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

Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 624 posts

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#291

Post by rlpb »

Avamander wrote: post #251
rlpb wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The updates are currently awkward as they don't seem to work if the application is running The fix for this is currently being tested: https://bugs.launchpad.net/snapd/+bug/1980271 > before removing alternatives Alternatives remain available for install. They weren't removed.

It's insane how long it takes them to fix bugs in their auto-update mechanism they've forced on everyone. Things like that were reported years and years ago. They fixed the data corruption issue with their auto-update mechanism, but that too existed for years. They also still haven't fixed that disgusting ~/snap folder. It's very obvious by now how little Canonical cares about their users.

> It's insane how long it takes them to fix bugs in their auto-update mechanism they've forced on everyone.

You can disable auto-updates with eg. "snap refresh --hold firefox". See: https://snapcraft.io/docs/keeping-snaps-up-to-date#heading--...

Though not taking security updates for Firefox seems like a very dangerous thing to do.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#292

Post by wankle »

pmontra wrote: post #246
CalRobert wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snaps are getting me off Desktop Ubuntu after 12 years of happily using it.

I moved to Debian 11 and recreated exactly the same quite customized GNOME desktop I had on Ubuntu 20.04. Nothing is missing except snaps.

I've had issues recently with WiFi on multiple different machines on Debian 11 and switched back to Ubuntu, is WiFi working for you?

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#293

Post by jen20 »

account42 wrote: post #283
jen20 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, the "stop the world" distribution model is pretty broken, compared to FreeBSD Ports or similar. I don't ever want a maybe-years-old version of software, even with random security patches applied to it.

There are rolling release and hybrid (stable base + rolling apps) Linux distros as well.

I know - those ones don’t suffer from the same problem, typically.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#294

Post by wing-_-nuts »

minimaul wrote: post #74
YawningAngel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, `pacman -Syyuu` doesn't complete reliably without user intervention, which is far from ideal. I say this as an Arch user - the expectation that I'm going to manually attend to package upgrades in practice leads to me using outdated packages

I'm genuinely curious about this, as I see people say it a lot but it's not my experience at all. I have an Arch Linux desktop (KDE + AMD), I update it every few days, and it's always fine. I also have a shell VM that runs IRC etc that often isn't updated in months, and I run `pacman -Syyu` and everything works fine. I've never had the infamous 'Arch updates are unreliable' issue. Is it certain packages that are more…

Ehem: https://old.reddit.com/r/EndeavourOS/comments/wygfds/full_tr...

EndeavorOS is basically vanilla arch with an installer, I just posted their thread because they were open and transparent about the issue while the arch sub did very little.

When I raised this with an arch dev, I was told they purposely shipped grub's master branch (not release) because they didn't feel like backporting a security fix, and if I couldn't fix a grub issue with no working computer I probably didn't have any business using arch.

Ok then. Went and downloaded popOS from a friends house and haven't touched arch since.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#295

Post by wankle »

groestl wrote: post #226
2b3a51 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad you have something sorted out. Just interested: why not Debian? i.e. still deb based distro? I'm guessing the poster above you wants recent package versions as they went to Arch.

For me it's now Debian on the server (debs) and Arch on the desktop (rolling releases, AURs).

Who controls quality and security in the AUR world? It doesn't seem like something I'd want to trust?

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#296

Post by lumb63 »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #265
lumb63 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canonical seems to be trying to push users off of Ubuntu. I switched to Arch from Ubuntu about 6 years ago after seeing how aggressively Ubuntu would auto-update, and because of Zeitgeist. I would never look back. Arch is customizable, simple (in the sense that there are no surprises; things work as expected), and has a great community. Folks here can argue about snaps or flatpaks, and I can happily use AUR to instal…

I also switched to arch for a bit, but then I was left with an unbootable system after the arch devs shipped grub's master branch as stable. The arch devs were completely unapologetic and told me 'well maybe you shouldn't use arch if you can't recover a system who won't boot' Immediately formatted and switched to pop OS and I've never been happier.

Yeah, Arch is definitely geared toward a more technically proficient user base. Their users, myself included, are typically willing to wrestle with changes like that. Recovering a system that won’t boot is almost a rite of passage in the community, since there’s an expectation that you probably built up the entire boot process by yourself, so you ought to know what it’s doing. For some users, that’s simply not true.

For future reference, if you ever decide to switch back, breaking changes or ones which require manual intervention are usually announced on archlinux.org.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#297

Post by jmholla »

inciampati wrote: post #200
wilonth wrote: post #161

Wow they're still pushing snaps, the project with some the worst engineering I've ever seen. - Extremely slow at doing anything, even the most basic commands. - Ridiculous auto-update mechanism (you can't even disable it wtf). - Random, nonsense limitations (why can't I open dot files and dot directories???). So terrible that for most apps that I installed with snaps I end up installing the deb version later on. What…

My father in law has been driven mad by the snap notification that say you have to close an application within the next 30 days in order for it to be updateable.

And it's not anytime within the next 30 days, it's a time in the next 30 days where it being closed coincides with snaps auto-updates.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#298

Post by doublepg23 »

prmoustache wrote: post #210
tapoxi wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, users don't do it. The application developers do it in their CI pipelines. Application developers should be the ones building and testing the app, not distro maintainers responsible for a dozen other applications.

History has shown that application developers are very bad at releasing good deliverable without too much security holes in the packaged libraries or bad practices. And the sandboxing in flatpak is actually meant to protect users from harm done by clueless devs but it fails because devs can actually build non sandboxed flatpaks and they will do it because they don't care

Why would you use software if you think the dev is too incompetent to package it?

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#299

Post by markstos »

wilonth wrote: post #161

Wow they're still pushing snaps, the project with some the worst engineering I've ever seen. - Extremely slow at doing anything, even the most basic commands. - Ridiculous auto-update mechanism (you can't even disable it wtf). - Random, nonsense limitations (why can't I open dot files and dot directories???). So terrible that for most apps that I installed with snaps I end up installing the deb version later on. What…

I like the security features of Snaps would accept some trade-offs for that benefit, but Canonical started shipping a Snap of a browser with known issues like breaking media keys.

Security improvements are welcome, but that was a feature that seemed important and reasonable to keep working. (Maybe it works now, but based on that experience, I gave up on Snaps until I heard more positive reports).

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#300

Post by wankle »

cabirum wrote: post #267
wilonth wrote: post #161

Wow they're still pushing snaps, the project with some the worst engineering I've ever seen. - Extremely slow at doing anything, even the most basic commands. - Ridiculous auto-update mechanism (you can't even disable it wtf). - Random, nonsense limitations (why can't I open dot files and dot directories???). So terrible that for most apps that I installed with snaps I end up installing the deb version later on. What…

Deleting and pinning snapd is the first thing I do on every fresh Ubuntu install. Next, install ff from mozillateam ppa and chromium from flatpak.

I do the same, pin snap. For Firefox I just download it, it lets me update it from its Help menu then offers to restart itself. I don't use Chromium, use Chrome. It does seem like Canonical is trying to push away all but corporate users, perhaps even all Desktop users.
Post reply on HN