109
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Loucypher@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml

Long story short, I have a desktop with Fedora, lovely, fast, sleek and surprisingly reliable for a near rolling distro (it failed me only once back around Fedora 34 or something where it nuked Grub). Tried to install on a 2012 i7 MacBook Air… what a slog!!!!! Surprisingly Ubuntu runs very smooth on it. I have been bothering all my friends for years about moving to Fedora (back then it was because I hated Unity) but now… I mean, I know that we are suppose to hate it for Snaps and what not but… Christ, it does run well! In fairness all my VMs are running DietPi (a slimmed version of Ubuntu) and coming back to the APT world feels like coming back home.

On the other end forcing myself to be on Fedora allows me to stay on the DNF world that is compatible with Amazon Linux etc (which I use for work), it has updated packages, it is nice and clean…. Argh, don’t know how to decide!

Thoughts?

I am not in the mood for Debian. I like the Mint approach but I am not a fan of slow rolling releases and also would like to keep myself as close as upstream as possible, the Debian version is the only one that seems reliable enough but, again, it is Debian, the packages are “old”. Pop Os and similar are two hops away from upstream and so I’d rather not.

Is Snap really that bad?

Edit: thank you all for sharing your experience !

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Vinegar@kbin.social 80 points 1 year ago

I avoid Ubuntu because Canonical has a history of going their own way alone rather than collaborating on universal standards. For instance, when the X devs decided the successor to X11 needed to be a complete redesign from scratch companies like RedHat, Collabora, Intel, Google, Samsung, and more collaborated to build Wayland. However, Canonical announced Mir, and they went their own way alone.

When Gnome3 came out it was very controversial and this spawned alternatives such as Cinnamin, MATE, and Ubuntu's Unity desktop. Unity was the only Linux desktop, before or since, to include sponsored bloatware apps installed by default, and it also sold user search history to advertisers.

Then, there's snap. While Flatpak matured and becoame the defacto standard distro-agnostic package system, Canonical once again went their own way alone by creating snap.

I'm not an expert on Ubuntu or the Linux community, I've just been around long enough to see Canonical stir up controversy over and over by going left when everyone else goes right, failing after a few years, and wasting thousands of worker hours in the process.

[-] actionjbone@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 year ago

You're not wrong, but there's also value in exploring different ways to do similar things. That's what's great about Linux.

Some of Canonical's efforts may lead to failure, but that doesn't mean they are a waste.

[-] nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

One thing is to explore different ways to do things, like many projects do, but ubuntu goes further and FORCES people to use their experiments, as if they're some sort of testing ground, not as if they're the most used family of linux distros and the one a lot of people rely on.

Edit: Sorry if my tone was excessive, I think I'm getting grumpy with age.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] jherazob@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago

Pretty much this, they don't deserve hate but i won't recommend them either

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] pruneaue 62 points 1 year ago

People dont hate on ubuntu cause its inherently bad. They hate on it because its a corporate distro and they do some questionable stuff sometimes. The OS runs fine.

Why not debian unstable? Its better than ubuntu in pretty much every way imo. Somewhat less user friendly i guess.

[-] Loucypher@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

Is Debian unstable really unstable or is just like.. Ubuntu?

[-] hallettj@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago

Debian unstable is not really unstable, but it's also not as stable as Ubuntu. I'm told that when bugs appear they are fixed fast.

I ran Debian testing for years. That is a rolling release where package updates are a few weeks behind unstable. The delay gives unstable users time to hit bugs before they get into testing.

When I wanted certain packages to be really up-to-date I would pin those select packages to unstable or to experimental. But I never tried running full unstable myself so I didn't get the experience to know whether that would be less trouble overall.

[-] XTL@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 year ago

It's unstable in the sense that it doesn't stay the same for a long time. Stable is the release that will essentially stay the same until you install a different release.

Sid is the kid next door (Iirc) from Toy Story who would melt and mutilate toys for fun. He may have been a different kind of unstable.

Neither is unstable like an old windows pc.

[-] pruneaue 9 points 1 year ago

Unstable is pretty damn stable, feels arch-y to me, and arch rarely has issues. If there are issues they're fixed fast.
Testing is the middle ground. Tested for a bit by unstable peeps but thats it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago

It's not actually unstable, more accurately it's tested and verified as much as Debian stable, meaning it's fine for desktop use but I wouldn't use it for a server or critical system I plan on running 24/7 without interruption, both since it may have bugs that develop after long term use and gets more frequent updates which will be missed and render it out of date quickly if it's running constantly.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
[-] TrivialBetaState@sopuli.xyz 38 points 1 year ago

Snap has a locked and proprietary store, even if the client is FOSS. There is no reason to "hate" Ubuntu but there are better choices.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] wiki_me@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 year ago

It's pitched as a open source operation system, yet the snap store is closed source and vendor locked, one of the reasons some of us use Liniux is because we prefer open source (and there are rational justifications for that).

Hate is a strong word, but there is legitimate criticism, I also think the closed source nature of snap led to the fact that it has no volunteers and that eventually caused malware to appear on the snap store multiple time, it never happened on flathub as far as i know.

Today for beginner i think opensuse and linux mint are better.

Regarding debian having old packages , i use nix but it is fairly immature, flathub should also work.

[-] taanegl@beehaw.org 28 points 1 year ago

Snaps are centralised packaging, a'la Apple App Store or Google Play. Now if someone forked snapd, added third party repo and made It so you could select which repo is the main one, that'd be a start.

But as long as Canonical commits to a centralised form of distribution with no third party support I'm going to advise desktop users to stay away from Ubuntu.

[-] TheFriendlyArtificer@beehaw.org 10 points 1 year ago

It's more than just centralized control.

They have the ability to arbitrarily push out Snap updates.

That's right! Your production server is getting patched without your knowledge or consent. Thankfully they magnanimously decided to let admins delay it by a few weeks.

Linux is about control. I decide what my machine does. When it updates. What it updates. The feedback from Canonical regarding Snaps was so tone dead and condescending it made Steve Balmer look sane. It boiled down to, don't worry your pretty little head off. We know what's best.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] muhyb@programming.dev 21 points 1 year ago

I wouldn't call it hate, more like disapprobation with Canonical's choices. No one have to use Ubuntu, we have tons of distro to choose. If someone wants LTS, you can always go pure Debian way, it's not hard to install as it's used to be (for beginners), or there is Linux Mint Debian Edition. You can easily use flatpaks with these and keep your software up-to-date.

[-] Hexarei@programming.dev 8 points 1 year ago

disapprobation

TIL a new word. Thanks, stranger! 🙂

[-] vikingtons@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

They've embraced Wayland, pipewire, gnome and what not, but snap is really questionable, particularly in the Linux ecosystem.

I gather it can be somewhat annoying to contend with (I.e. some apps on Ubuntu may only be available as snaps?)

[-] Numpty@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Snap is a steaming pile of excrement. So much of the crap on the Snap Store is obsolete and out of date. Anyone and their monkey can post a snap on snapcraft, and.. they do. Canonical is just as bad. They took it upon themselves to package up a lot of commercial-level open-source software 3 or 4 years ago... and then have done fuck all with it ever since. Zero updates to the original snaps they put there in the initial population of the Snap store (yes they do maintain a select few things, but only a small percentage of the flood of obsolete software in the Snap store). The result is people looking to install apps who poke the Snap store, go "oh hey, the application I want is there", install it, and then get all pissy with the vendor... who looks about in surprise wondering how a potential customer managed to find such an old version (happened with at least 2 of my employers, and I've come across many more). Go search Reddit (or Google) for obsolete snap discussions. There's no shortage people pointing at the same issue.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] The_Zen_Cow_Says_Mu@infosec.pub 17 points 1 year ago

I gave up on Ubuntu before the snaps became a thing. Here's what I hated :

  • ugly purple and orange theme
  • Upgrades between lts never worked right for me: 14->16 fail and broke, 16->18 lots of problems, 18->20 still not great.
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] BarrierWithAshes@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

It's because Ubuntu is a company-backed distro consistently wants to go their own way. Not just snap but they've done it before with Unity and Mir (and probably others idk).

Course Fedora does literally the same thing and doesn't get any hate for it so idk. It's just a meme.

Personally I don't like Ubuntu because they didnt go far enough into their own ways but thats just me.

[-] Sentau@lemmy.one 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Course Fedora does literally the same thing and doesn't get any hate for it so idk. It's just a meme.

When have fedora gone their own way ¿? What have they shipped that is not standard on Linux¿? Closest thing I can think is using selinux and firewalld instead of Apparmour and ufw.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] java@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago

Use whatever you want, why do you care about what feelings other people have towards Ubuntu?

[-] banazir@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

I mean, I know that we are suppose to hate it for Snaps and what not but…

There is no "supposed to" when it comes to distro preferences. Use whatever you like, other people's opinions do not dictate your behavior. If Ubuntu works for you, use that. If anything, that's the freedom of FOSS. You can take other people's views in to account when choosing a distro, but in the end it is your decision. I dislike Ubuntu for a few reasons, but I don't get to dictate to anyone else what they use and why.

If you like rolling release, you could try Debian sid/unstable. I hear it's quite stable and reliable and, of course, isn't Ubuntu.

[-] MiddledAgedGuy@beehaw.org 13 points 1 year ago

Ubuntu is a tough one. I don't like it. I don't like snaps, but more than that I don't like their direction in general.

But I have some respect for them too. I think they played a pretty significant role in Linux being as popular (relatively speaking) as it is, and I don't feel like they have any ill intent.

So I don't personally care for it but I'm glad it's around I guess is my point?

[-] Montagge@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

Snap isn't that bad
Ubuntu is fine
People are not

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] beanson@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago

I use Ubuntu for work and have no issues with it to be honest. I install everything via apt, I think a few things are via snap but nothing that I've installed directly. It's stable and I can get on with stuff. I definitely am not a fan of the move towards snap and the app store: if I was to choose I'd go vanilla Debian.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Kushia@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ubuntu attacted a lot of control freaks because Shuttleworth was originally splashing some money when it started and a bunch of nerds saw dollar signs. As a result they have a culture of "not invented here" syndrome where someone just has to reinvent the wheel in only the way they see it and they don't work well with others or accept their input because they want all the credit.

Personally, I got sick of it having been pretty involved early on in the project. It's easier and saner to just use a distro based on what everyone else is doing.

[-] GustavoM@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

In a nutshell, Ubluntu is trying to take user control off its users. And the users are mad because of it.

And yes, I'm talking about snap.

[-] clb92@feddit.dk 10 points 1 year ago

Most of the problems I've experienced with Ubuntu recently were caused by Snap. I really hate that they insist shipping that buggy mess.

[-] cmeerw@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago

I still think Ubuntu is the best option (particularly if you want to use the non-LTS releases)

Having said that I do hate snaps and also dislike flatpaks. So what I do is just use the Firefox deb package from the PPA and the chromium package from Linux Mint. Oh, and I have actually replaced ubuntu-advantage-tools with a no-op dummy package.

[-] the_q@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

As an operating system Ubuntu is great. It's user friendly, has great hardware support and is up to date enough for most users. Canonical though... That's where the real sore spot lies for a lot of die-hards.

[-] _edge@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ubuntu is nice. Apt/DEB works as they should. Some default apps, mostly browsers, are snaps now, but this does not bother you at all. You were getting them from your distro anyway.

Flatpak and AppImages work just fine if you need them.

The Ubuntu desktop (any flavour) just works. Others are different, but nothing is bad about Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is trying new things, proprietary to their ecosystem, e.g. Unity or snap. On the big picture, those are experiment. Ubuntu is still Linux.

The community reaction to snap is overblown. So Canonical developed something you don't like? Ignore it. This has mostly been a waste of time for them.

(Yes, maybe that dev time would be better spent on flatpak or open-source apps. But that's their time. I'm not paying Ubuntu developers, so can I really complain?)

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] EmilyIsTrans 8 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty happy using Ubuntu. Its got a decent UI and works well enough with little fuss. As much as I enjoy tinkering, I use my Ubuntu machines for work and I really only need something simple that works out of the box.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BiggestBulb@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago

For anything lower-spec (like, <4Gb of RAM), Ubuntu absolutely CHUGS because of Snaps. Flatpak has no such issue.

Ironically, Lubuntu (a lightweight Ubuntu fork) worked the best for me while I was using it. No slowness, but I installed pretty much everything using Apt (didn't know about Flatpak back then).

I ended up having it lock up and freeze on the sign-in page though, so I moved on to the slightly heavier Linux Mint.

[-] sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf 8 points 1 year ago

I loved Unity. Also, I would argue that both Snap and Flatpak are bad. That said, be happy with whatever works for you. Ubuntu always gives me problems, whereas Fedora runs smooth. That said Ubuntu can read my old Passports, Fedora can't. They each have the benefits.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] brax@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't mind it, but I don't really use it for any of its features. I use i3 over Unity, I think Snaps (and flatpaks, appimages, etc) are dumb as shit.l, and don't even get me started on how garbage Nautilus is - drives me nuts trying to type a filename in to jump to it only to have Nautilus run a search instead... No idea who thought that was a good idea, but they need to fix that crap already.

I'd probably get by just fine with a full Debian setup tbh.

[-] erwan@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

I don't hate Ubuntu, and it was my distribution from nearly 20 years. Meaning since it was first released until recently. I loved it for a long time because it was based on dpkg which was much better than rpm at the time AND it was way more user friendly than the others. Even as a software developer I like my distribution to move out of the way to let me focus on using it, not babysitting it.

But I moved away because of Snaps. Currently on Fedora and it's pretty good. I know it's possible to get rid of Snaps or use a derivative but I prefer to stay close to stock for whatever distribution I use.

If Ubuntu works for you and you don't mind snaps, then just use that!

So if

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pineapplelover@infosec.pub 7 points 1 year ago

Snap is terrible. If you have a bunch of snaps on your system, it becomes very slow and sluggish

[-] neonred@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Or just use Debian sid, which effectively is Debian in a rolling variant. 🚀

[-] Decker108@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

I think a lot of people dislike Ubuntu because of Gnome and Snaps, which is weird to me. You can fairly easily change desktop environment and most Snaps have apt or Flatpak alternatives.

[-] bear@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 year ago

Most Snaps have apt or Flatpak alternatives.

I'm simply not going to support a distro that creates a proprietary service and ships it as the default source of software. I will support and use distros that open source their code so that everyone can benefit from it. Whether workarounds or alternatives exist is unimportant, my prime issue with Ubuntu and Canonical is with their principles, not Ubuntu's quality as a product to be consumed by me.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] banneryear1868@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Ubuntu is fine it's just a more bloated Debian geared towards being as user friendly as possible. Nothing wrong with that.

[-] LoveSausage@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Long time since I used Ubuntu,, remember updates breaking network twice.. Peppermint OS, Debian(and devuan if you don't like systemd) based. all the important bits (not arch level) but nothing more. Rolling, Runs on 1 GB ram. Haven't distro hopped anymore since I found it.

Stable base , extra on top

“Everything you need and nothing you don’t."

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2023
109 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

48692 readers
1289 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS