6 ms·

Ubuntu 23.04 – 'Lunar Lobster'

40 points by elorant 4y ago

bfrog 4y ago
With 100% more snaps? No thanks.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  What exactly is wrong with snaps?
  - binarymax 4y ago
    It’s not possible to freeze a working configuration with snaps as they always auto-update. This is problematic for deploying software that has known working dependency versions. Edit: I didn’t know about the new updates to snap and pinning. Thanks for the info!
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      Yes you can, you just specify the channel you want to pin it to.
    - asddubs 4y ago
      lunar lobster introduces the option to put snaps on hold
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    Oh boy... - As a user: Snaps are annoying and don't work like a native app. It creates a new folder in my home directory, has little very consistency with other apps (even other packages of the same app), and feels generally unsuited for desktop use. If I'm going to use any of these godawful statically-linked-runtime package managers, it won't be the proprietary one. - As an admin: Snaps are alright. If you just need to insta-configure something and are extremely lazy, it's a faustian deal pre-installed on every Ubuntu machine. As loathe as I am to admit it, most snaps are a cinch to install compared to native packaging or even Flatpak.
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      So basically their problem is "New Thing Scary, Grug No Like"?
  - blendergeek 4y ago
    The snap client only supports the Canonical Snap Store. There is not even an "advanced configuration" to add your own. I do not want a single point of failure in the Linux ecosystem. Canonical does.
  - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
    Slow, proprietary, auto update, sandboxed (which causes integration problems with other things). Solves a problem for Canonical and makes everyone else's life harder.
    - throw10920 4y ago
      Sandboxing is a necessary evil - the Linux security model for applications installed on your computer is atrocious. The two main options we have to fix it are either a fine-grained capabilities model, or a coarse-grained sandboxing model - and the latter is an order of magnitude less work to implement. However, Snaps do an impressively poor job of implementing a sandbox.
      - CoastalCoder 4y ago
        > Sandboxing is a necessary evil Can you elaborate on the "necessary" part? I'm able to accomplish my computing goals without snaps.
        throw10920 4y ago
        "Necessary" because Linux's security mitigations are unacceptably insecure for the 21st century. As it stands, I have to completely trust applications before I run them, and there's literally no reason for that to be the case - sandboxing is a straightforward mechanism, not a tricky problem like Traveling Salesman.
      - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
        Simply not necessary for normal applications running on my local desktop. And yes, I do work in security.
        throw10920 4y ago
        I don't care if you work in security - the fact is that I have to completely trust every application that I want to run on Linux, which is unacceptably bad, and "Simply not necessary for normal applications running on my local desktop" is factually false (unless you're using some "gotcha" convoluted definition of "normal"). A sanely-designed OS will provide either capabilities or sandboxing - the tech has been around for decades, and they're more needed than ever in the 21st century with its abundance of malware.
  - nicolaslem 4y ago
    Snap has been around for 8 years and during this time it got zero traction outside of Ubuntu. Canonical is known for axing their own projects eventually when they fail to get traction, so it seems pretty safe to assume that the writing is on the wall for snap.
    - lockhouse 4y ago
      In Canonical’s defense, it seems like every time they try to do something innovative, Red Hat copies the idea and implements it slightly better. Upstart -> systemd Unity -> Gnome 3 Shell Mir -> Wayland Snaps -> flatpak I’m not saying Red Hat is wrong to do this, that’s the nature of healthy competition and we all benefit from this.
      - doubled112 4y ago
        Weren't Wayland and flatpak first? And GNOME 3 as well? Unity was a reaction to GNOME 3's big changes. Either way, I agree that competition is better.
        selivanovp 4y ago
        No. Snap started as a project and got useful before flatpak. Wayland technically was before Mir, but existed as blueprints and ideas back then. Shuttleworth tried to influence its design for his vision of linux desktop, but got rejected, so Mir was created. Mir became useful way before first implementations of Wayland, but Shuttleworth idea to expand Mir and Ubuntu to phones resulted in feature creep, lack of funding and eventually to project failure. Gnome shell was also released after Unity. Both were influenced by MacOS LaF. The problem with Unity was that it was based on gnome 2 and compiz, that was a good compositor back in the days, but a dead end as a technology, as compositor should’ve been implemented on a lower level and be an integral part of DE. Shuttleworth started Mir and new Unity based on that, but both sank and Ubuntu had to revert to gnome-shell that became useful and more performant than earlier versions.
        lockhouse 4y ago
        You’re right on all counts. My memory failed me on the order of those. Thanks for setting me straight!
  - tyingq 4y ago
    I don't know how broad this is, but the container based networking doesn't work with many corporate firewalls. So it's irritating if you happen to use your Ubuntu PC to VPN into work.
    - doubled112 4y ago
      I know the VPN where I work forces all traffic through it, which means no traffic is allowed to the container networks. It causes problems on Windows with WSL2 as well.
