What use to be the PPA that allowed Ubuntu users to use native .deb packages for Firefox has recently changed to the same meta package that forces installation of Snap and the Firefox snap package.
I am having to remove the meta package, then re-uninstall the snap firefox, then re-uninstall Snap, then install pin the latest build I could get (firefox_116.0.3+build2-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1_arm64.deb) to keep the native firefox build.
I’m so done with Ubuntu.
Yeah they’re all in on snaps. Vote with your distro choice.
What I don’t get is why. What with the recent Red Hat debacle one would think Canonical would make a stronger case as opposed to force feeding the issue.
Because it’s canonical’s thing they’re marketing to server markets
haha… ubuntu on enterprise doesn’t even touch 5% of the market, where 90% of it is RHEL and 5% another is Windows Server and some OSX… so… I don’t think canonical is dumb enough
*please read, enterprise market, not hobbyist. Hobbyist doesn’t make money for ubuntu. Well if the hobbyist is a decision maker in enterprise, they probably will have effect, but the problem is, most of them opt in RHEL/Clones
You got any data to back that up?
You can look into fortune 500 report on Server stack, and self published red hat report. Red Hat claims is higher, but I will say, it should be at max 90%, not 95% as Red Hat Claims.
https://www.redhat.com/en/about/company
Seems they revise it. hem… the fly-er I got for Red Hat academy promotion written is 95% in 2019… strange…
But anyway, you can see anywhere, on any business medium high, mostly use Linux.
Azure, 100% backed by Red Hat in their Infra, even Microsoft doesn’t deny or agree with it. AWS 100% EL based (old times RHEL, nowdays Fedora), Linode, Scaleway, Contabo, Hetzner, BiznetGio, Aliyun (even their Aliyun/Alibaba Linux is RHEL), OVH, etc. so I will say it’s high enough… that almost entire infrastructure rely on Red Hat Engineering. At least if Red Hat gone, CentOS Stream code still there, Fedora Code still there. The community can continue to develop it.
Ubuntu only popular and first class only on Digital Ocean. No other cloud providers make ubuntu first class other than DO. Sure enough Ubuntu/Debian is there, you can install it, but, it’s not entirely first class as RHEL/Clones
Hate it or love it. Red Hat still the king of mission critical system except in Europe, where SUSE is leading, but SUSE itself is well… have same or near identical to Red Hat… so… welp… kind like in same EL boat.
Some will say data like this https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/stats/linux-statistics.html#The_Most_Popular_Linux_Distribution is more re presentable for general mass, but I don’t think it’s for enterprises…
I’m afraid they’ll break off Debian one day. Supporting snap is one thing, sabotaging well established user cases (apt installing deb, not being a snap prozy) is another.
On my corporate laptop, because they require ubuntu to… well spy on us, I wrote a interface in front of snap to works like flatpak… as snap forcing through on everything I work on…
At least I tried to disable it. and failed, so I wrote a piece of junk code to accomodate my flatpak muscle memory
deleted by creator
Mint is great. Definitely one of the best distros around. PopOS I’d wait for their new DE. Though with Ubuntu going balls deep on snaps, all those ubuntu based distros hang in the balance. At least Mint got a Debian edition already and they are working on a new version right now. Or just use straight up Debian with flatpaks, which is what I do.
Mint also does not force either
dpkg/apt-get/aptnorflatpak.
Even its GUI installer is a GUI wrapper arounddpkgandflatpak, every application available on both shows a drop-down allowing you to choose between the two.
You can also change its config to allow other sources, in case you want to add something else like snap.
The Pop_Shop gives you the option via a little drop down of flatpak/Deb. I’m not sure if the option is flagged by application developers or system76.
Imagine having to fight your OS to do what you want. True Windows experience.
Yes exactly. This is the main problem. It’s one thing to offer Snaps as an alternative, but to force them on users is not the Libre/FOSS way at all.
I switched away to Mint and I’m very glad I did. I’m in control and it works perfectly. Fantastic distro. No Snaps BS and it uses less RAM and is faster than Ubuntu.
I would encourage all Ubuntu users to switch to Mint. You won’t regret it.
It’s no wonder Canonical is partnering up with Microsoft to EEE Linux
You know what, enough is enough. Snaps run like shit in my system (IDK/DC why), I hate companies forcing their shit down my throat, and I was planning a clean reinstall anyway from Ubuntu 20.04 to 22.04. Might as well use the opportunity to go back to Debian. Or Mint. Or Mint Debian Edition. Who knows.
