[HN Gopher] Disabling automatic refresh for Snap from store
___________________________________________________________________
Disabling automatic refresh for Snap from store
Author : ccmcarey
Score : 118 points
Date : 2022-03-26 13:12 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (forum.snapcraft.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (forum.snapcraft.io)
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| kzrdude wrote:
| The snap thing makes me want to switch distro (for work) from
| ubuntu. Unfortunately we have some benefits from using ubuntu as
| the common platform for less divergence from each other
| selfhifive wrote:
| If you're a programmer I'd say Arch or Debian then configure as
| per your needs. As long as you don't do things blindly it will
| be very stable and blazing fast.
| mbrudd wrote:
| In my experience, Manjaro is a great, user-friendly version
| of Arch. YMMV, but I highly recommend it!
| smoldesu wrote:
| I used to be a pretty hardcore Manjaro evangelist (and I
| still recommend it to people who want to quit distro-
| hopping), but I've been burned a handful of times by it.
| Arch is obviously a notoriously unstable distro, but
| Manjaro in particular can lead to some nasty issues.
| Especially if you're mix-and-matching AUR packages with the
| Manjaro repository ones; I've had at least 3 or 4 systems
| get entirely borked because of an untracked dependency or
| something being too far behind in the Manjaro repo.
| peachy_no_pie wrote:
| Second this!
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I think manjaro suffers breakage too much. These days I
| tell people to look into endeavour since they still use
| (mostly) arch repos and thus cause much less breaking with
| the using AUR packages if you're into those.
| jjgreen wrote:
| Maybe look at Mint?
| canadaduane wrote:
| Pop!_OS is a solid Ubuntu-based distro that uses Flatpak in
| place of Snap (among many other great decisions).
| duped wrote:
| This is why I don't use it anymore:
| https://support.system76.com/articles/enable-hibernation/
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| That's fine, but my system boots so fast that hibernate is
| slower. Pop_OS is a very nice distro, particularly the LTS.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| Because they support hibernation? I assume the answer here
| has to be "because it's a PITA to enable", but as far as I
| know no distro does this correctly by default on an
| encrypted drive.
| duped wrote:
| Because it's a pain in the ass for what should be the
| default, especially if you want to use it on a laptop and
| not have the battery die overnight.
| striking wrote:
| Some argue full disk encryption should be the default.
| Others argue hibernation should be the default. Here they
| appear to be in conflict, and that the former was
| prioritized.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| But they're not. You can very well have the swap on top
| of LVM on top of LUKS. And the root and other partitions
| share that same LVM and LUKS. So now you have FDE and the
| kernel will know how to assemble it all. The only
| difference with the default pop OS install is that the
| swap key isn't changed on every boot. But since the other
| partitions holding the actual data use persistent keys,
| that doesn't look like much of an issue to me.
|
| Plus, if you're OK with using a TPM, you can also get
| waking up from hibernation without having to enter type
| in your password.
|
| Source: been doing exactly that (without the TPM part) on
| a laptop for a few years, and it just worked like a
| charm. No hoop-jumping involved or anything.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| If I wanted full disk encryption, my memory state in swap
| would sure as hell be one of the things I wanted
| encrypted.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| Of course, you would. And it is. All the partitions,
| _including swap_ , are on top of a LUKS volume.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| ah, ok. Apologies.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| > because it's a PITA to enable
|
| I went over the blog post, and it looks like it's a PITA
| to enable because they went out of their way to make it
| so by using a weird partition scheme. I've never
| installed pop OS, but according to that blog they're
| using LVM on LUKS, which should work fairly well.
|
| > but as far as I know no distro does this correctly by
| default on an encrypted drive.
|
| What does "correctly" mean here? On my previous laptop I
| had arch installed on ext4 on LVM on LUKS. Therefore, the
| swap was on the same LVM. Aside from having to manually
| set the "resume" kernel parameter, I never had to do
| anything, and it just worked.
| kafkaIncarnate wrote:
| I really liked my System76 laptop until the AC adapter
| died. I looked around on their site to buy accessories and
| it wasn't there. Eventually I found you have to open a
| support ticket to get a replacement.
|
| Not only did it take multiple days for them to respond (me
| without laptop), their resolution was to attach an invoice
| for one despite me asking for two. I didn't want to open a
| new ticket so I just looked online for an AC that had the
| same voltage/amp/etc and head, then ordered three. I have
| multiple desks...
|
| The three arrived approximately a week before the one they
| sent out.
|
| Also, you can't actually open these the way they've glued
| them shut inside by attaching the heatsink to the outer
| case. Might be a manufacturing defect but definitely can't
| open mine after unscrewing the bottom.
|
| Never buying a System76 laptop again after this thing dies.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Try one of the variants like Pop_OS! they use flatpaks as a
| replacement for snaps and it works well. I've moved all my
| ubuntu systems over to it without any issues. The KDE version
| is nearly as nice as the stock version (looks-wise) if you're a
| KDE person, which I am.
| amelius wrote:
| I would love to switch to something else (e.g. NixOS) but
| Ubuntu is the required OS for NVidia's Jetson family of
| hardware.
| raffraffraff wrote:
| You can use the Jetson with Docker! It's a total pain in the
| ass though. Their drivers and software are horrible.
| amelius wrote:
| Ok, thanks. Does it give access to the GPU?
| raffraffraff wrote:
| Yes, if you run the container with the right options.
| This is a little out of date and may not even be required
| any more, but it gives you the full SDK manager gui in
| Docker.
|
| https://github.com/raffraffraff/nvidia-sdkmanager
| bamboozled wrote:
| We switched over to Fedora, way better
| emerongi wrote:
| I switched many years ago. I make heavy use of Flatpaks,
| which are great, although they have a lot of unlocked
| potential still. dnf installs regular-old packages, as
| opposed to Ubuntu, where apt packages now install snap
| packages.
|
| Debian or Fedora should become the new default
| recommendation. Debian probably fits better for novices,
| since Fedora doesn't have non-free packages out of the box.
| kafkaIncarnate wrote:
| Debian and Fedora have always been my two recommended
| distros for people. They are the upstream providers of the
| packages for most distros, and in the case of Ubuntu it has
| always been a bad choice.
