Mint removes everything that makes Ubuntu bad and they have a version with the same features but Debian based and because Ubuntu is pushing snaps so much they have been thinking of making LMDE (Linux Mint Debian edition) the new default
Yeah true. I went through the arch process to learn about Linux though so it was worth it in the end but I still have no clue about selinux, apparmor etc that are shipped by default in other distros. Also the need for firewalls/antivirus which isn’t really an issue in Linux but still.
I don’t hate Ubuntu, it used to be my favorite distro and I haven’t found anything that really replaces it. I hate Canonical for destroying my favorite distro
Debian 12 is the best destination after Ubuntu if you’re switching because you hate stupid Canonical things. I switched a few months ago and it was really easy and has been awesome.
Go with Arch, it has just as many packages available as Ubuntu and more, if you use the AUR. If you want something more stable/less changing use the LTS kernel instead of the mainline kernel.
It’s because the vast, vast, VAST majority of people have no idea that many apps are just showing a website. Also, the app version is almost always more efficient in terms of precious phone screen real estate compared to a browser. Apps also remember who you are so you don’t have to login. It isn’t hard to understand why people like them.
That said, many apps are horrible from a privacy perspective. But that is largely hidden from the average user, most of whom simply don’t think much about online privacy anyway.
I hope the ubiquity of irritating ads are the thin edge of the wedge that gets more people interested in ad-blocking, and then perhaps online privacy more generally.
Snaps just don’t really work very well. When I have had problems in the past and gone looking for answers, what I consistently find is that the problem is fixed by installing the non-snap version of . I love containers but if I am going to use them I want to have control over how they are configured and that they have access to.
Or at least if I don’t control them I just want them to work, and they never do. I would use them if they weren’t consistently shit.
I hated it and it made me switch to debian, I don’t see the point to install all dependencies for each apps, I guess they don’t want to deal with package dependencies anymore, so let’s install the same version of python 10 times
I would actually benefit from beig able to keeps different versions of dependencies rn. Got a deprecated software wich forces me to exclude a package from my updates.
It’s supposedly containerisation, but not really docker. After all, docker itself merely presents the OS’s underlying feature in a somewhat more accessible way (keyword: somewhat).
Snap is more like a big ecosystem around that idea that breaks everything that should work in that context, is a security nightmare and is sold as “work anywhere” but really only work in one place, which developers could have targeted in the beginning without having to rely on Snap to begin with.
I can’t even use my smart card because Ubuntu keeps trying to install the snap version of Firefox which can’t access the hardware. Why does it keep swapping out every time I update releases? Why won’t it let me be happy?! /cry
This is exactly why I’m switching to fedora. Just installed 23.10 and Firefox became a snap again. Ive been with ubuntu for over 10 years now, but I’m done.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty to gripe about with apple, just like every tech company, but I swear half the complaints I hear about Apple products on lemmy are either outdated or just plain wrong
For some reason the anti-Apple circle jerk is supercharged on Lemmy. I’ll never understand why people get themselves so worked up over a brand they never have to do business with
I think they’re a good way to package apps. Superior to Flatpak for sure. I like Flatpak too and if Canonical abandoned Snap tomorrow, I’d switch my snap-packaged apps to Flatpak. The only non-bullshit downside of Snap is the proprietary server-side and the lack of multi-repo support. I don’t care much about either because I know implementing either is fairly uncomplicated and it will happen should the reason arise. If Debian wanted to start using Snap, it’d take them a month to get the basics working with their own server side. If the client side was proprietary too, I’d have had a completely opposite opinion on Snap. Finally Canonical supplies all the software on my OS. I use third party repos only when absolutely necessary. If Canonical ran a proprietary apt server side, I wouldn’t even know, apt doesn’t care. Some of the myriad HTTP mirrors could easily be running on IIS, or S3, or Nexus. The trust equation for snap is equivalent.
Because you can package and deploy OS components with it. As a result you can build an OS with it, do foolproof updates of it and …gulp, happy tear… rollbackcomponents without involving any other system like a special filesystem.
My bravery comes from being a software guy that’s been doing OS software development for over a decade so I believe my opinion is somewhat informed. 😂 I’m currently working on a software updates implementation for an automotive OS.
I think this is just a difference in the use case. Flatpaks are designed for desktop applications while Snap was initially designed for exactly the purpose you describe.
The initial use case for Snap, when it used to be called Click (circa 2012-13), was mobile apps for Ubuntu Touch. Those were the same as desktop Qt apps, just using the a mobile theme and layout. Canonical developers just had the foresight to create a design that isn’t limited to that use case. As a result Snap is a superset of Flatpak in terms of use cases. Flatpak can probably be rearchitected to match that if anyone cared. If that were the case I’d also be drumming it up.
The funny thing is, we wouldn’t be having any of these discussions over the merits of Snap if RedHat came up with it instead of Canonical and the server side was OSS from the get go. When RedHat was cool that is. In fact likely Canonical would have been using thet too. Just like they use PulseAudio, Systemd, and Wayland.
Tell us you don’t know why you need Single Source of Truth on package installation and content without using the phrase “dependency hell is self-inflicted”.
A single source of truth for software is one way to solve that. There are others with different pros and cons in active use that have shown pretty good results.
What’s your alternative? I’ve used OpenRC before and it was nice, but it didn’t take long to find a use-case that systemd handled easily but OpenRC made difficult. Also a few packages expect systemd to be present and either fail to install or partially install so I had to figure out how to implement the missing functions in OpenRC.
linuxmemes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.