[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 03/06/2020 13:03, Martin Gautier wrote:
Meh. It'll go the same way as Unity eventually. I don't use snaps. I remove it from my systems and have successfully managed it with my latest 20.04 laptop. No big deal.Some people like them. Good for them.
This is of course the correct answer, try not to overreact people - especially about things you've not even remotely grasped properly. Ubuntu is still Linux and as such you still have complete control over it - packages are optional including snapd.
ghost@failbot:~$ cat /etc/issue Ubuntu 20.04 LTS \n \l ghost@failbot:~$ snap list Name Version Rev Tracking Publisher Notes snapd 2.44.3 7264 latest/stable canonical✓ snapdI personally have no use for snap - but as usual I took the time to thoroughly investigate it and evaluate it _before_ making hasty and uninformed conclusions. As such I have left the actual snapd daemon installed on my 20.04 systems but have purged all other snaps and prevented it from installing any more. I did exactly the same thing with flatpak, AppImage and containers as well - test first, make informed decision second. For the record this worked out as: AppImage serves no purpose (for me); containers are now an essential part of my workflow and the flatpak ecosystem _did_ turn out to be of some use unexpectedly and is installed on my workstation.
Not upgrading a previous Ubuntu release (which also had snaps by the way) to 20.04 purely because of misconceptions about an optional and removable feature is of course anyone's right but talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face! 20.04 Focal is by far the best release Ubuntu have ever pushed out and if you haven't upgraded yet, my advice is to get on with it. For the really conservative, feel free to wait for the first point release to drop shortly along with the usual new HWE stuff and kernel first - cautious is sensible.
I'd also like to add a note about the pot calling the kettle black - the Mint devs should be the last people to be criticising the Ubuntu devs. If you're not familiar with the long and fractious history between them (mostly from the Mint side, they spend a lot of time criticising the very project that provides them the vast majority of their software base) it would be well worth investigating the long list of stupid stuff that Mint have pulled off over the years. They are basically the _last_ people you should be listening to regarding Canonical missteps. The Debian people are to Ubuntu as Ubuntu is to Mint: when they criticise Canonical it's usually worth listening to them. They likely have sound technical reasons and will explain them in detail.
This is basically chief Mint imbecile Clement doing what he tends to do historically: blow his personal ideas up into a generalised and mistaken conception, bite the upstream hand that feeds him and rile up the weirdly rabid Mint fans against another one of his strawmen. I really don't understand him at all ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To balance things out a bit, I am far from an Ubuntu fanboy or apologist - they make all kinds of mistakes here and there. And because I try to be fair and follow my own rules I've been purposefully retesting a bunch of stuff I don't like recently just because I think I should do. The Mint VM that I used to help fix Julian's wifi issue ended up hanging around and getting thrashed for various things - and to keep Neil happy and me un-hypocritical I even installed Waterfox and Palemoon on it as well. The results?
To my amazement, I got on with Mint much better than in the old days. Honestly, I can see it's appeal now - it definitely has a nice consistent look and feel out of the box, it's quite polished... What can I say? At a push and with a bit of minor modification I could probably use it as a daily driver no problem. I'm even quite looking forward to testing the new 20.04-based release "Ulyana".
Even worse, despite everything I've just said about historical Mint and particularly the lead dev Clement I pretty much agree with him on snaps - they suck. I think Martin is right and they will eventually go the same way as upstart or unity. Technically they are vastly inferior to flatpaks just for a start.
Palemoon and - suppressing laughter here - Waterfox on the other hand... Sweet Jesus, no. It turns out that I wasn't even remotely close to the amount of scorn and derision those two piles of crap deserve. Neither are fit for purpose and if for some reason you are using either of them, stop immediately. Particularly if you are woefully poorly suited to making sound technical decisions and have genuinely deluded yourself into thinking that they are in way "better" or "more safe" than Firefox specifically - you have let yourself down, badly. Both are actively dangerous, deceptive, technically flawed and owned by much, much sketchier organisations than Mozilla. Do two seconds research on the corporate owners of both for goodness' sake.
Well that was longer than intended but my excuse is that building my new batch of kernels is taking much longer than usual because of the bump to 5.7. Apologies as ever for going on at such length!
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG https://mailman.dcglug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq