341–350 of 645 posts
> I hate that Chromium’s snap takes more than 10 seconds to load on cold boot on a freaking SSD, whereas .deb and Flatpak apps load in 1-2 seconds. Can someone verify this? As someone who will eventually upgrade to 20.04, this is concerning.
Clean install, Ubuntu 20.04. Chromium starts in around a second.
If you're looking for an alternative to Ubuntu but want to stick with a Debian-based distribution, I'll continue to recommend Debian testing. It's a rolling release, so you don't have to stop what you're doing every 6 months - 3 years to install a huge update that changes the way everything works. It's more stable than the name would suggest, as long as you follow a few reasonable best-practices [1]. Software availab…
[1]: https://packages.debian.org/buster/nfs-common
[2]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=621807
Maybe I'm in the minority but I like Snaps. I wish all software would auto-update silently in the background -- when's the last time you even thought about upgrading Chrome? The author of this article claims it's too difficult to find Flatpak apps and that the Ubuntu software center prioritizes Snaps over .deb. Are platforms never allowed to migrate to a new standard? Why is it Canonical's fault that authors of indiv…
My two cents, you don't have to agree but thought I'd just add a different perspective. I prefer my own package manager (pacman) over snaps for the following reasons: 1) I like to upgrade on my own schedule. I use my computer for work, and I cannot have things break in the middle of the day or in the morning, just as I get started with work. I usually save upgrades for when I less things to do, so that in case stuff…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My position is not that certain users would prefer to update on their own schedule. Of course there are. Or that new updates sometimes break things and that's a hassle. Of course they do and it is. The problem is if you want to distribute an important security update, what do you do? Ask everyone nicely to upgrade? How? Again, what % of users will manually update their software? Not a lot. For #2, that seems like a r…
Auto-updating isn’t the only issue. I’m a stickler for security updates; I’m that crazy guy who always reboots his computer immediately whenever there’s an update. I like that Windows forces updates. Even I recognize that this doesn’t make sense in the Linux world, though. Ubuntu is trying to be something it’s not—they’re trying to appeal to a new demographic, and, in doing so, driving away their existing users. Even…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The arrogance in this comment astounds me. It's almost never appropriate to assume that people don't have the right to make decisions for themselves, even if you think those decisions harm them. People have different values and weigh their own decisions against their own values, not yours.
> It's almost never appropriate to assume that people don't have the right to make decisions for themselves, even if you think those decisions harm them But when those decisions affect others? When your computer becomes part of a botnet and is used to attack a target then it's no longer just your problem anymore. The responsibility to prevent this must lie somewhere, either with the user or with the manufacturer. And…
Further your argument draws a connection but its spurious a sufficient difference in degree is a difference in kind. The way in which we comport ourselves while sick have the potential on net to kill millions of people where as the peril implied by users failing to update windows has never resulted in peril of that magnitude. Further one can reasonably suppose that one can with sufficient care design a system where updates are on by default and we don't create perverse situations which inspire many users to turn them off entirely.
For example one in which applications are updated without disturbing or interrupting the users workflow, where updates aren't effective until the user reboots, where applications are isolated from their underlying environments where users can roll back and pin a particular version if a new version is buggy or undesirable. Where major changes to entire user interfaces are rare and opt in for years.
How many are going to bother disabling updates?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My position is not that certain users would prefer to update on their own schedule. Of course there are. Or that new updates sometimes break things and that's a hassle. Of course they do and it is. The problem is if you want to distribute an important security update, what do you do? Ask everyone nicely to upgrade? How? Again, what % of users will manually update their software? Not a lot. For #2, that seems like a r…
Auto-updating isn’t the only issue. I’m a stickler for security updates; I’m that crazy guy who always reboots his computer immediately whenever there’s an update. I like that Windows forces updates. Even I recognize that this doesn’t make sense in the Linux world, though. Ubuntu is trying to be something it’s not—they’re trying to appeal to a new demographic, and, in doing so, driving away their existing users. Even…
> Snap applications auto-update and that’s fine if Ubuntu wants to keep systems secure. But it can’t even be turned off manually. OMG. Is this real? This is the exact reason I use Linux instead of Windows 10 or macOS. I am not a grandma who can't stay up to date on tech news. At the least there should be a toggle for power users. But no, you can only defer it. Am I the only one who doesn't like it when your already s…
...dumb question: Does this apply to Ubuntu Server as well??? Because if so, I'm sticking with 18.04.
Stability and predictability is their main strenght. Each release is supported for a veeeeery long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A colleague of mine was also looking at Ubuntu Core for an IoT project recently, but Ubuntu wanted $15k/y to run a private, branded Snap store - erm.. no. If they really want snaps to succeed, there should be an open source snap store protocol, and 3rd parties should be allowed to run their own stores, just like you can add 3rd part apt repos, for example. We decided on Photon OS, BTW. It's tiny, and perfect for use…
Isn't there some old adage about how if you can't afford something you aren't the target audience. At the larger companies I've worked at you didn't even need approval for 15k/y.
From the marketing, blogs etc, Ubuntu Core does seem to be targeted at everyone, not just people that would drop $15k/y like it was nothing.
It's almost like a trap - it sounds perfect for IoT, so you start wasting your time building a PoC, and then much later you find out about the costs. And as another commenter mentioned, they also charge you for doing updates on top!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with snaps is that they are a stupid way to distribute software that doesn't solve any problem, while introducing many other. Basically a snap package is a container, that means an image of an operating system just to run one software. Just this idea should be considerered stupid, is like saying every software is distributed in a Docker container. It's a great way to waste disk space, and also RAM since s…
There's flat out wrong stuff in this post. First off snap packages don't waste a lot of disk space because they avoid duplication of shared dependencies by using file hashes. Snap packages that need the same dependencies won't duplicate them. Secondly, snap works on pretty much all major distributions just like flatpak (for a list go here https://snapcraft.io/docs/installing-snapd ). One big advantage that snap has o…
The biggest concern I have with Snap is that it’s hardcoded to a store controlled by Canonical. The store itself is closed source. Snaps can be side loaded, but doing so is a huge pain. Snap also requires you sign a CLA with Canonical, allowing them to relicense the ecosystem however they see fit.