  - severino 4y ago
    They just don't offer the same user experience as deb packages did. Firefox has always been a deb and it was fine. Now, it's a snap, it has issues with external devices like smartcard readers and so, and I remember it telling you to close it before X days so it could update, but closing the browser made no difference (I eventually moved to the Firefox tarball to forget about all those issues so I'm not really sure how you were supposed to solve it). So, for me, it didn't offer any advantages over the deb package, but brought new headaches. Also, I don't really like much this new concept of packing all the application dependencies instead of working with shared libs. And I'm not the one that criticizes Canonical just for seeking its own solutions, in fact, I liked things like Unity and Upstart. But for me, snaps came to solve a non-problem.
  - pizza234 4y ago
    For my use case, self-contained application formats (which includes snaps): 1. They don't scale, space-wise; libraries can take very considerable space 2. Permission issues 3. Configuration issues 4. Startup speed issues Compared to a trusted (I stress "trusted") apt repository, for my use case, they have only downsides.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    It's worth noting that, in addition to Snaps starting up slower (a common complaint on this thread), they actually cause the OS to boot up slower. Every Snap application adds a small amount of startup time. I think I shaved a third off my total time by removing a bunch of Snaps, which is atrocious, unacceptable, and unjustifiable.
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      So every couple of weeks when you boot your PC, it's a few seconds faster now?
      - throw10920 4y ago
        This is a ridiculous assumption. I'll boot my PC multiple times per day because I dual-boot and I'll sometimes need to switch between OSes repeatedly. This is also a ridiculous dismissal. Snaps don't increase your startup time because it's an intrinsic limitation of the technology (e.g. like how internet connectivity necessitates higher power draw), but because they're designed badly. There's no reason for them to act like that, and people are rightly upset at it.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    Snap server is non-free software. Without reverse engineering the protocol, it is impossible to host your own snap repository.
    - lproven 4y ago
      This is not true. Other companies have and do most their own snap stores.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        According to this blogpost from 2020 [0], this AskUbuntu discussion [1], this random german blog [2] and many other search results of "canonical snap backend proprietary software", the snap backend is proprietary software. There is no official information from Canonical available (that I've managed to find), so I think we can reasonably assume all this correlating information is true. According to this Ubuntu documentation [3], the "dedicated snap stores" are just Canonical-hosted snap stores with more granular control, which isn't equal to hosting your own snap store. There is an open-source implementation of snap store [4] which (assuming it works and someone is using it) would fall under "reverse engineering the protocol" part of my post, because the guy who wrote it reverse engineered the protocol [5]. Assuming that it works, this is the only part of my post that is not completely accurate - it is technically possible to host your own snap server without reverse engineering the protocol yourself, but that's only because someone else already did it. But Canonical could change the protocol any time and render this implementation obsolete, as they've done in the past [6]. [0] https://hackaday.com/2020/06/24/whats-the-deal-with-snap-packages/ https://hackaday.com/2020/06/24/whats-the-deal-with-snap-pac... [1] https://askubuntu.com/questions/1383583/is-it-true-that-snap-has-proprietary-server https://askubuntu.com/questions/1383583/is-it-true-that-snap... [2] https://merlijn.sebrechts.be/blog/2020-08-02-why-one-snap-store/ https://merlijn.sebrechts.be/blog/2020-08-02-why-one-snap-st... [3] https://ubuntu.com/core/docs/dedicated-snap-stores https://ubuntu.com/core/docs/dedicated-snap-stores [4] https://github.com/freetocompute/kebe https://github.com/freetocompute/kebe [5] https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/announcing-project-kebe-open-source-snap-store-start/25088 https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/announcing-project-kebe-open-so... [6] https://github.com/noise/snapstore https://github.com/noise/snapstore
- odette4 4y ago
  [dead]
croutonwagon 4y ago
> "This Ubuntu milestone release demonstrates our progress in raising the bar for the enterprise developer desktops, thanks to our best-in-class Linux integration with Active Directory (AD) Domain Services and now Azure Active Directory," said Canonical CEO Mark Shuttleworth. I specifically moved to 20.04 and 22.04 when they touted this. I don’t see anything amazing here though, even on the desktop side. Eventually I still had to manually configure smb, sssd, nss, and chrony to make AD auth work natively in both my lab and prod networks. Am I missing something? Note: I’m not a landscape user or whatever the new version of their management system is.
- gravitate 4y ago
  > Am I missing something? There's a good synopsis of what's new in this release here: https://www.howtogeek.com/883728/whats-new-in-ubuntu-23-04-lunar-lobster/ https://www.howtogeek.com/883728/whats-new-in-ubuntu-23-04-l...
  - croutonwagon 4y ago
    I didn’t see anything about AD or azure in there though.
jeffbee 4y ago
22.10 was pretty bogus on recent Intel machines, even the 12th generation Core but especially 13th. It was so bad I upgraded to development Lunar as soon as they landed a 6.x kernel. Have been very happy since then. 6.2 is a giant leap beyond 5.19.
