3 ms·

> Flatpak and Flathub are nice for him, but what stopped him using both in Ubuntu? >https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/927262/6adb2350e2b0d2ce/ https://lwn.net/Sub

> Flatpak and Flathub are nice for him, but what stopped him using both in Ubuntu? >https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/927262/6adb2350e2b0d2ce/ https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/927262/6adb2350e2b0d2ce/ Have you tried to read what's in the article you posted? Ubuntu never had flatpak installed by default. But you can install and use it if you want. I personally use both flatpak and snaps in Ubuntu. >maybe canonical's bullshit have caused enough people to hit the tipping point? I don't think so, as I've been using Ubuntu since 8.04 and there were horrendous releases like 11.04 and 11.10 that was full of nasty bugs, 13.04 was also a shit show. But lately here or in /r/Ubuntu there're lots of people with the same really strange arguments about snaps and how everyone have to uninstall it immediately and/or ditch Ubuntu for a better distro. I've heard that Canonical is hoping for IPO this year though, there may be the answer.

plaguepilled 4y ago
The community DE versions DID change though, at the (rather mild) behest of Canonical. So while you're right, GP cited an article perhaps incorrectly, it does raise a new question of "OK but why did Canonical think this was appropriate".
croutonwagon 4y ago
I started using it on 6.06 (I think 2008 is when they moved to the April/October schedule). All the Linux distros were rough around the edges. Especially if you elected to use certain hardware (like a graphics card, or non-dell/thinkpad setups etc). Its really come a long way. And Canonical doesn’t do a terrible job of keeping some legacy stuff in. For example I still have a habit of checking /etc/init.d and using service xxxx yyy to manage services etc despite them being on systemd for like a decade or something. Heck even the systems at work (and home) I can semi reliably run a do-release-upgrade and most things work, both on my laptop and several of the servers. Hell even on my laptop Ubuntu is by far the easiest to get my egpu to function as a dock. Its not PnP and requires a reboot to dock/undock but it works.
- lproven 4y ago
  > I started using it on 6.06 4.10 here. The first ever release, and every single one since then. BTW, I have not seen any trace of what @selivanovp called "horrendous releases like 11.04 and 11.10". I ran both. They do not stand out in my memory in any way. > (I think 2008 is when they moved to the April/October schedule). Nope, that has always been the case. 4.10, 5.04, 5.10... The first ever LTS was "Dapper Drake", version 6.06, and it was 2 months late. That is the only release there's ever been of Ubuntu that wasn't either .04 or .10 as far as I can recall over 19 years of using it. And it was their first try at an LTS release, so I can forgive them.
  - croutonwagon 4y ago
    Maybe that was it. I cant recall it was a while ago. I do recall the non-LTS releases having some chaos moments, specifically on the desktop versions of the releases. There was definite anxiety on will this upgrade totally bork the system, so much I would typically take a full clonezilla backup of the disk before attempting. 12.04 or so things definately got a bit more....predictable but at the same time, but that point i was sticking STRICTLY to LTS as they seemed to be using packages that were geared toward stability over features. So it may have just been "me" there. I recall the 9. releases were kinda painful for a few systems I managed at the time, specifically ones that ran scientific instruments in some labs. I believe that was around the time i just went back to 8.04 and said "LTS only is my way"
    - lproven 4y ago
      OK, yeah, that seems fair. The boxes that I really want to keep working, boringly and predictably, I run the LTS versions on. Maybe I am just getting old, but 2 years between LTS releases mostly doesn't feel all that long to me any more. 18.04 feels quite recent, and 20.04 not long ago at all. I mildly regretted updating to 18.04 because it broke some smallish things and did not give me anything at all I wanted, but it was bigger and slower. I had to reinstall the Unity metapackage, but that got Unity working again fine, and I just ignore GNOME. 20.04 didn't break anything at all as far as I can recall. 22.04 didn't break anything on my desktop but it got me NTFS3, which I wanted. That _did_ break things because of the weird way I dual-boot, but I fixed them and it's fine now.

plaguepilled 4y ago

The community DE versions DID change though, at the (rather mild) behest of Canonical. So while you're right, GP cited an article perhaps incorrectly, it does raise a new question of "OK but why did Canonical think this was appropriate".

croutonwagon 4y ago

I started using it on 6.06 (I think 2008 is when they moved to the April/October schedule). All the Linux distros were rough around the edges. Especially if you elected to use certain hardware (like a graphics card, or non-dell/thinkpad setups etc). Its really come a long way. And Canonical doesn’t do a terrible job of keeping some legacy stuff in. For example I still have a habit of checking /etc/init.d and using service xxxx yyy to manage services etc despite them being on systemd for like a decade or something. Heck even the systems at work (and home) I can semi reliably run a do-release-upgrade and most things work, both on my laptop and several of the servers. Hell even on my laptop Ubuntu is by far the easiest to get my egpu to function as a dock. Its not PnP and requires a reboot to dock/undock but it works.

lproven 4y ago
> I started using it on 6.06 4.10 here. The first ever release, and every single one since then. BTW, I have not seen any trace of what @selivanovp called "horrendous releases like 11.04 and 11.10". I ran both. They do not stand out in my memory in any way. > (I think 2008 is when they moved to the April/October schedule). Nope, that has always been the case. 4.10, 5.04, 5.10... The first ever LTS was "Dapper Drake", version 6.06, and it was 2 months late. That is the only release there's ever been of Ubuntu that wasn't either .04 or .10 as far as I can recall over 19 years of using it. And it was their first try at an LTS release, so I can forgive them.
- croutonwagon 4y ago
  Maybe that was it. I cant recall it was a while ago. I do recall the non-LTS releases having some chaos moments, specifically on the desktop versions of the releases. There was definite anxiety on will this upgrade totally bork the system, so much I would typically take a full clonezilla backup of the disk before attempting. 12.04 or so things definately got a bit more....predictable but at the same time, but that point i was sticking STRICTLY to LTS as they seemed to be using packages that were geared toward stability over features. So it may have just been "me" there. I recall the 9. releases were kinda painful for a few systems I managed at the time, specifically ones that ran scientific instruments in some labs. I believe that was around the time i just went back to 8.04 and said "LTS only is my way"
  - lproven 4y ago
    OK, yeah, that seems fair. The boxes that I really want to keep working, boringly and predictably, I run the LTS versions on. Maybe I am just getting old, but 2 years between LTS releases mostly doesn't feel all that long to me any more. 18.04 feels quite recent, and 20.04 not long ago at all. I mildly regretted updating to 18.04 because it broke some smallish things and did not give me anything at all I wanted, but it was bigger and slower. I had to reinstall the Unity metapackage, but that got Unity working again fine, and I just ignore GNOME. 20.04 didn't break anything at all as far as I can recall. 22.04 didn't break anything on my desktop but it got me NTFS3, which I wanted. That _did_ break things because of the weird way I dual-boot, but I fixed them and it's fine now.