You must log in or register to comment.
Kubuntu is boring because it just works
Other than snaps, gnome, and the fucking painful default taskbar it’s pretty good yeah. It just works™️.
I hate GNOME lol, I wouldn’t be using Linux today if I had stuck with Ubuntu. If you like it, that’s cool. I respect it, I just can’t stand using it myself.
… And Canonical…
arch❤️
The cool thing about Arch is that with some learning, time and effort, you can make it function just like Ubuntu
I don’t know if serious or burn
No, I’m not serious
That’s the beauty, it’s both
Careful with that XZ package
Mfw I switch from windows to Ubuntu and I start seeing bad stuff about it
It is indeed a good distro and one of the main distros that brings innovation to the Linux world. If it works for you, then keep using it.
It’s sad because it’s a genuinely good distro. Linux wouldn’t be anywhere without it yet all I hear is people parroting the same misinformation they heard.
Linux wouldn’t be anywhere without is an incredibly shortsighted statement given that redhat has been the defacto standard in the enterprise and for (US) govt purposes
I am still pissed at Ubuntu
As you should be.
I despise ubuntu solely because of snap
may I introduce you to ubuntu pro spamming your apt-get these days? You’re welcome
That behavior fucking sucks actually
Hey, you should be careful around Ubuntu fans. They might just snap.
*laugh track*
Ubuntu is recommended by microsoft
Damn, that amounts to corporate disparagement…
If you’re going to shill a corpo distro, at least shill a decent one like fedora.
Lmao. As if corporate operating systems were bad. What makes RedHat that much better tho? I want to know. From what I’ve seen they are both bringing a lot of value to the FOSS space.
- Fedora makes very minimal changes to downstream. The gnome experience on fedora is the experience the devs intended, for better or worse.
- It often experiments with new technologies. It was the first to ship pulseaudio out of box. And then again for pipewire. And if it wasn’t the first to install wayland by default, it probably was the first to stop shipping XOrg out of box.
- It doesn’t install snaps instead of native packages when you run rpm install
- It’s also Linus Torvald’s distro of choice if that’s worth anything
-
In my humble opinion, the stock experience on Gnome sucks. No desktop icons, no dock, no minimize maximize buttons, no app indicators. I only use Gnome because of the changes Ubuntu made to it, which can be replicated on other distros with a script.
-
That’s valid. Ubuntu has shipped with wayland by default since some time ago but wasn’t the first one. They don’t seem to adopt the latest technology as fast. Which I like. Even the new LTS still gives you the option to use X.org in GDM.
-
Also true. If you don’t like Snaps and aren’t comfortable with more and more packages being replaced by them, Ubuntu isn’t the distro to use. I don’t mind the metapackages installing snaps instead at all honestly. The terminal clearly says it’s installing a snap. And from my experience they work great. I was recently using wsl and needed yt-dlp. I went for the snap right away and it worked great.
In fact the only broken snaps I have encountered so far are OBS and curl (which can’t access root directories, making it useless for the script I needed)
-
If it works for you, i literally could not care less
Best answer I’ve seen so far about this!
tbh ubuntu just werks
pretty decent corporate backed distro
The snaps bad echo chamber
Snaps bad because proprietary
Pre installed Nvidia good because propriety no wait video games!
Ubuntu’s mission was always to build bridges between the user and tech and businesses that the gnu side of Linux wouldn’t.
It’s a good just works distro that has spawned a ton of just works distros and sane server defaults. I see Ubuntu on the same level as macos.
The only reason I don’t like snap is because useful mount information gets buried in 5 million “loop” mounts.
lsblk is fun with snaps :D
Good thing
grepexists!
snaps bad because slow
Are they though? They were at one point, but even then I’ve not seen comparative slowness compared to the equivalent Flatpaks. In some cases I’ve seen them be slow compared to native packages, but even that seems to have all but disappeared for me.
That link includes a whole lot of old things as well as blog posts about how they sped up the performance of the Firefox snap, after which there doesn’t seem to be much, if any, further evidence of the snap being slow.
Snaps bad because shoving updates down throats.
snaps bad because
I don’t like snaps because it’s just another Canonical NIH thing. Everyone else agreed on flatpak which seems to have a good design with portals and all and being fully open.
On the other hand, you have snaps, which is being controlled by Canonical as the server component is l non-public. The packages sometimes work worse than normal debs and the flatpak version (steam being a notable example IIRC).
There is 0 motivation for me as a user to look into that. They have solved the problem in one of the worst ways possible. Even Mint, which is Ubuntu’s biggest downstream, has opted against including it by default.
In addition to all of that, Canonical also installs applications as snap when using the apt\£* command line tools.
So you have a system that is
- proprietary
- worse than the alternatives
- pushed on users even through unexpected channels
Ubuntu’s mission was always to build bridges between the user and tech and businesses that the gnu side of Linux wouldn’t.
Which bridge did they build with snaps?
It’s a good just works distro that has spawned a ton of just works distros
Which in turn have removed snaps by default and replaced the affected packages with native ones because it often didn’t “just work”
I don’t like snaps because it’s just another Canonical NIH thing. Everyone else agreed on flatpak which seems to have a good design with portals and all and being fully open.
Snaps both predate flatpak and do things that Flatpaks are not designed to do.
Canonical have also been a part of the desktop portals standard for a very long time, as they’ve been a part of how snaps do things.
Snaps both predate flatpak and do things that Flatpaks are not designed to do.
By less than a year judging by the article… and for individual applications, there was AppImage.
Snaps can do things flatpaks can’t do. Which is true but also kind of irrelevant if we’re talking about a means to distribute applications in a cross-distribution manner as opposed to a base system A/B partition solution.
Or am I misunderstanding?
The claim that snaps are a Canonical NIH thing is falsified by those two facts. Even if Canonical said “okay, we’ll distribute desktop apps with Flatpak,” that wouldn’t affect the vast majority of their ongoing effort for snaps, which are related to things that Flatpak simply doesn’t do. Instead, they’d have the separate work of making the moving target of flatpaks work with their snap-based systems such as Ubuntu Core while still having to fully maintain that snap based ecosystem for the enterprise customers who use it for things that Flatpak simply doesn’t do.
I like Snaps. They can do more than Flatpak and when packaged well they just work. Sadly some apps on Snapcraft are abandoned or they just don’t work, but the same can be said about Flathub.
Which bridge did they build with snaps?
Proprietary companies are compelled to release on Snapcraft because it gives them advantages over other packaging methods. I’m just a user but I heard Snaps are easy to work with thanks to the documentation.
In addition to all of that, Canonical also installs applications as snap when using the apt\£* command line tools.
Firefox for example isn’t even in their apt repos. So instead of throwing an error, the Firefox meta package installs the snap, and tells you it’s doing that.
But I understand that Ubuntu isn’t for you if you want to avoid snaps.
Everyone should use what suits them best. My negative opinion on snaps doesn’t mean Ubuntu shouldn’t ship it or that users shouldn’t use it. It’s Canonical’s distribution, they can put into it whatever they want for all I care, and if users are happy with it, good for them. But I can still criticize it for perceived issues.
But I understand that Ubuntu isn’t for you if you want to avoid snaps.
I used Ubuntu in the past, from I think 2004 or maybe 2005 to 2008, but switched away because of other issues that I don’t remember anymore, but I do remember upgrades between major versions were always pain with an Nvidia card (this was before AMD or in the beginning even ATI cards were well-usable under Linux) and I honestly just prefer rolling release nowadays. But snaps are just not at all compelling anyways.
This is a solid take.
Personally, I took snap out of my computer and burned it over a fire, but i toasted my marshmallows first, because I didn’t want snap on my marshmallows.
Proprietary Nvidia drivers are seen as a necessity, not a “good thing”, which is why Nvidia was repeatedly pressured to give up the code. Open-source Nvidia drivers suck in all applications, and if you don’t need anything demanding, you probably wouldn’t have a solid Nvidia card in the first place.
Gnu side of Linux tries to change the practices used by said businesses, and the more people embrace it, the more pressured companies become to be compliant.
Any sane copyleft activist (of which there are many in the Linux world) sees this change as a betrayal; security experts and enthusiasts are also not happy about a program doing something unknown sitting on their system.
I don’t get why anybody uses Ubuntu. Just use Debian. It’s basically more stable and functional Ubuntu, but without snaps and you don’t need an entire distro branch for different DEs.
Because you don’t have to know what to do already if you start with Ubuntu. You have to know your way around the Linux world more if you use Debian
Because it’s a popular distro. Because when you look for “how to X in linux”, there’s a 90% chance the response will be about Ubuntu. Because your workplace said so. The list goes on.
Ubuntu is Debian with lipstick so that all still applies
Yeah but everything that I named would say Ubutnu. That’s important. Until you know more, you’ll already be using Ubuntu. That’s why “anybody uses Ubuntu”.
Ubuntu user here. Swapped away from Debian in its early days when Ubuntu made a real effort to stay current with the desktop environment (even coordinating their releases after GNOME), and back then it mattered. Nowadays my few attempts at other distros suggest that the hardware driver situation (especially proprietary) seems better on Ubuntu, for example to get everything working on fairly new laptops.
There are of course other things I’m less happy about. The snap installs via apt drives me crazy; not that I necessarily hate the technology, but sometimes I need a non-containeraized browser (for example to run inside another container), so I need to be allowed to choose what is being installed.
Rant, but not at you.
Well I would use Debian, but the last two systems I tried to install it on hung at some point in the install process. I tried multiple times, multiple downloads, multiple versions (across multiple months!), and these are two separate machines from two different vendors.
Debian is fine on my server boxes, but fuck me it’s dogshit in a consumer environment. One of those laptops has - and is an absolute necessity to have working - WWAN. I tried over a dozen distros, from ‘easy and popular’ to ‘obscure and edge-case’. Ubuntu (actually Kubuntu, I like KDE) was literally the only distro to 1) boot, 2) install, and 3) have working WWAN (after fucking with the fcc-unlock shit and filling my carrier details). Nothing, literally nothing else could do this simple task.
Linux is great, they say. It’s easy. It’s simple to install and use. It puts you in control. These are ideas that the Linux community wants to believe, that I want to believe, but it’s just not. Given the right circumstances, with the right hardware, and the right use-case, it’s good. Stray anywhere off the beaten path and unless you’re a veteran *nix sysadmin who values their time as $0, sometimes you’re just fucked. I would know, I’ve been using various distros on and off for 20 years. It’s still bad. I don’t understand how, but here we are.
I don’t like Ubuntu for a few reasons, but in my experience, the situation sucks the least when you use it. Sometimes - see above WWAN bullshit - it’s the only thing that works.
And that’s fucking bullshit, but it’s a fact. And even interested users, who like to tinker, have a limit to what they will put up with before throwing in the towel and using what works.
I don’t get why anyone uses windows 7,8,8.1,11, use Linux mint (windows 10 is replaced with a distro that uses kde plasma)
I don’t get why anyone uses, my body makes my own chemicals.
I don’t get why anyone makes chemicals when they could be using my body.
Blursed. Not that I disagree.
Ubuntu in ~2015 was peak Linux (for me). Everything worked flawlessly with zero bugs, even printers. It’s been downhill ever since with the exception of Steam Proton, but even then I’ve had more bugs with Steam in the past couple years then I did in 2013.
