221–230 of 362 posts
I don't think comparing ppa's to snaps is a good comparison.
ppa's have the disadvantage of potential dependency problems which might break things like upgrades, and that has nothing to do with having a distributed store.
snaps solve this and that has nothing to do with a proprietary single company controlled store.
Semi-related: Does anyone else feel like Ubuntu has lost a lot of its momentum over the past few years? I don't hear about things they're doing nearly as often anymore.
Things they're currently doing that benefit the larger Linux community as a whole: - still engaging with vendors into making hardware work on Linux - they're contributing optimizations to gnome 3 - their still massive user base is testing stuff, discovering bugs and then those things get fixed upstream or at least get into Debian - making bad decisions so people jump off Ubuntu and go back to Debian, my beloved distr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A mounted FS per installed application so you can run different versions side by side. I like it for large standalone apps, less so for command-line utilities. It easily beats untarring some third-party thing to /opt.
> A mounted FS per installed application so you can run different versions side by side. Does it strike anyone else as very telling that people looked at the problem of "we can't install more than one version of an application at a time because of how we structure our filesystem and hardcode paths" and decided that the solution was "let's give each application its own filesystem!"?
Is this another whining post? Here is what I think. Ubuntu actually works. Wont crap out every other month. Most stable OS for linux are all ubuntu based. Even Snap works. So why is there only one snap store? Coz if there were more, they would be crap/dogshit like 99% of linux OS are. Go back to what ever OS you like. You are not needed. Useless free loaders.
People will be angry with your bluntness, but you are absolutely, irrefutably, correct. Ubuntu is so much more stable and capable than any other distro that is ridiculous. If Micro$oft or "Crapple" gave users similar levels of reliability that other distros did, every single user on HN (EVERY SINGLE ONE) would be frothing at the mouth criticizing them. Hell, until F32, Fedora would not boot to a usable system after i…
That reminds me of the stake Ubuntu Core was born with in its heart: > An Ubuntu SSO account is required to create the first user on an Ubuntu Core installation. They just keep flinging shit at nothing and hoping to hit a wall they can build a gate in. They're trying to boil the frog slowly with Snap on the Server/Desktop branches. There is no possible genuine motive for these maneuverings to be in the position of ga…
To be completely honest, if Canonical ever wants the theoretical "year of the Linux desktop" to happen, they need a way to get proper cloud accounts working. A big part of the value of Apple's ecosystem is iCloud. Microsoft has done the same thing with the syncing and cross platform capabilities of their Microsoft Accounts. Most Linux users today don't care much if they need to create separate email, cloud storage, b…
These OS-cloud-account systems may make sense for businesses but they absolutely don't help home users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What distro are you using? I've been using multi-monitor setups for years, and it works with zero configuration on Ubuntu and Debian.
With more than 1 (high end) video card?
Going with just US figures the average spent on a computer in 2020 is 632 usd total. A high end card on the other hand is $400 to $800 each. a 2000-3000 pc with 800-1600 in graphics hardware is probably somewhat up there in the 99th percentile of configurations its pretty niche even so I cannot imagine any even technical challenges whatsoever with all the monitors hooked to the same GPU whereas a high end card ought to support 3 monitors.
So now are we talking about a 2000-3000 dollar pc with 2 dedicated GPUS with 4+ monitors?
Brief research seems to suggest this is challenging. Improving it would also seem not to benefit many users. Even talking merely about windows gamers only 1% used crossfire or sli.
There is even a plausible solution for people who want lots of displays so long as they are ok with a single gpu.
Although supporting 2 to 3 monitors is incredibly common there are actually cards which support 4-6.
For example
https://www.newegg.com/asrock-radeon-rx-5700-xt-rx-5700-xt-t...
There is probably no good solution for multiple GPUs + multiple displays because virtually nobody uses it now and longer term it seems even less will.
The logical decision is to go with the strongest single GPU with enough outputs for the monitors you plan to drive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upstart existed before systemd. I used to think it was NIH syndrome, but its initial release was in 2006, whereas systemd's was in 2010.
It's not just a release date issue. It matters (to me, at least) that Canonical was doing it's thing, RH invents something shortly after that trounces Canonical, Canonical makes futile attempts to save the ship before finally dumping the project. For example, Upstart. RH invents SystemD, Canonical stays with Upstart until, like, 2017 before giving up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow - strong language. Can I ask - do you contribute meaningfully to any open source packages? Do you buy software at a significant commercial level? I've noticed this sort of total absolutest, outraged, scorched earth style sometimes comes from the free riders. At least in some businesses I've worked with - if you can eliminate customers that approach things in this way your staff are happier, your life more relaxed…
> Can I ask - do you contribute meaningfully to any open source packages? Yes. > Do you buy software at a significant commercial level? No. > I think Redhat did the gatekeeper to 30 billion route. Where's the RedHat app store? Which version of RHEL is targeted at embedded devices yet requires an internet connection to install to validate your SSO credentials? Their business model is support and to my knowledge they h…
I think the key phrase here is "to the extent that is practical" — it depends on your definition of practical. I say this as someone who likely has a similar definition to you.
Self-hosting, for various definitions of that, needs to be easier and more seamless for more people to want to do it. There are some products/services that aim to address this; there need to be more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The same "you are dead to me" ragers are often knee deep in google account / xbox account / netflix go anywhere accounts etc. While I am not GP, I am what of these people. I stay as far away as I can from cloud accounts unless I have the option to self host. I self host Nextcloud and I am soon going to self-host Matrix. I use F-Droid for my phone apps.
I think it is great to use F-Droid or Nextcloud if you want to! You can also use Debian or Arch if you want to. Why is it so bad that Ubuntu tries to innovate in their own way? It's not that there are no other linuxes to use?
I will keep my distance from the proprietary walled gardens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Red Hat did use upstart before adopting systemd FWIW.
> Red Hat did use upstart before adopting systemd FWIW RHEL added support for Upstart as a hybrid with SysV, however it was never heavily used and not by most of their own packaged RPMs. Spin up a CentOS 6 server, install a bunch of daemons then go compare /etc/init/ to /etc/rc.d/init.d/.
SystemD has managed to gain near-ubiquitous usage, to the point where plenty of upstreams now only ship systemd unit files, but I would argue that this change was first initiated by the introduction and adoption of Upstart in both Ubuntu and RH.