• drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours 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.

  • Destide@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours 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.

    • Laser@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours 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”

      • tsugu@slrpnk.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours 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.

    • Naich@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

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

  • chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 hours 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 minutes 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.

    • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Because you don’t have to know what to do already if you start with Ubuntu. You have to know your way around the Linux world more if you use Debian

  • edg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    Ubuntu in ~2015 was peak Linux (for me). Everything worked flawlessly with zero bugs, even printers. It’s been downhill ever since with the exception of Steam Proton, but even then I’ve had more bugs with Steam in the past couple years then I did in 2013.

  • soloner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I can’t tell if this in-fighting on Linux flavors is in good humor or just snobby opinions.

    • BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

      false dichotomy. Sometimes people justifiably dislike something for reasons beyond elitism (e.g. Canonical is a for-profit corporation that muddies the waters of FOSS), but it’s also not just playful bants.

      Also, as with every opinionated topic: do your own research and think critically. Don’t hate Ubuntu until you have tried it and have investigated those who maintain it. Don’t praise it until you do so either.

      I don’t care if you come to a different conclusion than me, as long as you didn’t just function on the “wisdom of the crowd”

    • rtxn@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Like most things in life, it’s somewhere in the middle. Some of the criticism is factual and valid. Some, a matter of taste (mostly relating to GNOME). Some arises from negative personal experience. Some is just elitist bluster.

      The best thing to do is to be rational and critical. Never dismiss an opinion outright without separating the truth from the bullshit.

    • tsugu@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I think it’s just elitism. The worst example is Chris Titus making a video where he explains why you shouldn’t use Ubuntu. And then proceeds to make video explaining how it’s not actually that bad and he uses it with a different DE.

      But now 300K people saw that Ubuntu bad for stupid reasons, from a “reputable” source.