3 ms·

I'm not that guy, but snaps are the main reason for not liking Ubuntu recently. The impression I get is that Canonical is trying to monetize Ubuntu's popularity

I'm not that guy, but snaps are the main reason for not liking Ubuntu recently. The impression I get is that Canonical is trying to monetize Ubuntu's popularity and a lot of people are resentful of that since Ubuntu gets most of it's value from the free software it bundles into it's distro.

tsegratis 4y ago
I think you're right, but Maybe it's my myopia, but I feel they were easily the most dev friend years ago, and poured their life and money into it, to benefit others But then after ubuntu phone, the level of ingratitude from us devs were shocking Project focus wasn't always on the ball, but we the community ripped them apart for it So yeah, snaps is a little more lookin' after number one. I agree with that assessment, but I hardly blame them
- toyg 4y ago
  The list of Ubuntu "sins" is very long, and goes all the way to their founding - effectively forking the Debian ecosystem. As for being "dev friendly", it really depends on what you mean by that; their insistence on building their own things and discounting third-party input, over and over, was anything but friendly.
  - lproven 4y ago
    [Article author and submitter here] > effectively forking the Debian ecosystem The company and project were founded by a Debian user and developer, who employed and still employs a number of Debian developers, to make a version of Debian for ordinary people. How is that a bad thing? Ubuntu changes feed back into Debian. Debian now has the `apt` command instead of `aptitude`. It has the Ubuntu GUI tool for configuring repositories and so on. It has various bits of Ubuntu. ISTM that this was as friendly and cooperative as a sub-project can be, and Debian has benefitted significantly from it. I tried Debian before Ubuntu. It was hard and I didn't use it because it was too hard for me to bother. (I used Caldera OpenLinux and then later SUSE.) Nowadays Debian is a lot better and easier, and I reckon a lot of that is down to the Ubuntu influence. I find it hard to see that as a bad thing.
    - toyg 4y ago
      2004 called, they want their flame back. But seriously: Shuttleworth tried a classic EEE play on Debian, over and over and over. Obviously nerds mostly want to get along and will end up talking to each other, but it doesn't change the fact that, at the time, it was a (not-that-) thinly veiled, well-funded takeover attempt on the Debian ecosystem and community. > Ubuntu changes feed back into Debian. Debian now has the `apt` command It's nice that you bring up a classic case of unashamed namesquatting. People have been referring to "apt" in general terms since apt-get came on the scenes, 6 YEARS before Canonical was founded. But why give up the chance to piggyback on someone else's brand, eh...? So when the time came to churn on the umpteen apt-get frontend, they did just that.
      - lproven 4y ago
        OK. It definitely looks like you are someone who won't be reasoned with on this. APT as a set of tools is ancient. `apt` as a command isn't. It is handy, it's simpler and easier, it eliminates the nonsensical split between apt-get and apt-cache and aptitude and so on... and you can tell, because Debian adopted it. I like it. I use it all the time. The upstream project adopted it, but to you, that's bad, because it falsifies your angry claim. Yeah, no. End of thread.

tsegratis 4y ago

I think you're right, but Maybe it's my myopia, but I feel they were easily the most dev friend years ago, and poured their life and money into it, to benefit others But then after ubuntu phone, the level of ingratitude from us devs were shocking Project focus wasn't always on the ball, but we the community ripped them apart for it So yeah, snaps is a little more lookin' after number one. I agree with that assessment, but I hardly blame them

toyg 4y ago
The list of Ubuntu "sins" is very long, and goes all the way to their founding - effectively forking the Debian ecosystem. As for being "dev friendly", it really depends on what you mean by that; their insistence on building their own things and discounting third-party input, over and over, was anything but friendly.
- lproven 4y ago
  [Article author and submitter here] > effectively forking the Debian ecosystem The company and project were founded by a Debian user and developer, who employed and still employs a number of Debian developers, to make a version of Debian for ordinary people. How is that a bad thing? Ubuntu changes feed back into Debian. Debian now has the `apt` command instead of `aptitude`. It has the Ubuntu GUI tool for configuring repositories and so on. It has various bits of Ubuntu. ISTM that this was as friendly and cooperative as a sub-project can be, and Debian has benefitted significantly from it. I tried Debian before Ubuntu. It was hard and I didn't use it because it was too hard for me to bother. (I used Caldera OpenLinux and then later SUSE.) Nowadays Debian is a lot better and easier, and I reckon a lot of that is down to the Ubuntu influence. I find it hard to see that as a bad thing.
  - toyg 4y ago
    2004 called, they want their flame back. But seriously: Shuttleworth tried a classic EEE play on Debian, over and over and over. Obviously nerds mostly want to get along and will end up talking to each other, but it doesn't change the fact that, at the time, it was a (not-that-) thinly veiled, well-funded takeover attempt on the Debian ecosystem and community. > Ubuntu changes feed back into Debian. Debian now has the `apt` command It's nice that you bring up a classic case of unashamed namesquatting. People have been referring to "apt" in general terms since apt-get came on the scenes, 6 YEARS before Canonical was founded. But why give up the chance to piggyback on someone else's brand, eh...? So when the time came to churn on the umpteen apt-get frontend, they did just that.
    - lproven 4y ago
      OK. It definitely looks like you are someone who won't be reasoned with on this. APT as a set of tools is ancient. `apt` as a command isn't. It is handy, it's simpler and easier, it eliminates the nonsensical split between apt-get and apt-cache and aptitude and so on... and you can tell, because Debian adopted it. I like it. I use it all the time. The upstream project adopted it, but to you, that's bad, because it falsifies your angry claim. Yeah, no. End of thread.