• yistdaj@pawb.social
    3·
    1 day ago

    Anecdotal, but I have had bad experiences using Ubuntu. I know it’s not a bad distro, and that it contributes a lot (especially historically), but it’s the other distros that take their contributions and add to it that I find worth using or recommending, or sometimes an unrelated distro. It’s the sort of thing I might give money to, but I’ll never want to use directly.

    I think this is what people mean when they say it’s bad - that distros that take what Ubuntu made and add their own touch seem more user friendly.

    • tsugu@slrpnk.netOP
      2·
      4 days ago

      Lmao. As if corporate operating systems were bad. What makes RedHat that much better tho? I want to know. From what I’ve seen they are both bringing a lot of value to the FOSS space.

      • Delilah (She/Her)@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        31·
        4 days ago
        • Fedora makes very minimal changes to downstream. The gnome experience on fedora is the experience the devs intended, for better or worse.
        • It often experiments with new technologies. It was the first to ship pulseaudio out of box. And then again for pipewire. And if it wasn’t the first to install wayland by default, it probably was the first to stop shipping XOrg out of box.
        • It doesn’t install snaps instead of native packages when you run rpm install
        • It’s also Linus Torvald’s distro of choice if that’s worth anything
        • tsugu@slrpnk.netOP
          21·
          4 days ago

          • In my humble opinion, the stock experience on Gnome sucks. No desktop icons, no dock, no minimize maximize buttons, no app indicators. I only use Gnome because of the changes Ubuntu made to it, which can be replicated on other distros with a script.

          • That’s valid. Ubuntu has shipped with wayland by default since some time ago but wasn’t the first one. They don’t seem to adopt the latest technology as fast. Which I like. Even the new LTS still gives you the option to use X.org in GDM.

          • Also true. If you don’t like Snaps and aren’t comfortable with more and more packages being replaced by them, Ubuntu isn’t the distro to use. I don’t mind the metapackages installing snaps instead at all honestly. The terminal clearly says it’s installing a snap. And from my experience they work great. I was recently using wsl and needed yt-dlp. I went for the snap right away and it worked great.

          In fact the only broken snaps I have encountered so far are OBS and curl (which can’t access root directories, making it useless for the script I needed)

  • starbrite@lemmy.zipEnglish
    5·
    5 days ago

    I’d love ubuntu, my only real problem with it is it’s owned by a company and not community backed

  • eco_game@discuss.tchncs.de
    7·
    6 days ago

    I was pretty neutral towards Ubuntu, up until an automatic system update removed my deb Firefox and replaced it with the snap version, even though I specifically set the apt repo to a higher priority.

    The entire reason I left Windows is because I don’t want (for example) Edge shoved down my throat after every update, and yet Ubuntu has gone and done the exact same thing with snaps.

    After literal hours of fighting, the only solution I found was to fully disable automatic updates. With Pop OS I have all the benefits of Ubuntu, but I also get a company (System76) that does cool stuff and doesn’t try shoving snaps down my throat.

    • tsugu@slrpnk.netOP
      1·
      5 days ago

      By doing what exactly? Snap’s server being proprietary doesn’t affect anyone at all, what else?

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.socialEnglish
        21·
        4 days ago

        If apt-get detects that a package you told it to install is also available as a snap it’ll silently install that instead and you have to edit the Linux equivalent of the registry to get it to not do that

        • tsugu@slrpnk.netOP
          3·
          3 days ago

          Not entirely true. I experienced it with curl. Snap of it exists and it mostly works. But apt install curl will install regular curl. From what I’ve seen on my Ubuntu it installs a snap only if the apt package is set to install a snap. Such as Firefox. It doesn’t exist in Ubuntu’s repo anymore, only as a metapackage.

  • drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    3·
    6 days ago

    I learned better in 2012 when they tried to put an Amazon search bar in their start menu, the same thing people are complaining about with windows today.

    If I wanted to use corposhit I would have stayed with windows.

  • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
    3·
    7 days ago

    I don’t get why anybody uses Ubuntu. Just use Debian. It’s basically more stable and functional Ubuntu, but without snaps and you don’t need an entire distro branch for different DEs.

    • Rolling Resistance@lemmy.world
      0·
      6 days ago

      Because it’s a popular distro. Because when you look for “how to X in linux”, there’s a 90% chance the response will be about Ubuntu. Because your workplace said so. The list goes on.

  • Destide@feddit.ukEnglish
    21·
    6 days ago

    The snaps bad echo chamber

    Snaps bad because proprietary

    Pre installed Nvidia good because propriety no wait video games!

    Ubuntu’s mission was always to build bridges between the user and tech and businesses that the gnu side of Linux wouldn’t.

    It’s a good just works distro that has spawned a ton of just works distros and sane server defaults. I see Ubuntu on the same level as macos.

    • Allero@lemmy.today
      21·
      6 days ago

      Proprietary Nvidia drivers are seen as a necessity, not a “good thing”, which is why Nvidia was repeatedly pressured to give up the code. Open-source Nvidia drivers suck in all applications, and if you don’t need anything demanding, you probably wouldn’t have a solid Nvidia card in the first place.

      Gnu side of Linux tries to change the practices used by said businesses, and the more people embrace it, the more pressured companies become to be compliant.

      Any sane copyleft activist (of which there are many in the Linux world) sees this change as a betrayal; security experts and enthusiasts are also not happy about a program doing something unknown sitting on their system.

    • Laser@feddit.org
      21·
      6 days ago

      I don’t like snaps because it’s just another Canonical NIH thing. Everyone else agreed on flatpak which seems to have a good design with portals and all and being fully open.

      On the other hand, you have snaps, which is being controlled by Canonical as the server component is l non-public. The packages sometimes work worse than normal debs and the flatpak version (steam being a notable example IIRC).

      There is 0 motivation for me as a user to look into that. They have solved the problem in one of the worst ways possible. Even Mint, which is Ubuntu’s biggest downstream, has opted against including it by default.

      In addition to all of that, Canonical also installs applications as snap when using the apt\£* command line tools.

      So you have a system that is

      • proprietary
      • worse than the alternatives
      • pushed on users even through unexpected channels

      Ubuntu’s mission was always to build bridges between the user and tech and businesses that the gnu side of Linux wouldn’t.

      Which bridge did they build with snaps?

      It’s a good just works distro that has spawned a ton of just works distros

      Which in turn have removed snaps by default and replaced the affected packages with native ones because it often didn’t “just work”

      • lengau@midwest.social
        1·
        6 days ago

        I don’t like snaps because it’s just another Canonical NIH thing. Everyone else agreed on flatpak which seems to have a good design with portals and all and being fully open.

        Snaps both predate flatpak and do things that Flatpaks are not designed to do.

        Canonical have also been a part of the desktop portals standard for a very long time, as they’ve been a part of how snaps do things.

        • Laser@feddit.org
          1·
          6 days ago

          Snaps both predate flatpak and do things that Flatpaks are not designed to do.

          By less than a year judging by the article… and for individual applications, there was AppImage.

          Snaps can do things flatpaks can’t do. Which is true but also kind of irrelevant if we’re talking about a means to distribute applications in a cross-distribution manner as opposed to a base system A/B partition solution.

          Or am I misunderstanding?

          • lengau@midwest.social
            1·
            6 days ago

            The claim that snaps are a Canonical NIH thing is falsified by those two facts. Even if Canonical said “okay, we’ll distribute desktop apps with Flatpak,” that wouldn’t affect the vast majority of their ongoing effort for snaps, which are related to things that Flatpak simply doesn’t do. Instead, they’d have the separate work of making the moving target of flatpaks work with their snap-based systems such as Ubuntu Core while still having to fully maintain that snap based ecosystem for the enterprise customers who use it for things that Flatpak simply doesn’t do.

      • tsugu@slrpnk.netOP
        1·
        6 days ago

        I like Snaps. They can do more than Flatpak and when packaged well they just work. Sadly some apps on Snapcraft are abandoned or they just don’t work, but the same can be said about Flathub.