|
| Even from day one, forking Debian and breaking a bunch of
| packages as they went off on their own, then years later
| going oops how do we fix this Daddy Debian? Adding Amazon
| to their search by default in Unity initially. Creating a
| new desktop protocol to replace X11 rather than work with
| the Wayland teams so they could rush to ship their phone
| that nobody wanted.
|
| Canonical is just a good marketing company. They want to do
| things their way and screw over as many Linux developers as
| they can to get their way.
| zamalek wrote:
| Both Fedora and Mint are touted as the "new Ubuntu." Mint
| even has a Debian fork experiment going on.
|
| For work, keep in mind that Fedora defaults to SELinux and a
| firewall. That's is a _huge_ bonus when approaching IT about
| a switch.
| polski-g wrote:
| I'm switching to debian my next install. It's similar enough
| internally
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| For a personal desktop, I wouldn't recommend it unless
| you're willing to run sid, because while the outdated
| software collection is no big deal most of the time, it's a
| tremendous pain when you really do need a new version of
| something, and you ultimately just give up and instal the
| whole thing from source into /usr/local, which in a half-
| dozen years predictably evolves into a mess.
|
| Running sid _is_ an option, but the amount of fiddly Debian
| magic you end up needing to learn when it breaks is IME not
| smaller than the effort of setting up a mostly-unpatched
| rolling-release like Arch (and I'm sure there are other
| options). Given that _e.g._ Arch's packaging is simple
| enough it's no big deal to package even your personal
| collection of handy scripts (and so the system does not
| develop funny-looking mold and bits of mystery food all
| over the place), I don't really see the point. Just don't
| update it when you're on a deadline.
|
| You can see that my arguments here are to a great extent a
| matter of preference and personal circumstances, though: do
| you have a reliable Internet connection for
| troubleshooting? do you prefer a more solid system that you
| have to fight and that fails badly but rarely or a less
| solid one that fails more often but in small ways? does
| getting locked out of the graphical environment every
| couple of years count as small?
|
| (Offer not applicable on machines with cursed hardware like
| nVidia or Broadcom.)
| khimaros wrote:
| personally I recommend debian "rolling testing" (rather
| than pinning to a specific release name) with security
| updates from sid. this prevents all but the most subtle
| bugs from reaching you and you still get the new hotness
| within a few weeks of sid. there is a release freeze for
| a few months prior to the each stable release, but I've
| had no major issues from that.
|
| the other subtlety is that security updates come later to
| testing than they do to either stable or sid, but this
| can be mitigated: https://gist.github.com/khimaros/21db93
| 6fa7885360f7bfe7f116b...
| raegis wrote:
| I've been using Debian stable on the desktop exclusively
| since Etch (around 2007). I strongly recommend it for
| someone who is always busy and doesn't have time to
| fiddle around. I run Sid in a schroot for the one package
| I need which is not in backports (a recent R for RStudio.
| Reference:
| http://charles.plessy.org/Debian/debi%C3%A2neries/r-4.1/
| ). Debian stable relieves all the pain of the frequent
| breakage (CUPS) from constant unnecessary upgrades.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I suggest pop_os if you like ubuntu but are tired of stuff
| like snaps and such, but still like the idea of an LTS
| brianshaler wrote:
| I personally use ubuntu and have used snap enough to get
| thoroughly burned and annoyed by it. Slow starts, no auto-
| update controls with bad defaults corrupting running programs,
| spammed mount points... (edit: see comment below for some
| limited controls to reduce the frequency of auto-updates)
|
| But, unless I'm missing something about latest or future
| releases, isn't it still optional? Can't you use apt instead
| and uninstall snapd altogether?
|
| I'd agree that needing to uninstall instead of opt-in is an
| annoyance, and that user-hostile actions tend to be a slippery
| slope..
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| Firefox is only available as snap now. I gues it's bthe same
| for other apps.
|
| For VSCode I managed to download a deb from their site IIRC,
| but from apt it only suggests to download from snap.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| flatpak is a great alternative and it works well on ubuntu.
| Although I've just moved wholesale over to pop_os with
| flatpaks and LTS version.
| kzrdude wrote:
| What, where is firefox only available as snap? I'm on
| Ubuntu 20.04 so haven't run into that yet.
| brianshaler wrote:
| Interesting. Firefox on snap was an absolute nightmare. Not
| only would New Tab break after an update, fonts would break
| as they may be (re-)loaded from disk which becomes missing
| when the app gets remounted at a new mount point after an
| update. I forget which hoops I had to jump through, but I
| did finally find a non-snap method that allows me to
| manually update (or dismiss prompt) to get around these
| issues while staying up to date (~1 day)
|
| VScode wasn't as bad, as it usually seemed to work (but
| maybe flaky plugins were actually caused by snap?) but it
| was certainly annoying to lose the ability to switch
| between windows of the same app (alt+~, I think this was a
| custom setting to resemble mac) if the latest
| window/project was opened as a new version of the app
| (alt+tab)
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| FF has been driving me crazy lately.
|
| Every other day it blows away all my open tabs and
| whatever I had going on in them.
|
| I have a bunch of random tabs open, some with essentially
| "unsaved work", like shopping carts which may be the
| result of an hour of research, editing files in web
| interfaces like github or fluidd (web interface to a 3d
| printer) ... and randomly once every day or 3, I'll go to
| touch anything, any button in any of those tabs, like
| edit that config file some more, or try to save it... and
| kablooey, "firefox needs to restart" and I lose
| _everything_ I had going.
|
| This is a new thing that didn't used to happen.
|
| Apparently the snap teams response to this story would be
| "Don't use FF like that."
| lelouch11 wrote:
| I have a similar situation.
|
| The issue here is that the apt update changes firefox
| program files underneath it which needs a restart. Afaik,
| using the mozilla release directly is the only solution
| for this where the program files are changed only after
| exit.
|
| Edit: This has become more common nowadays due to
| multiple point releases close to each other, to fix some
| important bug.
| rlpb wrote:
| > no auto-update controls
|
| Maybe not what you want exactly but there are controls and
| claiming otherwise is misleading.
|
| https://snapcraft.io/docs/keeping-snaps-up-to-
| date#heading--...