Next on the news, Ubuntu (“humanity”) gets renamed to Amasimba (“shit”). /s
Feeling bold? Try MenuetOS, it even claims to have an http client.
TempleOS and give it a try. The prophet Terry will be smilling from the Heaven TempleOS
Redistribution, reverse engineering, disassembly or decompilation prohibited without permission from the copyright holders.
no
I toyed with the idea of gentoo. Not because I want a rolling distro, but because of that 4chan meme.
Gentoo is very good actually, specially if you have a modern CPU.
I tried it on my desktop, and I never want anything else.
After using it since Lucid Lynx 10.04, I switched from Ubuntu to Mint last weekend. I’m lazy about distros these days, and I really didn’t want to switch, but Firefox instability was driving me nuts. The web browser must be reliable, IMO. It’s a fundamental requirement for a desktop OS, and this problem didn’t exist before snaps.
Why not slackware /s
There’s a simple reason why Mozilla/canonical does this and that is security fixes. Due to the difference in support cycles of Firefox and Ubuntu LTS versions fixes would have to be manually backported to the system Firefox version and newer versions won’t run due to library dependencies. Snap solves all of that.
Don’t get me wrong though, snap is still terrible, but other than flatpak or doing the work of backporting it’s the only option to get security fixes to Ubuntu
Previous to the switch to snaps, Ubuntu was providing the latest version of Firefox built for each supported Ubuntu release. I’m sure this was more work, but the older system library version issue was not a blocker.
But around the same time mozilla shortened the support cycles for their lts releases
But are they actually doing this? I am not seeing any changes: https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa still has the .deb packages
literally every other distribution can solve this problem but Ubuntu can’t?
Not really. After working with CentOS (RIP) for a half decade, that Firefox version was so out of date I was practically in diapers when it came out. Getting the latest version of Firefox was such a pain that my org didn’t bother even if it would have given us some niceties.
LTS and other “enterprise” distros don’t push the latest version precisely because of dependencies.
and newer versions won’t run due to library dependencies.
Mozilla seem to be able to limit library dependencies in their builds: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/system-requirements/
I warned you guys. “It’s so easy, just do these three steps if you don’t like snaps” but then later they tighten the vise
Yeah. I switched away from Ubuntu for all this crap.
I moved to Fedora for my laptop & desktop, and Debian for my home server. I’m considering switching everything to Debian eventually, but there’s a couple dedicated repos that make using Fedora on my laptop much easier for now.
There are several high quality community run distributions which aren’t beholden to corporate tools.
Hot take: PPAs suck and snaps/flatpaks are better.
With PPAs, inevitably some repo that hasn’t been updated since 2015 causes dependency conflicts and you have to sit there and troubleshoot, or pick between the software you need and actually having an OS that’s not EOL. With snaps, you can keep your decade old dependencies all bundled up and still upgrade your system even if the package maintainer has abandoned it.
The issue people have with snaps isn’t the containerization or the bundles, but the proprietary backend. There is no way to point the snaps at a different store other than the one canonical controls. Canonicals forcing snaps on people pisses a lot of people off because it’s a blatant power grab, an attempt to get people dependent on something they have control over in a microsoft-esque move. Flatpaks and docker don’t have that issue.
Hot take: it doesn’t feel nice to have a change forced.
It should be the personal preference of the user to decide whether to use native or snap/flatpak. If native package manager decide to not support the package any longer it would be better to make user aware and stop maintaining app, than to install a snap package. This is a user’s decision.
Also this can have far reaching consequences. Imagine you cannot use/install snaps on your machine due some reason, what now?
I tried so hard to embrace snaps and flatpak. I really did. But the snap service kept bogging down. Installs specifically of Firefox were ponderously slow to start up. And ultimately I ended up with regular installs, PPAs, snaps, and flatpaks all together with their own daemons, update paths, and quirks sucking up my system bandwidth and emotional resources. System was constantly slow. Felt like I was running Windows.
I flipped over to endeavours, really enjoying it. Feels like Ubuntu did in the earlier years. Great support community, lots of choice, but a straightforward path to just using your system if that’s what you’re there for. And the same computer runs a good 25% faster.
