has some advantages. Many feet passing on the path before you trample more bugs before you get there etc. For anyone looking to use debian I highly recommend it and prefer it to any other distro.
- kitsunesoba 4y ago
  Additionally if I recall correctly, Ubuntu is one of the few distros that's set up to handle secure boot correctly out of the box (with the other I know to do this being Fedora). This is nice if you're dual booting Windows 11. It's also probably going to increase the Ubuntu's representation in desktop Linux by virtue of booting without any EFI setup tinkering, because a lot of people's patience ends exactly where things cease to work as expected.
  - NegativeK 4y ago
    I dual boot with Windows 11 and Debian on a couple of systems and don't even notice secure boot.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  My problem with Ubuntu is that I can never get it to work right. Debian works right out of the box for me. (By "work right", I mean operate correctly -- I don't mean "work the way I want") Since there are so many people that don't have this problem, I understand that it's something I'm doing wrong -- but I have never been able to figure out what that is.
  - loloquwowndueo 4y ago
    I started using Ubuntu for the opposite reason: getting compiz working on Debian was a nightmare, but on Ubuntu, desktop effects just worked. This was well over a decade ago though :)
wrycoder 4y ago
Even better, install Devuan, which is Debian without systemd (the attempt to turn Linux into Windows). Many former Debian developers are now working on Devuan.
- tmtvl 4y ago
  How exactly does systemd turn Linux into Windows? Does it... Prevent dynamic linking? Offer strong backwards compatibility? Add support for a very wide range of hardware? Put advertisements in the start menu? Cause unexpected reboots for updates? Send telemetry to the OS manufacturer? Force users to get an online account unless they know the secret way to bypass the prompt? Or is there a differentiator between Windows and Linux I am overlooking?
  - wrycoder 4y ago
    This has been re-hashed many times. What you should look at is the difference between Debian and Devuan. Or between Debian and OpenBSD, to understand what the systemd project is doing, and how it’s doing it. There are many of us that prefer Linux as it was before systemd.
    - wrycoder 4y ago
      Edit: I said “attempt”. Linux doesn’t have those extreme stupidities you mentioned, and probably never will.
- linuxandrew 4y ago
  > systemd (the attempt to turn Linux into Windows) systemd was actually inspired by launchd, not Windows. But I guess systemd, Windows and launchd do share one thing in common which is not having a bunch of bandaid shell scripts hanging the system together.
  - quectophoton 4y ago
    Presumably they're talking about systemd as a whole, not just the tiny subset of systemd that is used as init system or service manager. I don't think I've seen anyone complain about systemd's init system or service manager; it's always about the remaining 90% of systemd's scope and its tight coupling between all its parts (the tight coupling being the main problem).
mistrial9 4y ago
no, this is not true. Debian requires manual configuration for some major parts to this day.

Barrin92 4y ago

I don't personally remove snaps but if I did I'd still use Ubuntu for the sole reason that it is somehow the only distro that gets fonts right. I don't know what it is but on every other linux distribution font rendering looks horrible, and I could never figure out how to reliably fix it.

jm4 4y ago
It’s most likely not the rendering but the font itself. The Ubuntu font might be the best looking one around. It can be installed on other distros easily. Some have it packaged in their repositories. Switch fonts, turn on full hinting and you’re in business.
- kombine 4y ago
  I don't think it's just one font. I recently switched away from Ubuntu to OpenSUSE TumbleWeed and on occasional webpages and applications I get these badly rendered fonts. I fixed them to some extent by installing additional fonts, but not completely.
  - jm4 4y ago
    I know what you’re talking about. IIRC, there’s a page in the OpenSUSE docs or in the forums covering the bad browser fonts. That’s an issue that’s specific to them. Haven’t seen it in another distro in many years.

mastazi 4y ago

Honestly just inertia. Those are not servers (where you could easily migrate to another distro taking advantage of infra-as-code tools), they are a desktop and a HTPC. I have accumulated a lot of custom dotfiles, Ubuntu-specific utilities and scripts over time, not all of them would work in another distro unchanged. Removing Snap is not that hard, the "hardest" part is making sure that Firefox is installed from the Mozilla PPA and even that takes just a moment once you have the script saved somewhere. By the way I had a look at some Ubuntu derivatives like PopOS or Mint and I might take the plunge at some point.

NayamAmarshe 4y ago
ZorinOS is Ubuntu but better.
- mastazi 4y ago
  thanks, this is new to me, checking it out!
- Bloomy22 4y ago
  Why?

dmonitor 4y ago

I use it mostly out of ignorance, but also because I’m fairly used to aptitude as a packet manager and kubuntu has a pretty solid distribution put together.

rhaway84773 4y ago

I use Ubuntu and it’s worked fine for years. I have no reason to switch, but I couldn’t really tolerate Snaps anymore. Unless I have another reason to reinstall Linux, it’s far easier to uninstall Firefox and the other handful of Snap apps and just use Flathub/flatpak exclusively. I just need to be careful I don’t pick the default store app when searching for software.

mastazi 4y ago
> I just need to be careful I don’t pick the default store app when searching for software. In my experience Ubuntu's default store app can be safely uninstalled once you have Flatpack's store app. In fact I recommend doing that as their functionality overlaps quite a bit (e.g. you will get duplicated update notifications if you have both stores installed). (The above assumes that you got rid of Snap. Otherwise you may still need the default one)

Thaxll 4y ago

Ubuntu is still a better experience than Debian on the desktop, many many packages are built and tested for Ubuntu and not debian. Ubuntu also as better hardware integration ( drivers ) and more modern kernels. AS a matter of fact it has many kernel for deferent usage. People use Ubuntu because it works just fine out of the box, you don't need to install a third party non free drivers to get your wifi card to work. I still have nightmare with debian because they used to not ship proprietary drivers so you would have to cary a USB stick in the datacenter with drivers on it to make network cards working.

wankle 4y ago

People used Ubuntu for years before they came out with snap. Why use something faddish and potentially unstable.

seabrookmx 4y ago

zfs is a single `apt install` away.

diffeomorphism 4y ago
I thought Ubuntu lost interest in that and is letting it die? https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2023/01/ubuntu-zfs-support-status https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2023/01/ubuntu-zfs-support-statu...
- seabrookmx 4y ago
  That article doesn't provide much context, but Zsys != ZFS. Zsys (and the surrounding effort in Ubuntu) are all about using ZFS as a root filesystem for Desktop Ubuntu and providing convenient features like snapshot on update (to facilitate rolling back a botched upgrade, for instance). To the article's credit, it does look like Canonical is letting this die on the vine (sadly). But that doesn't change the fact that ZFS itself is in the Ubuntu repos, tested against Ubuntu's kernels (it's a kernel module, so this is important), and _really easy_ to install: `sudo apt install zfsutils-linux`. Personally on my box, I boot off a small NVMe SSD formatted ext4 (installer defaults) and then have all my hard drives in a ZFS pool to store my data. If /r/zfs is to be believed, this is a common setup.

0thgen 4y ago

like mastazi, I also remove snapd immediately. I get all the benefits of ubuntu and lose absolutely nothing by removing snapd