| brianshaler wrote:
| Thank you for this. Severely limited controls are certainly
| better than no controls. Looks like timer can reduce
| breakages to no more than monthly, hold can prevent
| breakages for up to 3 months, and metered seems like it may
| be able to disable updates and subsequent breakages if I
| can figure how to trick the OS into thinking I'm always on
| a metered connection (which is actually true, but I'm on
| LTE via wifi)
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| > But, unless I'm missing something about latest or future
| releases, isn't it still optional? Can't you use apt instead
| and uninstall snapd altogether?
|
| There seem to be more and more things that are only delivered
| as snaps.
|
| I haven't used Ubuntu on the desktop in a while (and even
| then, it was just trying it out), but I remember that trying
| to apt install <something> would say "use the snap". I think
| LXD is in that case, for example.
| [deleted]
| chousuke wrote:
| I recommend Fedora to everyone wanting a desktop
| alternative to Ubuntu. It's a well-balanced distribution
| that is opinionated enough to work fine as-is but doesn't
| try to _force_ things on you the way Ubuntu does with
| snaps.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I can't do that because I don't want to update every 6
| months. If I wanted to do that I'd just move to
| arch/endeavour.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| What DEs are common/supported on Fedora, I use KDE
| (Kubuntu), I'm not keen on snaps and so it seems
| expedient to switch distros when I next install (as it
| seems Ubuntu are all in for snaps).
| chousuke wrote:
| Gnome is the default and there's a KDE "spin", but I use
| Sway myself so I can't really comment on how well KDE
| works.
| pizza234 wrote:
| > There seem to be more and more things that are only
| delivered as snaps.
|
| I'm on Ubuntu, and of all the software I use (I count
| around 20 programs installed not through the Ubuntu apt
| repositories), fortunately only two are available only on
| snaps - Chromium and Subsync. The first actually
| accelerated my move to Firefox.
|
| Regarding Subsync, I had to write a ridicolous script to
| start/stop all the snap services - ridicolous because Snap
| has an integrity service that overwrites any change to the
| Snap system (!!), so one can't even hack the Snap system
| files without disabling such service. It actually gets
| worse - Ubuntu has a relatively tight intergration with
| snap: one can't have the `snapd` serviced disabled (without
| hacks), because the Ubuntu software upgrade invokes it if
| present, and if it's disabled, the upgrade will hang.
|
| If Ubuntu will force more software to go through Snap, I'll
| abandon it (after many, many years).
| brianshaler wrote:
| Yikes! I fortunately haven't run into this yet. There are
| very few cases where I would take the easy road and install
| a snap (maybe a one-time use CLI where performance doesn't
| matter and I'd uninstall after?). If not in apt I'd
| probably ignore the suggestion and look for a ppa, binary,
| or, in rare cases, compile from source.
| jabiko wrote:
| We use microk8s on our dev clusters and its really great when an
| automatic upgrade goes sideways. Also using channels didn't help
| since even a minor upgrade managed to break our setup once.
|
| The last half year or so went ok, but not being able to stop
| automatic upgrades is ridiculous. In general I like opinionated
| software, but sometimes it goes to far.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Canonical currently has their head in the sand for how Linux
| users at large see it.
|
| If you try to talk about how Linux distributions don't like it,
| they'll just say, "but Snap is available on all the
| distributions" or some crap cop-out.
|
| I had a long forum thread about all the issues people are
| complaining about half a decade ago. They wouldn't budge, and
| still won't budge.
| kd913 wrote:
| Linux users are some of the most opinionated people. At the
| end of the day, money/convenience matters. Why exactly would
| they pay attention to you when they have their own
| priorities?
|
| Snaps reduce reduce their maintenance burdens, and they have
| the stats themselves for how popular they are. They are by
| and far more used than flatpaks from what I remember from the
| video by Martin Wimpress.
|
| Oh and they have third party buy-in from software vendors
| like Mozilla, Microsoft, VLC, JetBrains, Spotify, slack
| etc...
|
| Why would they budge?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| So according to a Snap developer, Snap is more popular on
| Ubuntu, the only distribution that comes with it preloaded.
| That does not say anything about Snap's popularity.
|
| Vendor interest they have, community interest they lack.
| And if it continues, lack of community interest will result
| in a lack of vendor interest.
| kd913 wrote:
| They literally have stats for each snap download and
| install.
|
| https://snapcraft.io/slack
|
| You see the map at the bottom with a list of OSes?
|
| They have the interest, commercial and from the populace.
| Vendors have already integrated it into their pipelines.
|
| What they don't have is the vocal minority. Frankly I
| don't get why people care so much, if you don't like it
| switch. No need to whine about it. They aren't preventing
| you from using flatpak.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| I really don't understand all these "flatpak is better" comments.
| It's not.
|
| https://ludocode.com/blog/flatpak-is-not-the-future
|
| Maybe it is better than snap, but it's not good and its not
| better than a traditional package, on either philosophical or
| technical grounds.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| It is better on a "keep it updated by the developer" grounds
| and that's all I need. I liek to have the latest with things
| like spotify, libreoffice, qbittorrent, etc. I like the
| sandboxing. Sure it ain't everybody's cup of tea, but you can't
| discount other people's opinion as "wrong". They're just
| opinions. I know other people value the aspects of .deb/.rpm
| only based system, and I have weighed the pros and cons
| personally. Don't expect that we haven't looked into it for
| ourselves by default.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Check out how long this flatpak bug was on adding a pin function
| :)
|
| https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/issues/3078
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Never used a snap. Never will.
| arunkant wrote:
| I tried microk8s snap once. Never again
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Care to explain why?
| reidrac wrote:
| That's what I thought, until the other day I realised something
| I had installed was via snap. I'm afraid the only solution
| requires stop using Ubuntu :(
| mikro2nd wrote:
| sudo apt purge snapd
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| I think you have to use snap (I can't recall the
| incantation, snapctl??) to remove the snap mount points
| (which I think are made when snap packages get installed)
| first otherwise they don't get removed by simply removing
| snapd. Only did it once, so far.
| reidrac wrote:
| Does it mean that apt will then install a non-snap version?
|
| I haven't verified that, but considering that nothing
| suggested that I was installing a snap app (other than me
| not paying attention to apt's output, I guess), I'm not
| sure if that's even possible. I was planning to stay with
| 18.04 LTS and then move to something else, but seems like
| either snap was there already or it has been added after I
| upgraded.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I don't think so because some apps are only available as
| snaps. that is less true for 18.04, but 20.04 and 22.04
| use snaps fairly heavily and some like firefox only
| available through snaps, although there is also PPA and
| flatpaks available.
