Guy called me a nerd just for pointing out Tuxedo even explains on their website how to install snap.
It made a lot of sense after seeing he used to work at Canonical, lol.
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2024
11 points (57.3% liked)
Linux
47151 readers
1359 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I’m of the same opinion as you. I tried to understand why OP has said opinion (that’s why I posted here and engaged with them). Thank you for positively adding to the conversation.
You don't have to install Ubuntu on those laptops. I don't really understand his point. He wants snaps?
Snap annoys the piss outta me because of the forced updates. That said, never ever had a snap package not work for me. Whereas installing some things from apt just doesn't work for whatever reason.
Not wanting to elect dictators is anti-democracy!
Basically the same logic
Type this:
apt install firefox
Into your terminal on Ubuntu and you'll see what is anti-customer.
I switched to Debian, partly because of snaps, what exactly is going on here with Ubuntu?
You can install Firefox only as a snap on Ubuntu. There's no native package on the official repo.
Yup. I had no problem with snaps or Ubuntu until I saw that underhanded bullshit.
I feel like they shot themselves in the knee. Even if it was buggy I would of still tried to use it for fun. However, when they first came out I found out about them because it caused me to be unable to work. I used apt to install a CLI tool and then the CLI tool wasn't working. I tried to manually get it from the Ubuntu repo only to discover it was snap only.
It really pissed me off.
The difference comes when they actively *block* installation (just like Mint does).
Dude's anti-Mint as well. From a different comment, seems like he works (or worked) for Ubuntu.
You know what seems more anti-consumer to me? Trash-talking your competition for making different choices to you with your FOSS they're legally allowed to re-distribute with any changes they like.
It's almost like if people don't prefer those changes or something then they won't be popular? Oh wait, Mint is hugely popular...
I don't think he knows what "anti-consumer" means
Use apt. Its more secure.
Except you can't
I think it's a short term vs long term debate. In the short term snaps are nice. They might help you get that software you want right now. In the long term though, it will only take away some of your rights and make you into a product.
There are also some interesting things to say about wording. Specifically consumer vs user. Software is not consumed, it's used and depending on the specific software, the user might be abused by the people producing and controlling the software.
corporate linux apologists promoting proprietary ecosystems are still corporate apologists promoting proprietary ecosystems
Wonderfully put! Thanks.
Listen, I don't even like Flatpaks, but at least they're multi-platform and non-proprietary.
But the original poster is probably of the opinion that "pro-consumer" means something that "just works", and if it's a walled garden, so what?
"Why is there barbed wire at the top of that wall?" "Don't worry about it."
Not to mention they are optional and not a replacement for something that worked fine.
Genuinely curious: what don't you like about flatpaks?
I find that flatpaks are quite awesome, because you can have any distro, while all apps continue to work (but I'm also not a dev or anything, so don't know about that side of the story).
Duplication of resources mainly. Bloat upon bloat. Worse, a Flatpak can ignore things that it probably should use on the system, and I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Don't get me wrong, there are supposed "bare metal" installs that duplicate all sorts of things too, and I don't like it when that happens either. Steam, for example, keeps at least one extra copy of itself as well as a bunch of other things.
And there's that Flatpaks an entirely different ecosystem that require their own set of updates.
I get it. I understand there are benefits. Doesn't mean I like it.
Probably along the lines of 'its bloated and too many dependencies'.
Though most flatpaks use a common base, any modifications on top of that sometimes need to be stored modified (now having 2 or more copies of one dependency)
To anyone that's not a Linux nerd the app looks about the same size as on all other OS's, but on Linux it makes it a lot larger than just bare bones installing it via package manager
But on the other hand, it works on all distros.
I think the pros outweigh the cons here, no?
Not for everyone, no. For me, each supposed pro has a corresponding con or is just a no-op:
-
Only one package for all distros: Despite what people think, this does not lower the amount of work for the program's creator, who was never required to create any sort of binary package at all. Furthermore, it means that fewer people are checking the package for faults—that's part of what distro maintainers do, y'know.
-
No external dependencies: Not only does this cause disk bloat, but it means that if the flatpak is no longer updated, the dependencies packaged inside it may not be either . . . which is one of the issues that dynamic linking was supposed to avoid in the first place. Might as well just go old-school and statically link the binary.
-
Installations at user rather than system level: Only of value if I don't have admin authority, and I don't have to deal with a single system where that's the case, so this is a no-op.
-
Supposedly more rapid updates: I'm running Gentoo, not Debian ~~fossil~~ :cough: oldstable. If I really want to, I can have my package manager install direct pulls from source control for many packages. New changes every day—beat that, flatpak. Plus, unless there's been a substantial change to a package's build method, I can bump actual releases myself just by copying and renaming a small file, then running a couple of commands.
-
Sandboxing: As far as I'm concerned, the amount of security added by sandboxing and the amount of security added by the additional scrutiny from the distro maintainers is probably about even (especially since the sandbox, as a non-trivial piece of software, will inevitably contain bugs). And I can can throw firejail on top if I'm worried about something specific (or run it in a VM if I'm really nervous). I can understand why this might be attractive to some people, but for me the weight is very low.
.
So I'm left with avoiding bloat and bugs in flatpak's system integration vs. a little bit of security gained by additional sandboxing (which I don't think I really need, because I'm only mid-level paranoid). Thus, I'm not interested in complexifying my update process by incorporating flatpak into my system. Others' needs may be different.
That would be a somewhat valid argument if Snaps "just worked" any better than Flatpaks. That has not been my experience.
Given the choice between an open standard and a proprietary one, the proprietary one damn well better have meaningful technological advantages. I don't see that with Snaps. All I see is a company pouring effort into a system whose only value is that they are pouring effort into it. They should put that effort into something better.
Granted, it's been a few years since I used Ubuntu and Snaps. Perhaps things have improved. It was nothing but headaches for me. A curse upon whoever decided to package apps that obviously require full file system access as Snaps. "User-friendly", indeed.
From an enterprise/server perspective, when what you're really paying for is first-party support, I guess Snaps make more sense. But again, that effort could be put toward something more useful.
I keep expecting them to die like Unity DE
I think that phrases like 'anti-consumer' can stick to any target, so long as they're thrown with a sufficient amount of bullshit.
I have a standing fatwa on snap only because it comes installed and enabled by default on Ubuntu server. Maybe it's good for grandmas laptop but it's kill-on-sight in a server environment. Every Ubuntu server I've seen has eventually been taken offline without any warning because of snapd doing some auto update.
Ubuntu server should have snapd disabled. Ubuntu shouldn't be the default distro for VPS providers. AFAIK its only the default because its the distro most people might have prior experience with.
While I'm at it, Fedora is also on my shit list as dnf requires over a gig of memory to do a major version upgrade.
Wow, I didn't know Canonical apologist is a thing.
Anti-Snap is pro-consumer. Using Ubuntu at all is anti-consumer, I would rather Mint or just Debian.
I'll be honest with y'all. If your decision to not buy something from a hardware manufacturer is based on that they've modified their optional Ubuntu install, this hardware wasn't for you to begin with
That was my thought initially as well. Just install the OS you want, how you want.
Judge Tuxedo's reasonings here: https://www.tuxedocomputers.com/en/Infos/Help-Support/Frequently-asked-questions/Why-does-TUXEDO-OS-not-support-Snap-.tuxedo
I think I now know where I'll order my next computer from.
view more: next ›