Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disabling Snaps in Ubuntu 20.04

kevin-custer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 436 posts

Re: Disabling Snaps in Ubuntu 20.04

#151

Post by jeroenhd »

stefan_ wrote: post #85
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, is it still impossible to disable Snap autoupdates? Even if people should be updating regularly, forcing them feels completely antithetical to the Linux ethos of users having control over their devices.

The Snap team has some experience with this, seeing as how 20.04 has released and you still can't move the fricking ~/snap folder . Creating some generically named top-level folder in the users home directory is a straightforward fuck you to all users. Since 2017: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/snapd/+bug/1575053

Dang, that really sucks. I was planning on updating my desktop to 20.04 but after reading about Canonical pushing snaps and now this thread basically claiming that moving or renaming the directory is impossible because what is in my opinion a design flaw in the entire system design, I think I'll switch to Manjaro or Arch for my desktop instead.

I am on the rolling releases already but I'm not going to install an LTS version that is so deeply integrated with the distributor while at the same time ignores the directory standards so incredible blatantly.

Re: Disabling Snaps in Ubuntu 20.04

#152

Post by RMPR »

waltpad wrote: post #108
coleifer wrote: post #49

Canonical always has tried to differentiate themselves, and they just can't execute. Remember Unity, Mir, Juju, upstart and all the other failed shit they've come out with? Snap is just more of the same. I don't want to run that garbage on my desktop. I don't need more daemons and forced auto-updates and all the baggage. I strongly recommend anyone similarly frustrated to check out debian, which is a fantastic distro…

> I strongly recommend anyone similarly frustrated to check out debian, which is a fantastic distro. It is true that the Debian people are doing a great job. > [...] if you're using Ubuntu and disabling snap, you're fighting against the current and I have to imagine it's going to be increasingly difficult with subsequent releases. Actually, snap was harder to remove in the previous release: you had to rebuild certain…

Give them credits to fix what they have broken?

Re: Disabling Snaps in Ubuntu 20.04

#153

Post by amaccuish »

stefan_ wrote: post #85
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, is it still impossible to disable Snap autoupdates? Even if people should be updating regularly, forcing them feels completely antithetical to the Linux ethos of users having control over their devices.

The Snap team has some experience with this, seeing as how 20.04 has released and you still can't move the fricking ~/snap folder . Creating some generically named top-level folder in the users home directory is a straightforward fuck you to all users. Since 2017: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/snapd/+bug/1575053

I really wish it had been .snap

Re: Disabling Snaps in Ubuntu 20.04

#154

Post by im3w1l »

abrowne wrote: post #131
jannes wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least on Windows you can mark folders hidden without having to change the name. (i.e. the app that created the folder will still find it)

Create the file ~/.hidden and with the line "snap". It will then be hidden from your file manager.

If it's still visible in ls, it's not a fix.

Re: Disabling Snaps in Ubuntu 20.04

#155

Post by alyandon »

sour-taste wrote: post #99
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That’s a bit rich: are they not the #1 consumer distro, which hardly implies they are failing to execute All the hard work to make it a viable OS is done by Debian. Canonical just adds some polish and then wrecks it all with poor design decisions over and over again.

Then why doesn't everyone use Debian?

Debian has its own set of problems. Like the Chromium package maintainer deciding unilaterally several years ago that installing extensions remotely shouldn't be allowed and gated that standard functionality behind a command ling flag.

There was zero documentation on the change and the error you received attempting to install an extension was basically "operation failed". I discovered the cause only because there was an open bug about it on the Debian bug tracker where the maintainer refused to acknowledge the problem. Eventually, sane minds prevailed and that stupid patch was reverted.

So, unfortunately - you'll end up having to deal with people that refuse to look at things from the user's perspective no matter what distro you use.

And yes - I'm still bitter. :-/

Re: Disabling Snaps in Ubuntu 20.04

#156

Post by Koshkin »

readwind wrote: post #29
adito wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think ubuntu also has similar stuff via PPA repository?

PPA is hell. Arch is love and life.

Life, indeed. Reading the (excellent, mind you) documentation and, especially, the wiki is fun, I know, but sometimes I want to focus on something else (like getting things done).

Re: Disabling Snaps in Ubuntu 20.04

#157

Post by amaccuish »

coleifer wrote: post #49

Canonical always has tried to differentiate themselves, and they just can't execute. Remember Unity, Mir, Juju, upstart and all the other failed shit they've come out with? Snap is just more of the same. I don't want to run that garbage on my desktop. I don't need more daemons and forced auto-updates and all the baggage. I strongly recommend anyone similarly frustrated to check out debian, which is a fantastic distro…

The one I'm currently fighting server-side is netplan. I want to use systemd-networkd directly, since it exposes a lot more features than netplan, but getting netplan to stop intervening is a ballache. Like, it's not a systemd service, it has to be disabled on the kernel command line?!

Re: Disabling Snaps in Ubuntu 20.04

#158

Post by corndoge »

jaytaylor wrote: post #6

Kudos to the OP, I'm glad this got posted on hacker news because Snap is so ridiculously broken. Since 16.04, Snaps have been a huge pain for me with running LXC in production environments. By default, Snap applies updates and restarts Systemd services anytime it likes, and there's no way to turn this behavior off! The only way to get around it is to download the Snap package binary and install that directly. Then Sn…

Does anyone know if they fixed the bug where snaps don't work if your home directory isn't /home/, or is on NFS?

Re: Disabling Snaps in Ubuntu 20.04

#159

Post by [deleted] »

jaytaylor wrote: post #6

Kudos to the OP, I'm glad this got posted on hacker news because Snap is so ridiculously broken. Since 16.04, Snaps have been a huge pain for me with running LXC in production environments. By default, Snap applies updates and restarts Systemd services anytime it likes, and there's no way to turn this behavior off! The only way to get around it is to download the Snap package binary and install that directly. Then Sn…

[deleted]

Re: Disabling Snaps in Ubuntu 20.04

#160

Post by RMPR »

bgorman wrote: post #127
hvis wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unity was very good in a lot of respects. Both its UI elements and its performance. Unfortunately, Unity 7 depended on Compiz somewhat heavily, and when it came to writing a replacement of the full stack, Canonical didn't manage to execute. But have you been following last year's improvements to GNOME's performance and responsiveness? A lot of it is Canonical's devs bringing their experience from Unity.

Gnome 3 runs like an absolute dog on my Skylake notebook using Ubuntu 19.10. I don't know what metrics you have been looking at, but as a regular user I "feel" that the UI is constantly lagging during regular use. I didn't think it was this bad when I was using Fedora in the past, but that was a wayland based installation.

Enabling the BFQ scheduler reportedly boosted the responsiveness https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738828 and I can't remember where I saw someone saying it had a positive impact on Gnome in particular.
Post reply on HN