| ugjka wrote:
| I use it only for Spotify
| jmholla wrote:
| I install Spotify through `apt`. What benefits do you get
| from installing their snap?
| ugjka wrote:
| They sometimes forget to update the .Deb version
|
| >@Romario74 That is not the case; while on Snap they
| packaged v77, if you look here you will find that the
| Spotify devs have not been updating the .deb releases. Re-
| packaging Snaps is less convenient than using a .deb
| tarball, and is being done through scripts by this Github
| project, which is in turn repackaged by @Edu4rdSHL.
|
| https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/spotify
|
| So i run snapd on system
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Can't you just use the web site?
| Avamander wrote:
| Both major browsers are Snaps as well. The web site also
| has a significant additional control latency when playing
| on a device on your local network.
| Kelteseth wrote:
| I tried this but for me closing the browser sometimes
| means, being done with work or a task and this would always
| also shut down my music. It's the small things that still
| drive me to install their client, even though I know it is
| just another electron app.
| ugjka wrote:
| The web player only does 128kbit AAC stream
| NGRhodes wrote:
| One of a number of reasons Ubuntu does not even meet the minimum
| requirements to tender for a cut of the millions the University I
| work for invests in Linux systems (research workstations (often
| packed with NVIDIA GPUs), clients to control specialist
| equipment, HPC, regular desktops/laptops/servers,
| network/lustre/backup storage etc).
| FpUser wrote:
| Snap was the reason I said goodbye to Ubuntu
| henriquez wrote:
| Same here. If I want forced updates I can use Windows.
| FpUser wrote:
| I would have left even without forced updates. I just do not
| want to waste my computer power on this virtualization
| crusade. When / if I need it I want it to be explicit and
| under my control.
| user3939382 wrote:
| > The issue that makes us resist the idea of simply disabling
| updates altogether is that very often that will mean never update
| rather than update at someone's discretion, and then we're
| getting back to some of the problems that got us here in the
| first place.
|
| I'm sorry, who owns the machine here?
| ctxc wrote:
| Counter point for general software: some people don't upgrade
| software for _years_, due to which vendors have two problems -
| 1. Open security vulnerabilities 2. Necessity to maintain
| backward compatible infra
|
| To offset this, two channels of releases can be maintained -
| one for security fixes, another for general features etc. But
| again here, we run into problems where maintenance of two
| channels isn't economical, and you end up testing security
| fixes on various versions.
|
| How can these be addressed if upgrades are not forced, are
| there standard processes followed that provide the best
| compromise for both vendors and end users?
| [deleted]
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| Make updates that are appealing enough that users want them.
| chockchocschoir wrote:
| > How can these be addressed if upgrades are not forced, are
| there standard processes followed that provide the best
| compromise for both vendors and end users?
|
| There is an easy way to solve this problem. Default to auto
| updates, allow people to turn it off, by acknowledging what
| that means. Most users use whatever is the default anyways.
| Vendors gets to push their updates, users who don't want
| those, can reject them. If someone gets hacked because they
| turned off auto update, the vendor won't be on the hook for
| it, because the user said they were aware of it when they
| turned it off.
|
| I think the core problem here is not that people are asking
| for auto updates to be off by default, they simply want to
| have the option. And frankly, for professional use cases, you
| _have to_ be able to turn off auto updates, as otherwise it
| 'll harm the workflow as you can't control when the update
| happens.
| ctxc wrote:
| Yup, makes perfect sense. Thanks!
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| I'll give you the same answer I gave people when Microsoft
| started doing the same nonsense with Win10:
|
| I totally agree your average end user is poor at managing
| updates themselves and thus it is justified to enable auto-
| updates by default. What that does not justify is totally
| removing the ability to turn them off. Feel free to make it a
| little harder to disable: the user has to run a CLI command
| or something, but the option should be there.
|
| > How can these be addressed if upgrades are not forced, are
| there standard processes followed that provide the best
| compromise for both vendors and end users?
|
| If you go through the extra effort to disable updates and
| don't grab a security fix, that's on you. How is "you have to
| do exactly what I tell you - wait why is nobody using my
| software?????" a best compromise for users? What are users
| expected to do when an upgrade breaks something and they
| can't downgrade?
| ctxc wrote:
| Sensible defaults, but built for the power user. Makes
| sense.
| anonymousab wrote:
| The old argument is that anything a power user can do, a
| malicious script can do too. So such options must be
| removed entirely if there is any chance of a less
| technically inclined user being tricked into doing it.
| cerved wrote:
| 1. Open security vulnerabilities
|
| sounds like a user problem
| ctxc wrote:
| A user problem that can have a very real impact on your
| product.
|
| "x ProductX users impacted by Ransomware" will make
| headlines, your "well yes, we fixed it in v2.7.8 months
| back" won't.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| Isn't this also the of the main reasons the linux community
| hates windows. Because windows has a habit of forcing updates
| and reboots.
| selfhifive wrote:
| The linux community isn't a big fan of Canonical. Everyone
| starts with Ubuntu, distro hops, installs Debian or Arch
| configured according to them and tries to bring Ubuntu back
| from the dark side.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Canonical used to be The Chosen One, the prophesied savior
| that would decend from the heavens and bring us a
| reasonable chance at actually having a Year of the Linux
| Desktop. Then something happened, and they turned to the
| darkside, started adopting the worst behaviors of
| Microsoft, and here we are. Sadly they are still promoted
| as the recommended "generic" distro for the masses.
| danamit wrote:
| You will get the updates, and you will be happy.
| hn_version_0023 wrote:
| "The beatings will continue until morale improves."
| ComodoHacker wrote:
| I see they're honestly trying to ease life for technically
| illiterate users (or, put it another way, to chase Apple's
| "just works" experience). But ignoring the needs of
| professional users (who are influencers) is a sure way to
| divert all users.
| daniel-thompson wrote:
| OK but even Apple lets you toggle automatic updates on or
| off.
| cuteboy19 wrote:
| And so does Google Play Store. Even windows has the
| settings buried somewhere
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| Many technically illiterate users don't like forced automatic
| updates either. Having your software behave one way one day
| and another the next day is user-hostile. The only people it
| helps are organizations that wish to lower support costs.
| rsolva wrote:
| I have heard disturbing stories from tech-illiterate
| windows users complaining about forced upgrades, reboots--
| even fullscreen Office365 ads. It's a pain to be "the
| computer guy" for windows users. They need help constantly
| and for silly things that has changed place or behaviour. I
| also do support for tech-illiterate linux users on Fedora
| and they never call or have trouble. It just works, even
| with auto-updated flatpaks enabled.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Yeah ton's of memes out there by windows users who were
| forced to upgrade 5 minutes before a meeting or
| something. It's a real issue. It's why I leave my office
| laptop on all night, so they can do their stupid forced
| upgrades in the middle of the night like they schedule
| them. I have too many meeting to wait for a 30minute - 1
| hour update popping up unexpectedly.
| [deleted]
| rsolva wrote:
| Having observed (well deserved) criticism of both Snap and
| Flatpak during the years, Flatpak seems to emerge as the most
| sensible solution, continuously addressing and improving on the
| pain points and security challenges.
|
| I have been using Fedora 34/35 the last year or so, and Flatpaks
| are well integrated and mostly just works without any performance
| hit. Being able to adjust permissions per app (with Flatseal) has
| also been a great experience.
|
| I have little experience with Snap, but the few times I have had
| to deal with it on Ubuntu-based distros, it has left a bad
| impression from a user perspective.
| throwaway984393 wrote:
| As an Alpine user, Flatpak is invaluable. Snap isn't supported
| because it requires systemd.
| rsolva wrote:
| Had not thought about that! I want to set up my old Lenovo
| X220 with a minimal distro and was thinking of using Alpine +
| Sway. Using Flatpak for all the "regular" apps more than
| makes up for the apps not present in Alpines repos.
| gaius_baltar wrote:
| Perhaps there's still a way to save snaps. Does somebody knows
| of a snapd fork that allows control over updates and alternate
| snap stores?
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| It's not even remotely close. Snaps take longer to load, still
| sometimes have theme issues, you have to manually install Snap
| on almost all non-Snap distributions, you'll be littered with
| garbage mountpoints, you'll have a useless snap folder in your
| home directory, you can't add external repositories of any
| kind, and you get no ability to stop updates easy without going
| into duct tape solutions.
|
| Snap wants to be a desktop, and server, system. Not with a 10
| foot pole - Docker is literally 100x better. Not on my Desktop
| - Flatpak is superior there.
| azalemeth wrote:
| Don't forget odd permissions problems. From memory, ipfs is
| distributed as a snap. Try saving a file to another location
| outside of the snap jail. Almost impossible.
| zamalek wrote:
| > Snaps take longer to load
|
| Without fail, on multiple machines, shutdown/restart is
| stalled for the maximum 2:30 timeout for snapd. It's a useful
| reminder to uninstall Snap whenever I find myself in the
| unfortunate situation of using Ubuntu.
| kkfx wrote:
| Solution to what? Personally I think ALL of such package
| managers exists only for a reason: satisfy commercial software
| needs, in disguise to being developed for free by a community
| instead of being neglected and pushed to the place they
| deserve, witch is /dev/null.
|
| The future of package management is NixOS/Guix System, the
| future of isolation are cgroups (see FireJail, BubbleWrap). The
| rest is absurd like full-stack virtualization on x86 to make
| VMWare profit, HW OEMs profit, consulting profits etc and
| people who should not, because of ignorance, running infra
| built by someone else a brick at a time, or the way to create
| disaster waiting to happen...
|
| I see exactly ZERO good cases for snap, flatpak, appimage
| etc... ZERO, really.
| tjoff wrote:
| Somehow when googling software snap will often come up and try to
| push users to install snap and the software.
|
| Almost feels like malware on every level. Can't comprehend why
| they are pushing it so hard.
|
| Ubuntu is on borrowed time.
| oofbey wrote:
| I have been a huge fan of Ubuntu for a long time. But the way
| they push snap is really making me question this choice. The
| more I learn about snap the less I like it.
| okasaki wrote:
| It seems that sometimes the push is external. A few days ago
| Canonical announced that they would switch Firefox to snap
| because that's the only way Mozilla will allow them to
| redistribute it.
| codethief wrote:
| > because that's the only way Mozilla will allow them to
| redistribute it.
|
| I doubt this is the whole truth, compare
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30800957
| oofbey wrote:
| Having a user app like Firefox force autoupdate is not that
| bad IMHO. Having server infrastructure components update
| themselves automatically can be disastrous. This caught me
| by surprise, painfully.
|
| Snap for GUI apps, okay, fine. Snap for system
| infrastructure, no thank you.
| broknbottle wrote:
| It's bad when the user is actively using the application
| and snapd decides to update the Firefox snap and cause
| issues.
| unmole wrote:
| I switched to Fedora after ~14 year of using Ubuntu as my
| daily driver. Three months in, it's been absolutely rock
| solid.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| I love Ubuntu, it's been my daily driver for over a decade now
| but if they continue with going against the community on this
| nonsense this will be a strong indication for people like me that
| an era has come to an end and it's time to move on.
|
| It used to be a community focused distro. This bs feels outright
| user-hostile.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| Just switched to Fedora about a week ago because I was getting
| fed up with user hostile Ubuntu bs, I like it a lot.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I don't like that you have to update it so often. I like the
| idea of an LTS. On systems I want to update often I just put
| arch on them so there is never major breakage that I can't
| roll back easily with snapper.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| I'm a linux power user (kernel hacking level) and wanted
| Fedora so much to work for me. Every single time there were
| severe issues with getting it even installed. First two
| failed attempts took place on my dell laptop, the last two on
| my dual socket workstation with Nvidia GPU.
|
| All four times was an exercise in a lot of googling, hacking
| configurations,etc. Sadly it was always too much work and I
| eventually gave up.
|
| Hopefully one day the experience is seamless and I never have
| to go back to Ubuntu.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| I feel like people who use fedora swear by it. What DE do you
| use? I prefer KDE but donno if it's time to retry gnome or
| something else.
| secondcoming wrote:
| You can use both? I use Mint but also use QTCreator (KDE)
| for development.
|
| Things like hiDPI support go funny, but that's just Linux
| for you.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| I'm coming from Ubuntu so I stuck with Gnome as that is the
| default recomendation for Fedora as well. I've tried KDE in
| the past and while I understand why lots of people like it
| it never really clicked with me.