Valid opinion and immutable distros like silverblue might be where the future is headed.
It’s not the point though, I’m not going with a distro that tries to force their proprietary solution on me.
Not a fan of immutable distros like Silverblue because you’re giving a lot of control to the upstream, unless you have the ability and time to maintain those system images yourself. And if you’re doing that, except for within an organization, there’s not a huge reason to not just use a traditional distro.
If you don’t want that control, they’re great.
In NixOS you can do an overlay and just make your own package. If the package works, you can submit it to the NUR. If it’s good, you can maintain it in the official channel. I’m doing both, the crappy fork of some GUI is in the NUR, the underlying service is maintained by me in nixpkgs
Or how about… they each have their advantages and disadvantages, and therefore are each better suited to different uses and it doesn’t have to be a competition?
So your saying a Snap based Firefox use case is limited to downloading a different browser… so it’s effectively IE6? I agree, if that’s what you are saying.
PPAs suck, no doubt. But the thing is, if snap is so superior, just switch your whole distribution over to it and be done with it. Don’t do this underhanded switcheroo with individual packages spread over so many years.
The crux here is ultimately that snap just doesn’t look to be up to the task of replacing
.deb, otherwise they’d have already done it. But they still want their proprietary appstore, so they have to make snap relevant by force.I can agree with that only if they solved the problems with extensions and a few other features that were not working with the snap version. If they did not, then they are assholes.
I use keepass to fill login forms, and that does not work with the snap version.
Just curious if you know why? I thought snap was just a package format, not a siloed container.
Hot take: PPAs suck
Agreed. I’d rather install manually than use a third-party PPA. I’ve had way too many problems, especially when it comes time for an OS upgrade.
snaps/flatpaks are better
I see this as a false dichotomy. The point of a distro is to have a wide array of stuff tested and available in official repositories. If the official repositories only contain half-assed snap ports, what’s the point? I either suffer with a shitty Firefox or jump through more hoops than ever before to install it from external sources? Ugh.
I’m on Ubuntu again, and I’ve had it up to my eyeballs with snaps. When the time comes to upgrade again, I’m either going back upstream to Debian, or downstream to a de-snapped Ubuntu derivative.
I haven’t had any problems with using Snap. I am currently switching from Chrome to Firefox. Firefox has ran great with Snaps so far.
But I also have an Nvidia RTX 3080. The Linux community hates both Snap and Nvidia. But they are working fine for me.
I tried PopOS but they didn’t have the current drivers for my Nvidia card, so I switched back to Ubuntu. This was about a year or so ago
I’m on ARM, arm64 to be more specific. There’s no native Widevine package for the browsers. There is a way to rip it from the new chromeOS for arm64, and to then plug it into chromium and firefox… but not with snap firefox. And to top it off, flatpak doesn’t even have firefox or thunderbird for arm64.
LibreWolf is a Firefox fork with features removed which we don’t want (Telemetry, Pocket, …) and a few (privacy) features enabled (which can be deactivated if they’re too annoying). I didn’t had any issues with Firefox extensions as well.
I’m currently using it on Debian and it runs smoothly. Recent Ubuntu versions are also supported and you can install them via your package manager, see here.
I’ve recently distro hopped and the new distro came with Firefox preinstalled (had arch before but with xfs and wanted btrf snapshots).
Do you think its telemetry is so bad? I want to help Mozilla to some extent to keep them working on Firefox as I think Librewolf isn’t showing much usage or support for Firefox itself.
@hornedfiend @Seltsamsel That’s a good question and got me curious. I had a look at Telemetry collection and deletion from Mozilla. You can enter
about:telemetryin the address bar to see what Firefox is collecting (even if it is not being sent).You shouldbea able to turn off from settings. More options are present in the config. You can find github guides doing more hardening for sedurity and privacy.
Not sure about librewolf specifically but most of these firefox forks do these initial setups for you and maybeave a couple of addons preinstalled. You would still be using firefox. Beyond crash reports and some reduced usage metrics turning them off should hinder firefox much.
If you don’t embrace snaps just don’t use Ubuntu.
Hence me now moving off of it.
I like the approach Pop OS takes. Their software store lets you choose between deb or flatpak when you install software. I’ve had issues with flatpak versions of some software, and flipping to the deb package usually fixes it.
Fedora does the same thing where you can choose between RPM or Flatpak. The only flatpak package I’ve ever had problems with was OnlyOffice, and the issue was that the scaling was blown way out of proportions. Switching to the RPM version resolved that.
Mint does this, too!
@Linuturk @PseudoSpock My problem here is that I don’t understand the purpose of flatpak when Deb seems to have everything from my experience, but I’d love to be proven wrong.
- Flatpaks are usually fresher than point release distro packages
- Flatpaks are distro-agnostic
- Flatpaks are easily containerized for increased security and privacy
- Flatpaks can guarantee you have a known-good dependency chain directly tested by the developers/maintainers themselves
- Flatpaks can be installed and managed entirely in userspace
@bear
Thank you for the very clean and clear explanation. I’ll have to give them another chance.and better than snaps in experience…
All of that is good but you are overlooking the small detail that installing flatpack implies using up a lot more disk space than just pulling a distro package.
I can point one specific example with libre office: 3.9GB for the pack vs 785MB for the .deb.
We can argue disk space nowadays is cheap but overloading a machine with duplicated packages also goes against the main goal of running a Linux.
When I first started using it, one of the talking points was that Linux kept the system clean of clutter and that improved longevity for the hardware and delivered stability by not having unnecessary and unused or orphaned and redundant libraries and dependencies.
With flatpacks we get the latest and greatest - I’m a debian fan and I hurt for not getting more up to date software - but we are carting in a ton of junk that should not be necessary.
And the container/sandbox part is not that great, apparently. Debian wiki links to this to further educate/alert on the down sides of flatpacks. Debian is not the ultimate bearer of truth but they do move a lot of respect.
The 3.9GB is not just libreoffice, that number also includes runtimes. At most you would only install maybe around half of your host systems’s packages in runtimes for all the apps you use. There shouldn’t be any more usage than that. And even less if you stick to apps that fit your DE. Like if I just stuck to apps that used the gnome runtimes, I would have a pretty minimal installation.
Unfortunately, the dependency problem is really hard to solve, and at least they deduplicate what they can. Everything else works perfectly as well besides some minor issues with the sandbox connecting to the host system in certain edge cases.
Also please don’t link flatkill, it’s woefully outdated and every point on there has been addressed for years; it should be taken down.
I can point one specific example with libre office: 3.9GB for the pack vs 785MB for the .deb.
You already have most of the major dependencies installed natively as they are depended on for many other packages, and you’re not including the space they take up as part of installing the native package, but you are including them as part of the flatpak.
When I first started using it, one of the talking points was that Linux kept the system clean of clutter and that improved longevity for the hardware and delivered stability by not having unnecessary and unused or orphaned and redundant libraries and dependencies.
Flatpaks literally improve this. The core system itself remains extremely minimal and lean when you use containers, in both the server and desktop space. This greatly improves stability and longevity. We all know how much of a pain it is to do a point release upgrade on a system with tons of installed software. Flatpaks do not have this problem because they are independent of the system and each other.
but we are carting in a ton of junk that should not be necessary
It is necessary, and it’s not junk.
Debian wiki links to this to further educate/alert on the down sides of flatpacks.
Much like Debian packages, the Debian wiki is stale and outdated.
I’m learning as I go. Having imput on my talking points is always a good thing.
I remember dipping my feet into the Linux pool, through Debian, searching online for a given tool/program, just to get disappointed as I wouldn’t have it or the version available from the repositories was extremely outdated or some library required to run it would be as well.
And back then I remember thinking it would be great to have some way to get access to more recent software versions with all the necessary dependencies to run it from a realiable source.
But one thing I always thought should be obligatory was that during installation of such programs, only the resources absent from the system would be added to the installation/system and any other resource bundled would be automatically discarded, thus saving disk space and avoiding redundant libraries present on the system.
Do flatpaks have such working structure?
I am not a programmer of any sort and up until now, everything single information I’ve read states these sources throw every necessary resource it require for running into the system storage, regardless if some/all are already available per the system or other programs.
For me, this implies if I run 12 different programs that share, let’s say 2 libraries, for the sake of this conversation, and such libraries already exist in the base system, by using flatpaks to install each program I’ll be adding 24 redundant files to my hard drive.
For someone that usually runs entry level hardware, as I do, the storage getting full(er) translates into an heavier, sluggish system. Not to mention that only this year, I’ll be finnally running a machine with more than 500GB of storage. Storage space is a concern for me.
