21–30 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pop!_OS is a solid Ubuntu-based distro that uses Flatpak in place of Snap (among many other great decisions).
This is why I don't use it anymore: https://support.system76.com/articles/enable-hibernation/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use it only for Spotify
Can’t you just use the web site?
> 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?
> 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?
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…
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.
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
We switched over to Fedora, way better
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.
Just switched to Fedora about a week ago because I was getting fed up with user hostile Ubuntu bs, I like it a lot.
> 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?
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
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 unin…
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 would say "use the snap". I think LXD is in that case, for example.