|
| But while we're on the topic of user hostility, I'm not
| really a fan of some of the changes the Gnome devs are
| doing either, so I may switch again in the future but at
| least for now I'm comfortable using it and they aren't
| outright antagonizing my system like Ubuntu does with
| snaps.
| tux1968 wrote:
| If you're moving to Fedora then Gnome really is the path of
| least resistance, and highest level of integration and
| support. But you can make KDE work, or even use a tiling WM
| like Sway and customize it to your taste. In any case, you
| get to enjoy the benefits of a really well done distro.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| Alright. Will give it another go. Hopefully it's easier
| to setup a side bar and top bar than last time I used it.
| anuragsoni wrote:
| FWIW, I've used Fedora's KDE spin [1] and its very
| polished. That said, if I was still using linux on the
| desktop these days I'd go with OpenSUSE Tumbleweed[2].
| With KDE my experience was that they made big
| improvements with every release, and tumbleweed was a
| nice way to get a stable-ish rolling release distribution
| that gets all the nice KDE updates without me having to
| wait another 6-8 months.
|
| [1] https://spins.fedoraproject.org/en/kde/
|
| [2] https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Tumbleweed
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| > If you're moving to Fedora then Gnome really is the
| path of least resistance
|
| Which is really the largest drawback by far that I've
| found. GNOME 4 is user-hostile garbage made by people who
| really really wish they were designing for tablets. It's
| practically useless without third-party extensions, which
| are of course unsupported. It doesn't even have a system
| tray FFS.
|
| If Fedora Kinoite worked as well as Fedora Silverblue, I
| think I could be reasonably content. Immutable base
| system with Flatpak and Toolboxes is pretty close to how
| I actually want a system to work.
| indymike wrote:
| Users are telling the snap team exactly what they want: give us a
| way to disable automatic updates. Snappy's vision is to take this
| control away.
|
| This is why people hate snaps. They don't fit user workflows,
| make extra work and even cause show stopping problems.
|
| Snaps could be great but the team really needs to listen. For me
| I'm removing snaps from my configs before I get surprised.
|
| (edit: mobile autocomplete typos)
| [deleted]
| ethbr0 wrote:
| It's the nature of creating a currated experience: saying "No"
| to a lot of things.
|
| Chrome/Google did the same thing.
|
| Snap clearly has a philosophy. And a lot of people clearly
| disagree with that philosophy.
|
| Thankfully, instead of "advertised from google.com", Snap has
| less ability to push itself on users, and users have more
| ability to choose it... or not.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| I warned them _half a decade_ ago on a super-long thread (on that
| forum, it's called "External repositories") that having Canonical
| in charge of everything, having no support for external
| repositories, and no ability to disable updates was going to be
| the death of Snap. They would not listen _at all_ to me or anyone
| on that discussion. It was nothing but double-down.
|
| Well... what, five years later, here we are. They are still
| trucking on although the Linux community at large has turned
| against them, yet they remain in their echo chamber of a forum
| and don't see it, convinced it will all work out or some crap.
| gpspake wrote:
| Wow. This thread isn't controversial at all. I haven't found a
| single comment making a case for Snap. It seems to be universally
| disliked - at least by this crowd.
| apexalpha wrote:
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| My reasons for hating for example the FF snap are quite valid
| thank you very much.
|
| Shall I ponder out loud my own unflattering assumptions as to
| why you are ok with something like snaps?
| apexalpha wrote:
| Sure, I'd be interested to hear why you _prefer_ (why
| hate?) traditional packages over containarized ones like
| Snap or Flatpak.
|
| I'm just a bit weirded out by the vocal hate and anti-
| Canonical sentiment in this thread. Some people even
| proudly complaining they've "never used Snaps and never
| will!"
|
| I mean in the end it's a packaging format with pros and
| cons, I suppose. But the threads on this subject feels
| almost an American political debate where everyone is dug
| in and flinging shit to the other side.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| That's not what I asked, and apparently you missed the
| point of why I asked it.
| kd913 wrote:
| It's disliked by the same Linux purists who complain constantly
| about systemd. Bit odd how the same community hates Canonical
| considering how it's now the only FOSS commercial entity
| considering Red Hat was bought by IBM. The community treats
| them worse than Microsoft for no good reasons. If you don't
| like snap, fine, use flatpak, apt, AppImages. Nobody is forcing
| you on ubuntu systems, but they spend their effort and time
| whining here.
|
| I like snaps, I use them for everything I can.
|
| - They are better confined than flatpaks, and come with a
| permission based model. Hence why there are some rougher edges.
| I appreciate the increased security.
|
| - I appreciate the ability that when I remove a snap, the
| entire thing is removed with no littering.
|
| - They are significantly easier to distribute on ubuntu than
| dealing with ppas or launchpad.
|
| - They are a one-stop shop for finding the software I care
| about. I don't need to hit the command line, or add another
| repo.
|
| - They save time and money because devs only need to support 1
| base.
|
| - I can install software on ubuntu without giving root
| privileges in a self-contained fashion.
|
| Some common complains:
|
| - The store isn't open sourced. Well yes, that is because they
| wasted time from the same whiny people over launchpad. Nobody
| else runs and supports launchpad. Hence nobody else would
| frankly bother running the snap store.
|
| - People can't run their own store. Well yes, that is because
| Canonical learned from a decade ago with the security nightmare
| that is PPAs. Yea, it is a bad idea giving devs root access to
| 100k worth of machines to run arbitrary scripts. Also really
| bad UX.
|
| -It's slow to startup with theming issues. Well the situation
| has improved 100x since a few years ago, and also I run an ssd,
| 32gb of RAM and a 3600, I don't really care for a few seconds
| in launch time.
| dsr_ wrote:
| If you give people tools to enforce their own policies, you have
| an adaptable system.
|
| If you create a set of policies that users can choose from, you
| have limited your usefulness to just those cases that fit in
| those policies that you have implemented.
|
| If you choose a single policy for everyone, only people who are
| willing to use that policy will use your system.
|
| These patterns repeat across operating systems, services and
| applications.
