Agreed.

For any (k)ubuntu refugees, do as I did and switch to Debian!

How do snaps make money for Canonical?

Money is literally the very incarnation of evil via the Talisman it bears.

If they trying to make money then they are, not a fiber of otherwise, Evil.

You’re decision to not recognize the blatant & obvious Talisman does not make you correct. It’s not your choice. It’s the choice of that occult chant and signature.

never thought of “poop os” but I think Pop!_OS is a stupid name, it’s the only reason I avoided it and chose Nobara instead lol

Don’t forget the random punctuation mixed in. It’s like the title of a kids’ tv show.

CosmOS?

It’s almost like you didn’t read the article, because this specific point is addressed.

deb has a ton of benefits that I would like to have by default and not get blocked (until i manually opt out) because a company thinks their format shall rein supreme

I’ve seen a video where the guy installed steam on Ubuntu 24.04. Of course it was the snap. The guy usually tests distro to see of it’s easy to game on it. If the drivers are easy to install, etc…

He usually launches steam, then tests Valheim, Overwatch, Tomb Raider and cyberpunk.

Overwatch didn’t launch, cyberpunk neither. Valheim reported that a service didn’t launch. Tomb raider was OK.

Then he uninstalled the steam snap and installed the .deb one. Everything worked.

Enforcing packages is already something that people don’t appreciate on Linux, enforcing packages that don’t work is surprisingly hated.

Ubuntu is supposed to be a distro for beginners, how am I supposed to recommand a distro when I have no confidence the applications will work ?

How dare people complain about something they don’t like!

That aside, the article is shitty lol

I wish Ubuntu wasn’t standard

You only got part of the quote, and not the part that really is what the article is about.

I understand that Canonical has every right to make the decision about their product. You want to promote Snap over Deb, fine. But don’t do it in a deceiving manner.

And there is a pretty reasonable middle ground:

If you would like to keep your ‘Snap store’ deb-free, fine! At least have the decency to provide Gdebi by default for local deb file installation.

Ubuntu variants are required to use snap if they are to be considered official

Does Linux Mint count as an “Ubuntu variant”?

Time to switch to mbin! The features you might miss are new comment highlighting and the all content view, but these are being worked out and mbin still has, otherwise, way more features.

I do wonder what kind of gardware you have… And if it’s maybe defective?

Fedora Silverblue is in an entirely different ball game. You can’t use dnf because it’s an immutable image based system where you can’t make direct changes to the Root system without making use of the rpm-ostree & VCS mechanisms. You’re making a conscious choice by using Fedora Silverblue, and the pros out way the cons for most people making that choice.
In contrast Fedora Workstation allows you to use dnf just as normal because it’s not an immutable image based system.
Ubuntu doesn’t make use of any such system so their reliance on containerized user-space apps isn’t a technical one.

Well there is immutable, which you probably refer to with Fedoras new distro, and then there is Canonical pushing their shitty snap format, and kinda non-sideloading. Can’t wait for the day when apt only ever allows to install snap packages.

There are reasons why Flatpaks are better, both technical and social.

On the technical side, Snaps add to boot up time, as all of them are mounted on boot, which can make the machine several seconds slower to boot in my experience. I don’t need Thunderbird before I’ve logged into my account, yet Thunderbird is already mounted and partially decompressed the moment I see a login prompt.

On the social side, you can easily host your own Flatpak server. Don’t trust flathub? Set up your own website! Users can add your repo with one command and you’re good. Users even get a prompt on package conflicts so they can pick which repo to use. On Snap, there are no alternative stores. The backend is hardcoded to use Canonical’s infrastructure, the alternative repos need to be installed as Snaps, and Oracle charges a hefty sum to those wanting to maintain a repo.

I wouldn’t be very upset if Canonical migrated to snaps had they implemented their system in a reasonably open design. There are advantages to Snaps over APT packages, for sure, and even though I’d rather see them use Flatpaks instead, a fully integrated Snap environment seems to be working just as well.

Canonical did a lot of things right. Mir was a good idea, for instance. AppArmor is much better than the SELinux tooling that Red Hat ships. They have some excellent dev tools for things like k8s (running on Snap, ironically). Plus, they have one of the best server distros out there.

@babara@lemmy.ml
The difference with Fedora Atomic, which I think you refer to, is that it’s totally open. For example, people started using the OCI containers differently than Fedora intended, which resulted in uBlue and stuff like Bazzite.

Also, no one forces you to use Flatpak. You can still use Distrobox and use Pacman/ APT/ DNF/ whatever you prefer and export your apps that way. It’s just that Flatpak “won” and doesn’t have many drawbacks, and is very convenient. I mostly like them.

And, most importantly, Fedora is the fronteer of innovation.
There were many projects and ideas that failed, but many more succedded (Wayland, image based distros, etc.), and Project Atomic is just one more “testing ground” that is well thought out imo. Therefore people are expecting to “test out” new generation Linux stuff, it’s just part of Fedora. If you don’t like that, use Debian instead.

I can recommend you to give Fedora Atomic a chance, it’s an extremely nice family of distros (e.g. Bluefin/ Aurora, Bazzite, etc.)!

Edit: one more thing is that Fedora is, in contrast to Ubuntu, not controlled by a company. RedHat doesn’t have nearly as much influence as people think, it’s mainly community driven, and therefore choices aren’t (in theory) influenced by $$$

People love using flatpaks instead (yes I know of all the shortcomings, but you can always choose another install method for that broken package).

Not on Ubuntu nor Fedora, but yes: If a “larger” package breaks on update and there is no fix available and I use that application on a pretty much daily basis, then I remove it and install the Flatpak variant.

Flatpaks are slower, do not work super well with Wayland (especially scaling, some applications have GIANT text, some have 5 pixels large text, but fortunately I was able to circumvent those issues for most applications I use via Flatpak), and you need to run another system for updates and updates are friggin slow.

flatpak-update () { 
    LATEST_NVIDIA=$(flatpak list | grep "GL.nvidia" | cut -f2 | cut -d '.' -f5)
    flatpak update
    flatpak remove --unused --delete-data
    flatpak list | grep org.freedesktop.Platform.GL32.nvidia- | cut -f2 | grep -v "$LATEST_NVIDIA" | xargs -o flatpak uninstall
    flatpak repair
    flatpak update
}

On the other hand, the applications provided via Flatpak just work.

And messing with 32 bits multilib dependency hell for Steam or installing pretty much half of Kde just for Kdenlive simply isn’t something I want.

It is absolutely a different situation if it is opt-in. If Ubuntu made Snaps opt-in, people might not like them but it’d be a minor critique instead of fleeing the distro.