Next time, Gort will install Debian and save himself the trouble
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
833 points (95.7% liked)
linuxmemes
21222 readers
73 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I wish I could have it as easy as Gort. I miss my debian but I want that ZFS built into my kernel.
There is so many distros that are just ubuntu without snaps, is just a matter of picking one of them
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)
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)
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)
Oh, is there a point using PopOS even if I replace the WM?
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.
What's "wm"?
Window manager
The same upside down and right side up.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Installs Ubuntu.
It is Ubuntu.
Gets angry.
Gort is not angry. Gort is calm.
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?
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.
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.
This is why I often choose an Ubuntu derivative like Pop_OS. Most of the same underlying structure with none of the snaps.
Just use Debian or Linux Mint Debian Edition and call it a day.
Or just use one of the many Ubuntu derivatives that don't force Snap?
I would rather run literally everything in docker than use snaps
"Hang on boss, I have to restart the 'ls' container! Just a jiff!"
load more comments
(4 replies)
Idea: snap installer called crackle that just unpacks everything (relatively) normally. Should be primarily for pop os. Snap, crackle, and pop.
I just started tinkering with Ubuntu a week ago. What's wrong with snap?
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)
It’s slow, forced by Canonical, and starts a pointless format war with Flatpack.
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(16 replies)
How many time does Canonical have to do sketchy shit before people catch on? Seriously.
I'm just sitting here having no problem with the few snaps I use
Am I wrong for ignoring snaps and just using apt-get still?
Just use Linux mint
that only works until you need Lua 5.4 which has conflicting dependencies aaand now im on NixOS
load more comments
(3 replies)
Snaps aren’t bad, Canonical might be but then why use Ubuntu?
$ df -h one billion lines of snaps
This annoys me more than it should!
load more comments
(1 replies)
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?
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.
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)
If Canonical gives up on snaps, do we call the current Ubuntu time period "the Blip"?
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)
"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)
view more: next ›