- pizza234 4y ago
  For those seeking a recent kernel, it's not necessary to be on the latest Ubuntu - the kernel of the LTS version is synced with the latest non-LTS version, some time after the latter has been released.
somedude82 4y ago
Snaps are BS. I did couple of months ago clean ubuntu 22.10 install. Somehow curl was installed from snap - of course I had problem saving curled files due sandboxing. Installed mosquitto2 (MQTT server) - of course it did not read my custom confs from /etc/... anymore - due sandboxing. Installed Libreoffice from snap - it Calc (excel alternative) was exctremely slow somehow - switched to Libreoffice from APT repo - it was fast as it should be. and to not start with the autoupdate nonesense that you can not disable. I have been ususing Kubuntu since 2010 and thinking of switching to some other distro with KDE and all because of SNAPs
- tomrod 4y ago
  Fedora has flatpak and it works pretty well (using KDE here). However, Slack and a password manager I prefer are snap only. I really dislike snaps.
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  I bailed after 20.04 and have been a happy Pop_OS (Ubuntu minus all the snaps out of the box), Fedora and Arch user ever since. Definitely try Pop as it's the most direct move from Ubuntu--really the only diff you'll notice is a different default system theme and background picture.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    Pop mixes flatpaks with regular packages and its very confusing to understand which is which
    - gcarvalho 4y ago
      That's true for the store (Pop Shop), but not for the CLIs (apt and flatpak). If an app has only a .deb or flatpak version, it's not clear which will be installed. If there are multiple versions, you get a dropdown menu to select one. Unfortunately, some apps are listed more than once (different packagers, I assume). Ubuntu, on the other hand, will sneakily install snaps via apt.
  - 4y ago
sysstemlord 4y ago
Damn, i was wondering why is everyone still talking about snap and nobody is mentioning what I clearly remember reading recently, so i went back and looked for it and lo and behold the publishing day: https://news.itsfoss.com/ubuntu-ditch-snap/ https://news.itsfoss.com/ubuntu-ditch-snap/
- ur-whale 4y ago
  Captain obvious here: look at the article's date.
neuromute 4y ago
Canonical really seem to have lost their mojo. They've had a long-running tendency to forge on ahead regardless with fingers in ears, instead of listening to their userbase about what they actually want. Forcing snaps on users being a prime example of this behaviour. As a consequence, many users are jumping ship to other distros, and who can blame them? In fact, I'm in the same camp. I'm imminently replacing a very nearly EOL 18.04 install with Arch. I've tried a non-trivial amount of distros over the course of my Linux days (since Fedora Core 5) and Ubuntu has probably seen the most install time over that period, but my time with Ubuntu is now at an end. Snaps suck.
- FullyFunctional 4y ago
  I agree completely with all of that. My added difficulty is that I use a lot of hosts and they are a mix of AMD64, Arm, Arm64, and RV64GC so having a single distribution on all simplifies my life. Ubuntu in my experience has the best support for that set, but I experimented with Arch, Debian, Fedora, and OpenSUSE as well. I'd welcome insights, but Fedora appears most promising for me with Debian a close 2nd. (Arch is actually awesome, but package support is very mixed).
lopkeny12ko 4y ago
I could have sworn I remember reading somewhere that Canonical was abandoning snaps and they would no longer be included in future Ubuntu releases
- derkades 4y ago
  Was it the article posted on April 1st?
dopidopHN 4y ago
Since everyone is complaining about snap. I have to ask : what is wrong with apt and dpkg ? I just want that, I guess it means back to Debian? I’m not excited or interested about spending time dealing with a package manager.
- Droobfest 4y ago
  There is nothing wrong with apt and dpkg. It’s just that Ubuntu infected apt with their poison by making ‘apt install firefox’ install a snap package and they’re poised to do it with more packages (maybe they already have). I personally can’t think of anything software related that Ubuntu provides over Debian for normal desktop users. Only the Ubuntu 6-month release schedule can be a bit nicer.
IronWolve 4y ago
Snaps, flatpack, whatever, comes down to the core problem with linux, little binary compatibility between distro versions. The entire OS and all apps are recompiled on latest versions of compiler and libraries. Its a bandaid fix for a fundamental problem with the entire ecosystem of linux flavors. This was the same issue that passed onto linux based android os, requiring updated blobs for drivers, held older android devices to older versions. And same issue for ARM flavors.
jgb1984 4y ago
Why settle for a substitute? Just use Debian. More honest, more free, no commercial shenanigans and no snaps. I've been a Debian user on all my laptops, desktops and servers for 25 years and counting, it's the best there is, for me.
Awelton 4y ago
I switched to Arch as soon as ubuntu started pushing snaps and never looked back. Of all the reasons to hate snaps what did it for me was the loopback device spam when trying to list block devices. Canonical has a track record of doing things the community doesn't agree with, carefully reading all the feedback, and then doubling down on whatever terrible idea they had and continuing anyway.
rajishx 4y ago
I didn't mind the snaps since I always was able to disable them on every update, but somehow I started to get a lot of kernel freezes when running some IO heavy unit tests, it was getting really annoying. It may have been a btrfs bug or some other bug but I blamed ubuntu and installed archlinx instead. Same btrfs/snapshotting configuration on arch and never had any issues so far...