| Avamander wrote:
| Snap developers have refused to rename $HOME/snap to be less
| visible for nearly as long, they have and are shipping very
| broken software, all while using update methods that corrupted
| people's data unannounced until very recently (the update
| mechanism made data directories non-writable unless you enable
| some experimental option).
|
| They very much do not care about the end-user with Snap, only how
| to appear attractive to potential customers.
| nemetroid wrote:
| It's not even $HOME/snap, it's /home/$USER/snap.
|
| https://snapcraft.io/docs/home-outside-home
|
| > The snap daemon (snapd) requires a user's home directory
| ($HOME) to be located under /home on the local filesystem. This
| requirement cannot currently be changed.
| kzrdude wrote:
| It's a pretty wild switch of power from the usual distro
| packaging where the packager is a neutral middle ground between
| the application's and the user's interests, often swinging to
| the side of being the user advocate.
|
| Of course, compared with other platforms and auto updates, it
| is clear why app developers prefer and expect to be in charge
| of updates.
| acabal wrote:
| This is its most egregious sin, IMHO. Imagine low level system
| software with such a high opinion of itself that it thinks it
| deserves a front and center place in your home directory for
| you to look at every single day.
|
| We don't have ~/ssh or ~/dconf do we? We've had the XDG spec
| for decades now - this selfish decision makes me so
| irrationally angry that it's the one reason I'd switch to
| Fedora to avoid snaps.
| [deleted]
| Thaxll wrote:
| I think auto updates are ok but not for everything, client side
| app are ok to auto update the rest not so much.
| mikro2nd wrote:
| No. No they're not OK. Sometimes I am forced to live on eye-
| wateringly expensive bandwidth (because dodgy rural DSL and
| trees falling) and I'd go broke letting things autoupdate
| during those times.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| I don't understand this remark. They charge you more when
| trees/systems are down? Are you talking about using some
| backup service (like your cellphone) or something? Your
| comment is hard to reason out without information like that.
| RobotCaleb wrote:
| They're saying that sometimes their internet goes out
| either because of their rural situation or because trees
| fall and knock out copper lines. When that happens, they
| have to switch to an expensive internet solution.
| izoow wrote:
| The only thing still keeping me on Ubuntu is the font rendering
| that somehow looks so much better than any other distro,
| otherwise I would've already switched to another distro because
| of snap.
|
| I feel like I've never seen anybody actually like snap.
| xeromal wrote:
| Snap is probably that thing that the people who do use it or
| don't mind it, don't notice it.
| nik736 wrote:
| Please correct me if I am wrong, but you can simply snap install
| with a --channel, which could be a specific version. This way it
| is not auto updating, since it's on that specific
| channel/version.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| Aren't channels things like "stable" or "bleeding edge" or
| something like that? Which means that this would only work if
| the snap vendor cooperates.
| bboozzoo wrote:
| But then you can't really blame Canonical and that makes the
| wole agument moot.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| The argument is that "channels" are not "versions". So
| inside a channel, you cannot disable updates. And that's
| the way Canonical operates, they regularly push updates to
| their "stable" channel. There is no "v1.2.3" channel that
| will forever stay at that particular version until you
| switch channels.
|
| The point is that you are the mercy of the snap publisher,
| and as the sysadmin, you cannot prevent the software from
| updating. Whether you should or not do that is a different
| debate.
| bboozzoo wrote:
| Canonical directly maintains only a handful of snaps, and
| even so it's up to the individual teams to do the
| relevant QA before publishing a version to the stable.
|
| You'd expect that publishers follow the same process,
| that a stable channel means it's really stable, whereas
| version breaking changes really end up in per version
| channel. Ideally you have the
| latest/{stable,beta,candidate,edge} which follows the
| latest version of the software, and eg.
| v1/{stable,beta,candidate,edge},
| v2/{stable,beta,candidate,edge},
| v3/{stable,beta,candidate,edge} for individual version. A
| simple concept but surprisingly hard to follow.
|
| Maybe the publishers are really lazy and don't care about
| the users or the maintenance cost of keeping n versions
| around is just too high, in which case it's up to the
| users to make their effort worth it.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| I agree with your point, but the issue discussed here is
| being forced into updating. Sure, that's an issue because
| some people aren't fully confident that a "minor update"
| won't break things. They may or may not be right, but
| that's a separate debate.
|
| The point is that people want to be able to disable
| automatic updates, even minor ones, and that's not
| possible.
|
| edit: I can see how my previous comment could have been
| confusing. To clear it up, I was trying to say that a
| workaround for the forced updates would be for vendors to
| publish a "single version channel". So version 1.2.3
| would be a dedicated channel, with no updates ever.
| Version 1.2.4 would be a separate channel, with only that
| single version. This would of course be impractical, for
| both the vendor and the user.
| teraflop wrote:
| AFAIK, selecting a channel doesn't prevent automatic updates,
| it just limits them to a subset of versions. It doesn't in any
| way prevent a new version from being published to that channel
| and automatically installed.
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| You are wrong :) updates are published to channels and anyone
| following that channel will get the update.
|
| More about how snap channels work here.
| https://ubuntu.com/blog/controlling-snap-releases-with-chann...
| account-5 wrote:
| Can someone explain why I'd use snap or flatpak over the distros
| repo or manual install for something not in the repo or
| unavailable via adding a repo? Apart from auto-managed updates.
|
| Snap and flatpak are massive compared to "traditional" packages.
| 542458 wrote:
| Over manual install - snap/flatpak is typically way faster and
| easier to install and configure. Installing Nextcloud manually
| if you're not familiar with the process is an hour or more of
| setting up all the essential and optional dependencies. It's a
| few seconds of snap install nextcloud.
|
| Over distro repos - no dependency version hell.
|
| I don't really love snap/flatpak (too much "magic", hard to
| tweak installs) but I see why they get used.
| raffraffraff wrote:
| Basically because a lot of open source software isn't packaged
| for each distro. Take Joplin for example: not in the repos and
| not packaged into a nice .deb file. Distributed as an AppImage.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| I'd be curious to hear a good explanation as well from someone
| who knows more about this than me. My feeling (and
| feelings/suspicions are all I've really got) is that there are
| 2 factors driving it - maintaining repos is mundane work, and
| containers are fashionable again.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| - disk space (in most cases) is cheap
|
| - they are always up to date and therefore statistically more
| likely to have security holes fixed
|
| - that are (to an extent) sandboxed by default and give you a
| lot of control over that.
