831
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TrenchcoatFullofBats@belfry.rip 156 points 11 months ago

Next time, Gort will install Debian and save himself the trouble

[-] toasteecup@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

I wish I could have it as easy as Gort. I miss my debian but I want that ZFS built into my kernel.

[-] drew_belloc@programming.dev 35 points 11 months ago

There is so many distros that are just ubuntu without snaps, is just a matter of picking one of them

[-] woelkchen@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Over time, Canonical will replace close to everything with Snaps. Ubuntu Remixes are not the solution. They just count towards Ubuntu's installed base and validate Canonical.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

Check out the kernel packages from Proxmox, they build ZFS into a debian kernel.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Triton@lemm.ee 80 points 11 months ago

Honestly, instead of trying to remove Snap from Ubuntu, I'd just install another distro (PopOS for example is mostly like Ubuntu but with Flatpak instead of Snap)

[-] someacnt@sopuli.xyz 8 points 11 months ago

Oh, is there a point using PopOS even if I replace the WM?

[-] constantokra@lemmy.one 14 points 11 months ago

Pop is great, even without the wm. The app store is top notch, if you're into that sort of thing. Basically it's Ubuntu minus snaps, so slightly more modern Debian, with good flatpak integration making up for all apt's drawbacks. Perfect for the computer you want to be able to use without dealing with out of date packages or rolling release tinkering.

Even so, the wm is worth taking the time to get familiar with, because it's intuitive enough for a non power user, and you're not going to approach its efficiency in terms of workflow unless you can consistently use several dozen keyboard shortcuts on a more bare bones tiling wm. Anyway, that's my opinion, having used a wide variety of window managers since the 90s.

[-] overcast5348@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago
[-] constantokra@lemmy.one 10 points 11 months ago

Window manager

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] littlecolt@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago

Been using pop for months now. The one thing I have a complaint about my part has to do with Steam. I was drawn to Pop because it had good Nvidia support out the box. Steam flatpak is fine but it can't do some things that the normal deb version can, such as accessing other drives you may have steam games installed on, or that you want to install them on. You have to make some sacrifices with your library setup and your freedom with it when using flatpak.

It took me a while.to figure this out. I like to share it when I can. The deb version of steam is much nicer to use.

[-] Tekchip@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

Flatpak steam can do all that. You just have to learn to control the flatpak sandbox. There are CLI commands of course or you can install Flatseal which is a real nice gui that lets you control the sandbox for each individual flatpak app. https://flathub.org/apps/com.github.tchx84.Flatseal

Just add whatever drive/directory/mount point in the filesystem path for Steam in flatseal and Steam can see it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 63 points 11 months ago

Installs Ubuntu.
It is Ubuntu.
Gets angry.

[-] RacoonVegetable@reddthat.com 13 points 11 months ago

Gort is not angry. Gort is calm.

[-] dinckelman@lemmy.world 50 points 11 months ago

Help me understand. Why would you install a distribution, just to gut what's making it what it is, instead of just getting anything else? Just from Debian derivative perspective, if you hate snaps, why not install something like LMDE Mint, if you need a complete out of the box distro?

[-] Total_Scrub@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago

I think mainly because a ton of open source software will be tested with Ubuntu, and I don't want another thing that could possibly be the problem when it fails to build on my machine.

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago

Problem is that by "unsnapping", you deviate from "Ubuntu". You start having to add all sorts of third party packages, and the more that is needed, the more the value of aligning with a well tested baseline diminishes. Notably, Ubuntu declares an intent to make everything snaps, including the kernel and bootloader.

So it would seem more productive for someone railing against snap to avoid using Ubuntu and avoid bolstering the reputation of something they fundamentally disagree with.

[-] PlasticExistence@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

This is why I often choose an Ubuntu derivative like Pop_OS. Most of the same underlying structure with none of the snaps.

[-] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 35 points 11 months ago

Just use Debian or Linux Mint Debian Edition and call it a day.

[-] EnglishMobster@kbin.social 30 points 11 months ago

Or just use one of the many Ubuntu derivatives that don't force Snap?

[-] mvirts@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago

I would rather run literally everything in docker than use snaps

[-] stoicmaverick@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

"Hang on boss, I have to restart the 'ls' container! Just a jiff!"

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] mvirts@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago

Idea: snap installer called crackle that just unpacks everything (relatively) normally. Should be primarily for pop os. Snap, crackle, and pop.

[-] 13reakingPoint@sh.itjust.works 20 points 11 months ago

I just started tinkering with Ubuntu a week ago. What's wrong with snap?

[-] Ooops@kbin.social 36 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's a bad, slow and inefficient solution for a problem that is already solved. And because nobody would use their proprietary shit over flatpack, they force the users to use it. Even for things that exist natively in the repositories and would need neither snap nor flatpack.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RacoonVegetable@reddthat.com 20 points 11 months ago

It’s slow, forced by Canonical, and starts a pointless format war with Flatpack.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[-] banazir@lemmy.ml 20 points 11 months ago

How many time does Canonical have to do sketchy shit before people catch on? Seriously.

[-] Montagge@kbin.social 19 points 11 months ago

I'm just sitting here having no problem with the few snaps I use

[-] Lexam@lemmy.ca 14 points 11 months ago

Am I wrong for ignoring snaps and just using apt-get still?

[-] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 33 points 11 months ago

Some packages are snaps underneath though. Like firefox.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 14 points 11 months ago
[-] dym_sh@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

that only works until you need Lua 5.4 which has conflicting dependencies aaand now im on NixOS

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 14 points 11 months ago

Snaps aren’t bad, Canonical might be but then why use Ubuntu?

[-] AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago

$ df -h one billion lines of snaps

This annoys me more than it should!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 11 months ago

Could someone ELI5 whats wrong with snaps? I see hate for them all over the place but as an end user with little technical knowledge of linux packaging they seem fine? I can install them and use them, they don't appear to have any anti-FOSS gotchas, so whats the big deal?

[-] vector_zero@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

I think it's another fine example of Canonical pushing its own products rather than supporting and enhancing existing standards (flatpak and appimage), which people are getting tired of. Also, as I understand it, the snap store itself is proprietary and is therefore controlled by Canonical.

[-] bear@slrpnk.net 15 points 11 months ago

The server isn't open source, so Canonical has the sole ability to control snap distribution. It's also yet another example of Canonical's "Not Invented Here" syndrome, where they constantly reinvent things so they can control it instead of working with the rest of the open source community. They also trick you into using snaps; for example if you explicitly tell it to use apt to install Firefox, it'll install it as a snap anyways.

Historically they performed really poorly as well, but my understanding is that they've largely fixed that issue.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] emhl@feddit.de 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

If Canonical gives up on snaps, do we call the current Ubuntu time period "the Blip"?

[-] EvacuateSoul@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Too late, I'm on Manjaro for the TV computer now. Super annoying when all I use it for is a browser for Jellyfin when the update popup shows up all the time and doesn't even update when you follow its instructions.

I know and did the workaround a couple times, but updates through apt is one of the major strengths of Linux for me. Or pacman now, whatever Manjaro has.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

"Ah, come on man, Gort?"

"Come along, Gort."

"Are you talking to me?"

"No, my capybara's name is also Gort."

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
831 points (95.7% liked)

linuxmemes

20707 readers
1004 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS