upvote

points

by 0x696C69619 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby LtWorf3 hours ago|
next
[-]
I think ubuntu wants to kill desktop linux. No other explaination of why they push firefox inside snap, which then proceeds to constantly crash, when firefox used normally works completely fine.

I haven't tried chromium but I presume it's the same issue.

At work I'm forced to use ubuntu and I placed snapd on hold and added mozilla's own apt repository to my configuration to get firefox.

At least in the past few months the dbus crashes (been using systemd on debian for several years just fine, this never happened) that render the system unusable and un-rebootable have stopped… I guess when my company will decide to upgrade to 26.04 there will be more instability and problems.

reply
upvoteby IlikeMadison26 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
sandboxing a browser makes total sense. my firefox and chromium running as snaps never crashed a single time for as long as I can remember, and I use both every day, at the same time.
reply
upvoteby zelphirkalt1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Firefox installed as a snap feels sluggish to me. When I install a Ubuntu system, the first thing I do is to uninstall any snap and install the apt versions of things, possibly adding official PPAs or using Guix to install software.
reply
upvoteby mrheosuper36 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
why bother with ubuntu at all ? If you want ubuntu but without snap out of the box, Zorin is 1 option. Or if you also hate gnome, linux mint.
reply
upvoteby 18 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby cute_boi4 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Yes, please. Linux distros is better with macos approach. And making appimage first class makes a lot of sense.
reply
upvoteby ChocolateGod2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
AppImages do not work anywhere close to how macOSs .apps do, and even if they did the approach isn't correct for how things work on Linux.
reply
upvoteby tancop3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Appimages are bloated and unreliable. You can't guarantee that your app will run on any machine because it might depend on different system libraries.

Flatpak uses shared stable runtimes that are the same everywhere and don't take up space more than once. It also comes with a native update system and sandboxing. Snap is the same thing but worse.

reply
upvoteby suby2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
My problem with flatpak is that the underlying runtime has a limited lifespan. I used the Sublime Text 3 flatpak for many years, and it was deprecated a few months ago because the runtime it was using was no longer supported. This caused people to update the flatpak to Sublime 4, which is good, but I only have a license for 3. In the end I just downloaded the binary for 3 from their website, and it still just worked. Flatpak still doesn't save you from bitrot.
reply
upvoteby ChocolateGod2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Snap is the same thing but worse

IIRC Snap relies heavily on AppArmor for sandboxing, so on anything non-Ubuntu the sandboxing is non-existent.

reply
upvoteby petre4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I'll avoid it at this point anyway. The Rust coreutils is another reason for that. Snap, monetizing updates, telemetry, enough is enough.
reply
upvoteby voakbasda4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yup. After almost 20 years, I have had enough of their crap. All of my new machines are getting Debian. Can’t wait until I am free of Ubuntu.
reply