|
| - for developers it's much easier than maintaining hundreds of
| fixes for different distro peculiarities. Therefore (for the
| user) they are able to spend more time on the app itself rather
| than compatibility
| emerongi wrote:
| Flatpak's benefits:
|
| - Cross-distro packaging (no need to provide N package formats
| - this one runs on all distros)
|
| - Faster update cycle for each app, if the package is
| maintained by the original developers
|
| - Sandboxing
|
| - Better compatibility all around, as the package runs the same
| on all distros (as opposed to some too-old or too-new module
| breaking something on X distro)
|
| - Some other goodies, like checking new releases of the source
| on Github etc
|
| Flatpak's drawbacks:
|
| - Modules are not shared, which can result in somewhat larger
| packages and potential vulnerabilities
|
| - Many packages are community-maintained by people who are not
| necessarily experts in the Linux ecosystem. Distro-provided
| packages usually have tighter requirements
|
| Personally, I use Flatpaks for the sandbox. I restrict all apps
| very heavily.
| ryukafalz wrote:
| > Better compatibility all around, as the package runs the
| same on all distros (as opposed to some too-old or too-new
| module breaking something on X distro)
|
| I wish this were the case, but as a Flatpak user on Guix
| System I don't think it's entirely true. Flatpak apps still
| do seem to rely on some bits of the system, and they break in
| interesting ways when they aren't where the app is expecting
| them to be.
| bubblethink wrote:
| Snaps are an attempt to move away from the distro managed
| software concept to the windows/android like vendor managed
| software paradigm. It removes the intermediate distro layer
| between third party vendors and users. It can also improve
| security in theory, but there are a lot of caveats to that
| currently.
| nvrspyx wrote:
| Snap is terrible in every sense, so you should never use it in
| my opinion.
|
| As for Flatpak, I'd say use it if you need a more up-to-date
| version of a piece of desktop software than is in your distro's
| repository or desktop software that isn't in your distro's
| repository at all.
|
| For example, I use the Firefox flatpak on Fedora to have the
| most up-to-date version (98.0.2) since the current version of
| Firefox on Fedora (98.0.0) was giving me some issues like
| crashing when downloading something and choppy gifs.
|
| I also use it for some proprietary software like Spotify and a
| game called Vintage Story. Adjusting their sandbox permissions
| with Flatseal is useful in this case.
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| fpoling wrote:
| In theory one gets better security. Distribution or manual apps
| can access and modify everything the user can do. Flatpack and
| Snap tries to address that with a security model similar to
| mobile apps.
|
| In practice for many apps the security protection is non-
| existent or very limited for compatibility reasons. So for now
| the benefits is indeed mostly a store model and auto updates.
|
| If one really needs to run an untrusted app a VM is probably
| the only practical way. It is also possible to run apps in
| various containers, but truly secure setup is rather nontrivial
| with those.
| emerongi wrote:
| Flatpak apps usually come with quite open privileges, however
| the user can completely configure this themselves and
| restrict the access of an application to quite a reasonable
| degree. Unless you distrust the sandbox of Flatpak, I don't
| see a need for containers.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Worth noting that Flatpak's sandboxing is using the same
| container functionality of the Linux kernel as all the
| various other container tools. If containers are secure
| enough than so is Flatpak, assuming you've tweaked the
| applications sandbox settings to your liking.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| In my experience "manual install for something not in the repo"
| applies to a whole lot of software, especially if "latest
| version isn't in the repo" counts, and also usually means
| "compile it from source yourself". Frankly I think that's a
| pretty ridiculous ask, and the fact that Linux Desktop hasn't
| had a good story for installing software outside of the repo
| has been one of the main factors keeping me from liking it over
| the past 2 decades.
|
| There have been a lot of 'universal package' standards over the
| years, and honestly Flatpak isn't the best one, but it is the
| one that the community finally seems willing to adopt to a
| degree that actually makes it worthwhile. Snap, however, is the
| worst of these formats, and by a wide margin, that I can recall
| ever existing. It's amazingly bad and extremely user-hostile.
| cbmuser wrote:
| Flatpak is incredibly useful for installing proprietary
| software.
|
| I use it for Spotify, Zoom, Slack among others.
|
| Installing and updating Flatpak apps for proprietary software
| works very well.
| saidinesh5 wrote:
| The big one being - when you install just an application, you
| don't want it to accidentally pull in the wrong dependency and
| destroy the rest of your system. This is a big problem when you
| use ppas or .debs directly from the app developer and
| accidentally update say libc or gtk. Another example: an
| application you use brings in a python-xyz package that
| conflicts with the same package you installed with pip install.
|
| Also updating the system shouldn't accidentally break the
| application you use either. On rolling release distros this can
| be a pain. You'd typically want the application that the
| application developer tested properly (as opposed to relying on
| your package manager's "testing"). The packagers can introduce
| bugs while repackaging an application for X distro. My Cura was
| broken for so long on Arch linux that i gave up and started
| using their AppImages instead.
|
| Depending on your distro, you also have to deal with headaches
| like XYZ software is only available on Ubuntu 20.04. Tough luck
| that you are running 18.04 on your laptops. (last week i had to
| deal with this problem with clang)
|
| In addition to being self contained with all the dependencies,
| these solutions offer some level of sandboxing too.
|
| On Arch, AUR usually does a nice job of packaging binary only
| applications, so i rarely need to use flatpack/snap/appimages
| but on other distros that can be a pain.
| anotherevan wrote:
| So... I have been using Ubuntu 18.04LTS for my half-dozen servers
| and was planning to replace them with 22.04LTS later this year.
| Bad idea?
|
| I've tended to use every second LTS release, replacing with new
| (cloud) servers during the overlap in support periods. I use
| Ansible to configure.
|
| Should I be considering Rocky or straight Debian instead?
| Something else?
| lvs wrote:
| elmerfud wrote:
| Where Microsoft leads with its bad ideas Linux distros will
| follow blindly. The sad thing is those who decried a Microsoft
| for their evilness of doing things like this are the same ones
| that have turned right around and started defending it in the
| name of "users are stupid so give them less freedom".
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| more like "ubuntu will follow blindly" other big guys like
| redhat, suse, etc have more sane defaults.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-26 23:01 UTC)