40 points by elorant 4y ago

bfrog 4y ago

With 100% more snaps? No thanks.

Gordonjcp 4y ago
What exactly is wrong with snaps?
- binarymax 4y ago
  It’s not possible to freeze a working configuration with snaps as they always auto-update. This is problematic for deploying software that has known working dependency versions. Edit: I didn’t know about the new updates to snap and pinning. Thanks for the info!
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    Yes you can, you just specify the channel you want to pin it to.
  - asddubs 4y ago
    lunar lobster introduces the option to put snaps on hold
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Oh boy... - As a user: Snaps are annoying and don't work like a native app. It creates a new folder in my home directory, has little very consistency with other apps (even other packages of the same app), and feels generally unsuited for desktop use. If I'm going to use any of these godawful statically-linked-runtime package managers, it won't be the proprietary one. - As an admin: Snaps are alright. If you just need to insta-configure something and are extremely lazy, it's a faustian deal pre-installed on every Ubuntu machine. As loathe as I am to admit it, most snaps are a cinch to install compared to native packaging or even Flatpak.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    So basically their problem is "New Thing Scary, Grug No Like"?
- blendergeek 4y ago
  The snap client only supports the Canonical Snap Store. There is not even an "advanced configuration" to add your own. I do not want a single point of failure in the Linux ecosystem. Canonical does.
- MattPalmer1086 4y ago
  Slow, proprietary, auto update, sandboxed (which causes integration problems with other things). Solves a problem for Canonical and makes everyone else's life harder.
  - throw10920 4y ago
    Sandboxing is a necessary evil - the Linux security model for applications installed on your computer is atrocious. The two main options we have to fix it are either a fine-grained capabilities model, or a coarse-grained sandboxing model - and the latter is an order of magnitude less work to implement. However, Snaps do an impressively poor job of implementing a sandbox.
    - CoastalCoder 4y ago
      > Sandboxing is a necessary evil Can you elaborate on the "necessary" part? I'm able to accomplish my computing goals without snaps.
      - throw10920 4y ago
        "Necessary" because Linux's security mitigations are unacceptably insecure for the 21st century. As it stands, I have to completely trust applications before I run them, and there's literally no reason for that to be the case - sandboxing is a straightforward mechanism, not a tricky problem like Traveling Salesman.
    - MattPalmer1086 4y ago
      Simply not necessary for normal applications running on my local desktop. And yes, I do work in security.
      - throw10920 4y ago
        I don't care if you work in security - the fact is that I have to completely trust every application that I want to run on Linux, which is unacceptably bad, and "Simply not necessary for normal applications running on my local desktop" is factually false (unless you're using some "gotcha" convoluted definition of "normal"). A sanely-designed OS will provide either capabilities or sandboxing - the tech has been around for decades, and they're more needed than ever in the 21st century with its abundance of malware.
- nicolaslem 4y ago
  Snap has been around for 8 years and during this time it got zero traction outside of Ubuntu. Canonical is known for axing their own projects eventually when they fail to get traction, so it seems pretty safe to assume that the writing is on the wall for snap.
  - lockhouse 4y ago
    In Canonical’s defense, it seems like every time they try to do something innovative, Red Hat copies the idea and implements it slightly better. Upstart -> systemd Unity -> Gnome 3 Shell Mir -> Wayland Snaps -> flatpak I’m not saying Red Hat is wrong to do this, that’s the nature of healthy competition and we all benefit from this.
    - doubled112 4y ago
      Weren't Wayland and flatpak first? And GNOME 3 as well? Unity was a reaction to GNOME 3's big changes. Either way, I agree that competition is better.
      - selivanovp 4y ago
        No. Snap started as a project and got useful before flatpak. Wayland technically was before Mir, but existed as blueprints and ideas back then. Shuttleworth tried to influence its design for his vision of linux desktop, but got rejected, so Mir was created. Mir became useful way before first implementations of Wayland, but Shuttleworth idea to expand Mir and Ubuntu to phones resulted in feature creep, lack of funding and eventually to project failure. Gnome shell was also released after Unity. Both were influenced by MacOS LaF. The problem with Unity was that it was based on gnome 2 and compiz, that was a good compositor back in the days, but a dead end as a technology, as compositor should’ve been implemented on a lower level and be an integral part of DE. Shuttleworth started Mir and new Unity based on that, but both sank and Ubuntu had to revert to gnome-shell that became useful and more performant than earlier versions.