When I read on my distro “app store” that installing Libre Office from a flatpak would require 3.9GB after installed versus less than 1/4 of that if opting for the repo pack, the math wasn’t hard to make.
Where am I missing here? What am I failling to understand regarding flatpacks?
Easier system maintenance is a plus, per your words. I’m sold on that point.
But one thing I always thought should be obligatory was that during installation of such programs, only the resources absent from the system would be added to the installation/system and any other resource bundled would be automatically discarded, thus saving disk space and avoiding redundant libraries present on the system.
Do flatpaks have such working structure?
It’s possible, but rarely allowed because that would produce instability. Linux programs are built to rely on a specific version of a library. Depending on how much actually changes, you can sometimes get away with using a different version than the one it expects, but the more it changes the riskier it gets.
One of the major goals of flatpaks was to create a way for developers to ship one build that was guaranteed to run the same regardless of distro or environment. The isolation is very much the point. It does use more storage space, but in most cases it’s not enough to matter. When storage space is at a premium, yeah, you generally want to avoid containers. They trade space for stability.
Pretty much everything in the Linux space is converging on this concept. Desktop is moving to immutability with flatpak apps. The server space has been entirely taken over by containers. Even Valve has shipped a separate Linux runtime for as long as they’ve officially supported it, and they’re progressing on deeper containerization. You can direct it to run against your native packages instead of the runtime, but it’s rarely a good idea.
The point is that it gives developers a single target that they can all rely on, instead of having to account for 20 distros with multiple still-supported versions each. And believe me, these efforts have made Linux so much easier as a user as well. It used to be that lots developers only targeted Ubuntu. Trying to get anything to run on another system was off like pulling teeth. Now, you can almost always expect to find a flatpak instead which runs on any distro.
You mind if I poke the subject for a little more? It is opening a new understanding for me.
Please keep in mind I’m not a programmer, to any degree.
As per what you are explaining, flatpaks working remembers me of a flower blooming on a tree: it uses resources provided by it, adds functions to it but doesn’t alter it in a significant fashion.
But again on the space saving and version controlling.
Let’s take a given flatpak, where 50 libraries are shipped with it to ensure it works properly, on any given distro.
As you already said, library versions between distros can vary wildly but would it be that difficult to have a script running pre installation (I think “connection” is more adequate to describe the process at this point) to check for what already available required resources exist on the system to avoid redundancies?
I can understand that by having this sort of an homeostatic environment aids in assuring a given program will be capable of running on any machine but I can’t shake the intuition that at some point this will backfire. It’s not hard to imagine software to be kept relying on older, perhaps unsafe or not as streamlined versions of given libraries just because the developer is not that motivated to make whatever changes necessary to keep up to date with the new versions, as their software already runs as expected.
I’ll risk it and try it.
- Some software is on the Flathub instead of on Debian’s repos, so sometimes the choice is between Flatpak, AppImage and Snap.
Flatpaks can guarantee you have a known-good dependency chain directly tested by the developers/maintainers themselves
What does known-good mean? What if a security vulnerability is found in one of the dependencies. With an old-style distribution there is a security team that monitors security reports and they will provide a fixed package. With flatpaks it’s not clear to me if those developers will monitor each dependency for security vulnerabilities and how they will handle that. Will users even be informed about a security issue, will a fix be backported or will it only be available in the latest version?
What does known-good mean?
Known-good meaning a tested and working configuration approved by the developers/maintainers.
What if a security vulnerability is found in one of the dependencies. With an old-style distribution there is a security team that monitors security reports and they will provide a fixed package.
Flatpak is just another model of distribution. There isn’t really anything that needs to change here. The bugs are fixed upstream and they get pushed via the method of distribution, which is Flathub in this case.
The security team in a given distribution is charged with getting upstream fixes backported and shipped. There’s no need for this role because they’re just shipped directly in most cases.
With flatpaks it’s not clear to me if those developers will monitor each dependency for security vulnerabilities and how they will handle that.
The developers are usually the ones doing the fixes in the first place.
Will users even be informed about a security issue, will a fix be backported or will it only be available in the latest version?
Well, fixes don’t normally need to be backported because flatpaks are usually fresh. They’re just built normally in most cases.
For notifications, you’d have to follow the relevant projects directly.
