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

Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

omgubuntu.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 96 posts

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#41

Post by noirbot »

fareesh wrote: post #36

I switched to Arch a few years ago and I regret not having done it sooner. All the things I was assuming about stability being a problem or having to muck around with complex settings, were all wrong. It works extremely well. My OS and all my apps update once a day - no reboots, no loaders. The AUR is great. When I use my macbook or boot into windows the user experience feels outdated by comparison.

I always hear this and really want to jump in, and then I wasted a full week trying to get Arch to dual-boot on my Framework laptop and just couldn't get it to work. The Arch wiki installation instructions regularly were out of date with the current installer and told you to use flags that didn't exist when setting up your disks.

I assume I'd love it once I got it installed, but for everything I hear about how good the AUR and the Arch Wiki are, it's been nothing but trash to get set up in my multiple attempts.

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#43

Post by bschwindHN »

monster_group wrote: post #5

After using Ubuntu for 15 years, I moved to Pop!_Os (it uses Flatpak and no snap crap). Have been very happy with it.

I really wish Pop!_Os were based on Arch. I like the UI improvements and such that they've made, but I haven't had a good experience whenever I need to install something or update the system.

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#44

Post by doubled112 »

groestl wrote: post #40
doubled112 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've upgraded Arch machines after a year offline and it sounds like that was less painful. Ubuntu has been making some interesting choices lately.

I found lxd very appealing in the beginning, but when they favoured snap as distribution channel, where, apparently, updates and restarts could only be blocked using the firewall [0], I moved away from it. And Ubuntu in general. [0] https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/disabling-automatic-refresh-for...

I liked LXD but had the same issues.

I think OpenSUSE and Alpine have it in their repos as not-snaps now.

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#46

Post by noxvilleza »

agilob wrote: post #6

A few days ago I wanted to update an Ubuntu laptop that hasn't been turned on for over a year. I had steam and brave browser installed using snap. Updating these two took as much time as updating everything else in the system (1.6Gb of downloads). Then I uninstalled brave, which took about 6-8 minutes. The laptop has NixOS today. NixOS has official GUI installer now https://nixos.org/download.html#nixos-iso

Yeah updating flatpaks on the Steam Deck takes ages, and because of the way the SteamOS is set up - you really are incentivized to use flatpaks over actual packages (which could break with updates).

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#47

Post by groestl »

doubled112 wrote: post #44
groestl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found lxd very appealing in the beginning, but when they favoured snap as distribution channel, where, apparently, updates and restarts could only be blocked using the firewall [0], I moved away from it. And Ubuntu in general. [0] https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/disabling-automatic-refresh-for...

I liked LXD but had the same issues. I think OpenSUSE and Alpine have it in their repos as not-snaps now.

Honestly, I could have packaged it myself, but it eroded my trust in the ecosystem. They seem to target a different use case. Which is fine by me, I just won't be in for the ride.

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#48

Post by Izkata »

flakeoil wrote: post #31

Isn't it possible to improve Snap? What are the blocking points? - Apps installed as Snaps are slow to start-up. Why? - Snap from time to time asks to close a Snap-installed app to be able to update and often it seems it cannot update anyway. What is going on with this?

> Apps installed as Snaps are slow to start-up. Why?

Part of the design, snaps are a compressed disk image that has to be decompressed the first time it's started after a reboot.

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#49

Post by groestl »

noirbot wrote: post #41
fareesh wrote: post #36

I switched to Arch a few years ago and I regret not having done it sooner. All the things I was assuming about stability being a problem or having to muck around with complex settings, were all wrong. It works extremely well. My OS and all my apps update once a day - no reboots, no loaders. The AUR is great. When I use my macbook or boot into windows the user experience feels outdated by comparison.

I always hear this and really want to jump in, and then I wasted a full week trying to get Arch to dual-boot on my Framework laptop and just couldn't get it to work. The Arch wiki installation instructions regularly were out of date with the current installer and told you to use flags that didn't exist when setting up your disks. I assume I'd love it once I got it installed, but for everything I hear about how good t…

That's true, it was hard so set it up the first time and get all the details right. However, since then, my Arch Boxes have been an absolute breeze to work with (and my history includes Suse, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, even LFS, ...)

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#50

Post by noirbot »

groestl wrote: post #49
noirbot wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always hear this and really want to jump in, and then I wasted a full week trying to get Arch to dual-boot on my Framework laptop and just couldn't get it to work. The Arch wiki installation instructions regularly were out of date with the current installer and told you to use flags that didn't exist when setting up your disks. I assume I'd love it once I got it installed, but for everything I hear about how good t…

That's true, it was hard so set it up the first time and get all the details right. However, since then, my Arch Boxes have been an absolute breeze to work with (and my history includes Suse, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, even LFS, ...)

Installation when you're not working from a completely bare hard drive seems to stymie so many Linux distros. I keep finding myself back on Ubuntu and Fedora because they seem to be the only two that put any effort at all into making sure you can dual-boot without spending hours reading manpages and hoping a wrong flag won't destroy your bootloader and other OS.
Post reply on HN