      - lockhouse 4y ago
        You’re right on all counts. My memory failed me on the order of those. Thanks for setting me straight!
- tyingq 4y ago
  I don't know how broad this is, but the container based networking doesn't work with many corporate firewalls. So it's irritating if you happen to use your Ubuntu PC to VPN into work.
  - doubled112 4y ago
    I know the VPN where I work forces all traffic through it, which means no traffic is allowed to the container networks. It causes problems on Windows with WSL2 as well.
- severino 4y ago
  They just don't offer the same user experience as deb packages did. Firefox has always been a deb and it was fine. Now, it's a snap, it has issues with external devices like smartcard readers and so, and I remember it telling you to close it before X days so it could update, but closing the browser made no difference (I eventually moved to the Firefox tarball to forget about all those issues so I'm not really sure how you were supposed to solve it). So, for me, it didn't offer any advantages over the deb package, but brought new headaches. Also, I don't really like much this new concept of packing all the application dependencies instead of working with shared libs. And I'm not the one that criticizes Canonical just for seeking its own solutions, in fact, I liked things like Unity and Upstart. But for me, snaps came to solve a non-problem.
- pizza234 4y ago
  For my use case, self-contained application formats (which includes snaps): 1. They don't scale, space-wise; libraries can take very considerable space 2. Permission issues 3. Configuration issues 4. Startup speed issues Compared to a trusted (I stress "trusted") apt repository, for my use case, they have only downsides.
- throw10920 4y ago
  It's worth noting that, in addition to Snaps starting up slower (a common complaint on this thread), they actually cause the OS to boot up slower. Every Snap application adds a small amount of startup time. I think I shaved a third off my total time by removing a bunch of Snaps, which is atrocious, unacceptable, and unjustifiable.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    So every couple of weeks when you boot your PC, it's a few seconds faster now?
    - throw10920 4y ago
      This is a ridiculous assumption. I'll boot my PC multiple times per day because I dual-boot and I'll sometimes need to switch between OSes repeatedly. This is also a ridiculous dismissal. Snaps don't increase your startup time because it's an intrinsic limitation of the technology (e.g. like how internet connectivity necessitates higher power draw), but because they're designed badly. There's no reason for them to act like that, and people are rightly upset at it.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  Snap server is non-free software. Without reverse engineering the protocol, it is impossible to host your own snap repository.
  - lproven 4y ago
    This is not true. Other companies have and do most their own snap stores.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      According to this blogpost from 2020 [0], this AskUbuntu discussion [1], this random german blog [2] and many other search results of "canonical snap backend proprietary software", the snap backend is proprietary software. There is no official information from Canonical available (that I've managed to find), so I think we can reasonably assume all this correlating information is true. According to this Ubuntu documentation [3], the "dedicated snap stores" are just Canonical-hosted snap stores with more granular control, which isn't equal to hosting your own snap store. There is an open-source implementation of snap store [4] which (assuming it works and someone is using it) would fall under "reverse engineering the protocol" part of my post, because the guy who wrote it reverse engineered the protocol [5]. Assuming that it works, this is the only part of my post that is not completely accurate - it is technically possible to host your own snap server without reverse engineering the protocol yourself, but that's only because someone else already did it. But Canonical could change the protocol any time and render this implementation obsolete, as they've done in the past [6]. [0] https://hackaday.com/2020/06/24/whats-the-deal-with-snap-packages/ https://hackaday.com/2020/06/24/whats-the-deal-with-snap-pac... [1] https://askubuntu.com/questions/1383583/is-it-true-that-snap-has-proprietary-server https://askubuntu.com/questions/1383583/is-it-true-that-snap... [2] https://merlijn.sebrechts.be/blog/2020-08-02-why-one-snap-store/ https://merlijn.sebrechts.be/blog/2020-08-02-why-one-snap-st... [3] https://ubuntu.com/core/docs/dedicated-snap-stores https://ubuntu.com/core/docs/dedicated-snap-stores [4] https://github.com/freetocompute/kebe https://github.com/freetocompute/kebe [5] https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/announcing-project-kebe-open-source-snap-store-start/25088 https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/announcing-project-kebe-open-so... [6] https://github.com/noise/snapstore https://github.com/noise/snapstore
odette4 4y ago
[dead]

croutonwagon 4y ago

> "This Ubuntu milestone release demonstrates our progress in raising the bar for the enterprise developer desktops, thanks to our best-in-class Linux integration with Active Directory (AD) Domain Services and now Azure Active Directory," said Canonical CEO Mark Shuttleworth. I specifically moved to 20.04 and 22.04 when they touted this. I don’t see anything amazing here though, even on the desktop side. Eventually I still had to manually configure smb, sssd, nss, and chrony to make AD auth work natively in both my lab and prod networks. Am I missing something? Note: I’m not a landscape user or whatever the new version of their management system is.

gravitate 4y ago
> Am I missing something? There's a good synopsis of what's new in this release here: https://www.howtogeek.com/883728/whats-new-in-ubuntu-23-04-lunar-lobster/ https://www.howtogeek.com/883728/whats-new-in-ubuntu-23-04-l...
- croutonwagon 4y ago
  I didn’t see anything about AD or azure in there though.

jeffbee 4y ago

22.10 was pretty bogus on recent Intel machines, even the 12th generation Core but especially 13th. It was so bad I upgraded to development Lunar as soon as they landed a 6.x kernel. Have been very happy since then. 6.2 is a giant leap beyond 5.19.

pizza234 4y ago
For those seeking a recent kernel, it's not necessary to be on the latest Ubuntu - the kernel of the LTS version is synced with the latest non-LTS version, some time after the latter has been released.

somedude82 4y ago

Snaps are BS. I did couple of months ago clean ubuntu 22.10 install. Somehow curl was installed from snap - of course I had problem saving curled files due sandboxing. Installed mosquitto2 (MQTT server) - of course it did not read my custom confs from /etc/... anymore - due sandboxing. Installed Libreoffice from snap - it Calc (excel alternative) was exctremely slow somehow - switched to Libreoffice from APT repo - it was fast as it should be. and to not start with the autoupdate nonesense that you can not disable. I have been ususing Kubuntu since 2010 and thinking of switching to some other distro with KDE and all because of SNAPs