Known-good meaning a tested and working configuration The bugs are fixed upstream and they get pushed via the method of distribution, which is Flathub in this case. Well, fixes don’t normally need to be backported because flatpaks are usually fresh.
There are a few assumptions in here in order for that to work: the known-good version needs to be the latest upstream version (otherwise you might not have the latest security fixes) and users need to be comfortable always using the latest flatpak version. Some users might be more comfortable staying on a known stable version for some time.
For notifications, you’d have to follow the relevant projects directly.
Right, and each project will have its own way of handling security issues (particularly when it comes to older versions). Will they point out that versions x - y of their flatpak are affected by a security issue in component z?
When a project doesn’t publish a deb or other native package, or when the flatpak is much newer and has features you need.
Flatpacks include the dependencies with the application. So different flatpacks may have the same libraries over and over, wasting space. RPM/DEB install just the application and each dependency is a separate package, and packages that use the same dependency will share the one copy. So flatpack is better for consistency when running the app because everyone is running the same dependency version, and space isn’t as much of an issue anymore with nearly everything having more than enough storage.
yay! another company damaging itself!
Ubuntu was my first-ever training-wheels gateway to Linux. I started from 8.04 Hardy Heron, and it felt like such a counter-culture move back then and I wanted to be part of the ‘cool’ edgy goth kids that DGAF about the mainstream normies.
15 years later, I still daily-drive windows, but I have many linux boxes for various specialist use-cases, mainly for scripting or self-hosting services, and still have 22.04 server versions running here and there. But this will be my last version of Ubuntu, and the only reason its still there is because migrating them is going to be no fun.
The Ubuntu today feels like a completely different animal than when I started. My breaking point was the ‘upgrade to pro’ message on every
aptrun. I DON’T WANT TO SIGN UP FOR YET ANOTHER METERED ACCOUNT. I use Linux to escape all the mainstream commercialism and monetization once in a while when I’m up for it. Next thing I know, it starts popping up in Linux OS’s and even terminals asking me to login with an account so that I can be monetized.Don’t get me wrong, I know people need to eat and companies need revenue streams to pay their staff. Linux was my occasional escape back to my engineering and tinkering roots, but corporatism is creeping in like what happens to all good things (eventually).
Windows as daily driver?!? :(
Yes indeed, it just works when I need it to. Just 10 minutes ago I regretted installing Arch as I had some trouble trying to get my WH1000XM4 to connect. I was able to figure it out eventually as I was missing a bunch of missing packages for bluetooth and bluetooth audio that for some reason archinstall decided wasn’t part of the core packages. There was zero prompts from KDE as to why the pairing was failing and I had to figure out with some trial and error which ones were missing and which ones I needed. And after doing all that I still couldn’t get LDAC to work.
Seriously reflecting on my life choices right now, should have stuck to a distro with some sensible defaults when I just need shit to work. Of all the problems people have with M$, windows always just worked for me. Perhaps Linux and I just aren’t fated to be together. I always come back a couple of times a year to try out the state of Linux and while it has gotten a whole lot better, its always these little gotchas that result in me telling myself “maybe next year will be the year of linux”, which has been happening for the past ~15 years for me now.
I hope one day those gotchas disappear for you. You said yourself you want to get away from corporatism. Let’s hope that one day, Linux can provide that for you.
Seems like Canonical wants to push snaps now really hard. I hope that Flathub soon implements its payment structure, before companies flock to the Canonical store.
Payment? What for?
For buying or donating (maybe even subscriptions). Both open source and proprietary software. They’re working on it.
Funding non native packaging to absolve distros of their job is not something I would donate to.
I think you’re misunderstanding what the claim here is. The payments are not necessary for Flathub and flatpak (though they take a cut), it’s revenue for developers. Revenue they would have never seen if their app is packaged in distro repos like normal. Implementing payment systems in the native package format is basically impossible which is why no one ever did it. Flathub is giving app developers (whose job is oftentimes thankless) a chance to receive easier funding or even a livelihood. All around a good thing.
Yeah… For years I already suggested anything good but Ubuntu to those interested in trying Linux, but now I’m going to directly tell them not to touch it. Sure, you’ve got lots of online discussions from the past 20-ish years of people teaching each other how to install PPAs for up-to-date versions of programs or drivers and that’s sweet. But how about a distro where that stuff is just available out of the box and one that doesn’t force you to use snaps as if they didn’t cause issues left and right?
