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

301–310 of 624 posts

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#301

Post by shrimp_emoji »

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.

Shilling Manjaro as the best of both worlds, imo.

It's a user-friendly and maintained Arch with some goodies like kernel switcher and driver updater GUIs.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#303

Post by manuelabeledo »

PlutoIsAPlanet wrote: post #275
manuelabeledo wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The last app image I've installed took 800 MB. It was approximately 720 MB of libraries, and just 80 MB of core program. Using self-contained images is simply not scalable. This is one of the points they are missing with snaps and flatpaks. These formats might be OK for desktops, but are absolutely awful for servers, containers, etc., which, incidentally, are where Linux dominates. Do I want to spend my time worryi…

> These formats might be OK for desktops, but are absolutely awful for servers, containers, etc., which, incidentally, are where Linux dominates. Containers have already won the war on the Linux server, there's no point Flatpak etc trying to compete here. Additionally, desktop software is a complete design paradigm to server software. I wouldn't even say they make sense to be in the same package manager. Although the…

> Containers have already won the war on the Linux server, there's no point Flatpak etc trying to compete here.

There are things that you just cannot run inside a container.

Also, in cloud environments, default provisioning is not done with containers, which makes sense, but directly causes the issues I mentioned, e.g. Amazon provisioning SSM on Ubuntu Server instances.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#304

Post by Tuna-Fish »

wankle wrote: post #292
pmontra wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What wifi chip are you using? Debian by default has no unfree wifi drivers included, so that can cause issues with them. If you have a good wifi adapter by a vendor that pushes drivers upstream like Mediatek, it should work just fine out of the box.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#306

Post by curt15 »

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.

It's like they were inspired by Microsoft's worst practices.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#307

Post by tomxor »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #249
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.

In my case Debian’s old package versions can often be awkward because I’m not using Linux exclusively… my macOS and Windows boxes are running latest releases of most things which can cause problems with e.g. sync features. I usually run Fedora rather than Arch though, because in my limited experience with Arch it really doesn’t like to not be booted into for extended periods of time — if you do that the piled up upda…

That's kind of ironic considering how ancient some of MacOS's userland is.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#309

Post by calvinmorrison »

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…

snaps just create so many weird sandboxing issues with the environment. If I run "firefox" with it already open it will not create a new window, it will wait 30 seconds and generate "firefox is already running".

I tried about 10 times to get mysql workbench running, but it depends on some key store backend through dbus, I haven't be able to get the conncetions working through snap so i cannot access a database since, for whatever reason, it has to go through the keystore.

The failure message? 'dbus-launch' does not exist.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#310

Post by groestl »

wankle wrote: post #295
groestl wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nobody, but the specs are so simple you can audit them yourself usually. For me it's mostly about low friction packaging my own software tbh.
Post reply on HN