tomrod 4y ago
Fedora has flatpak and it works pretty well (using KDE here). However, Slack and a password manager I prefer are snap only. I really dislike snaps.
qbasic_forever 4y ago
I bailed after 20.04 and have been a happy Pop_OS (Ubuntu minus all the snaps out of the box), Fedora and Arch user ever since. Definitely try Pop as it's the most direct move from Ubuntu--really the only diff you'll notice is a different default system theme and background picture.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  Pop mixes flatpaks with regular packages and its very confusing to understand which is which
  - gcarvalho 4y ago
    That's true for the store (Pop Shop), but not for the CLIs (apt and flatpak). If an app has only a .deb or flatpak version, it's not clear which will be installed. If there are multiple versions, you get a dropdown menu to select one. Unfortunately, some apps are listed more than once (different packagers, I assume). Ubuntu, on the other hand, will sneakily install snaps via apt.
- 4y ago

sysstemlord 4y ago

Damn, i was wondering why is everyone still talking about snap and nobody is mentioning what I clearly remember reading recently, so i went back and looked for it and lo and behold the publishing day: https://news.itsfoss.com/ubuntu-ditch-snap/ https://news.itsfoss.com/ubuntu-ditch-snap/

ur-whale 4y ago
Captain obvious here: look at the article's date.

neuromute 4y ago

Canonical really seem to have lost their mojo. They've had a long-running tendency to forge on ahead regardless with fingers in ears, instead of listening to their userbase about what they actually want. Forcing snaps on users being a prime example of this behaviour. As a consequence, many users are jumping ship to other distros, and who can blame them? In fact, I'm in the same camp. I'm imminently replacing a very nearly EOL 18.04 install with Arch. I've tried a non-trivial amount of distros over the course of my Linux days (since Fedora Core 5) and Ubuntu has probably seen the most install time over that period, but my time with Ubuntu is now at an end. Snaps suck.

FullyFunctional 4y ago
I agree completely with all of that. My added difficulty is that I use a lot of hosts and they are a mix of AMD64, Arm, Arm64, and RV64GC so having a single distribution on all simplifies my life. Ubuntu in my experience has the best support for that set, but I experimented with Arch, Debian, Fedora, and OpenSUSE as well. I'd welcome insights, but Fedora appears most promising for me with Debian a close 2nd. (Arch is actually awesome, but package support is very mixed).

lopkeny12ko 4y ago

I could have sworn I remember reading somewhere that Canonical was abandoning snaps and they would no longer be included in future Ubuntu releases

derkades 4y ago
Was it the article posted on April 1st?

dopidopHN 4y ago

Since everyone is complaining about snap. I have to ask : what is wrong with apt and dpkg ? I just want that, I guess it means back to Debian? I’m not excited or interested about spending time dealing with a package manager.

Droobfest 4y ago
There is nothing wrong with apt and dpkg. It’s just that Ubuntu infected apt with their poison by making ‘apt install firefox’ install a snap package and they’re poised to do it with more packages (maybe they already have). I personally can’t think of anything software related that Ubuntu provides over Debian for normal desktop users. Only the Ubuntu 6-month release schedule can be a bit nicer.

IronWolve 4y ago

Snaps, flatpack, whatever, comes down to the core problem with linux, little binary compatibility between distro versions. The entire OS and all apps are recompiled on latest versions of compiler and libraries. Its a bandaid fix for a fundamental problem with the entire ecosystem of linux flavors. This was the same issue that passed onto linux based android os, requiring updated blobs for drivers, held older android devices to older versions. And same issue for ARM flavors.

jgb1984 4y ago

Why settle for a substitute? Just use Debian. More honest, more free, no commercial shenanigans and no snaps. I've been a Debian user on all my laptops, desktops and servers for 25 years and counting, it's the best there is, for me.

Awelton 4y ago

I switched to Arch as soon as ubuntu started pushing snaps and never looked back. Of all the reasons to hate snaps what did it for me was the loopback device spam when trying to list block devices. Canonical has a track record of doing things the community doesn't agree with, carefully reading all the feedback, and then doubling down on whatever terrible idea they had and continuing anyway.

rajishx 4y ago

I didn't mind the snaps since I always was able to disable them on every update, but somehow I started to get a lot of kernel freezes when running some IO heavy unit tests, it was getting really annoying. It may have been a btrfs bug or some other bug but I blamed ubuntu and installed archlinx instead. Same btrfs/snapshotting configuration on arch and never had any issues so far...