        Which bridge did they build with snaps?

        Proprietary companies are compelled to release on Snapcraft because it gives them advantages over other packaging methods. I’m just a user but I heard Snaps are easy to work with thanks to the documentation.

        In addition to all of that, Canonical also installs applications as snap when using the apt\£* command line tools.

        Firefox for example isn’t even in their apt repos. So instead of throwing an error, the Firefox meta package installs the snap, and tells you it’s doing that.

        But I understand that Ubuntu isn’t for you if you want to avoid snaps.

        • Laser@feddit.org
          2·
          6 days ago

          Everyone should use what suits them best. My negative opinion on snaps doesn’t mean Ubuntu shouldn’t ship it or that users shouldn’t use it. It’s Canonical’s distribution, they can put into it whatever they want for all I care, and if users are happy with it, good for them. But I can still criticize it for perceived issues. (Edit: kind of a straw man since nobody said I couldn’t, I just wanted to stress that I’m not authoritative on the matter)

          But I understand that Ubuntu isn’t for you if you want to avoid snaps.

          I used Ubuntu in the past, from I think 2004 or maybe 2005 to 2008, but switched away because of other issues that I don’t remember anymore, but I do remember upgrades between major versions were always pain with an Nvidia card (this was before AMD or in the beginning even ATI cards were well-usable under Linux) and I honestly just prefer rolling release nowadays. But snaps are just not at all compelling anyways.

          • bastion@feddit.nl
            1·
            6 days ago

            This is a solid take.

            Personally, I took snap out of my computer and burned it over a fire, but i toasted my marshmallows first, because I didn’t want snap on my marshmallows.

    • Naich@lemmings.world
      1·
      6 days ago

      The only reason I don’t like snap is because useful mount information gets buried in 5 million “loop” mounts.

  • kekmacska@lemmy.zipEnglish
    11·
    6 days ago

    it uses snap (less packages and security than flatpak), app.armor (less secure than Selinux), has a history of anti-privacy integrations (like sending user keystrokes to amazon), still collects some user data. Tumbleweed is better. Great kde implementation, strong security, a lot of cutting-edge software, stability, beginner-friendly

    • agelord@lemmy.world
      2·
      6 days ago

      sending user keystrokes to Amazon

      That’s a very serious allegation to make without citing any source.

      Still collects some user data

      Someone has already pointed out, no data is collected unless the user opts in. But, my question is what’s wrong with collecting anonyomized telemetry about most used hardware and most used/unused software features? It helps developers make better decisions.

      • kekmacska@lemmy.zipEnglish
        1·
        5 days ago

        when i want to aid development with writing down my hardware, i should be able to send them, not they should collect it from me.

        • agelord@lemmy.world
          1·
          5 days ago

          Most distros let you either opt-in or opt-out of it though. It’s really not as big of a deal as people make it out to be. Besides, the “general” population switching to Linux doesn’t really care about anonymized telemetry.

          Discouraging people to not use a certain distro due to its optional and anonymized telemetry, is foolish.

          • kekmacska@lemmy.zipEnglish
            1·
            4 days ago

            idk but i’d switch to linux for absolutely zero telemetry, or as little as physically possible, while still maintaining a good gaming experience. That’s the reason i’m planning to buy an amd build, not nvidia, i don’t want propertiary drivers even

    • tsugu@slrpnk.netOP
      1·
      6 days ago

      False (except for less packages, that’s true), false, the amazon incident was a honest mistake and only applied to the search bar in unity (even more specifically the amazon lense), and no data is being collected unless you enable it during the install. https://youtu.be/rdPt8WB1lZw

      Also are you serious? A rolling release distro with automated package builds being more secure? Last time I checked Tumbleweed got affected by the XZ exploit.

    • daggermoon@lemmy.world
      1·
      6 days ago

      I hate GNOME lol, I wouldn’t be using Linux today if I had stuck with Ubuntu. If you like it, that’s cool. I respect it, I just can’t stand using it myself.