Ubuntu has gotten fairly pretentious in it's nature. I remembered it being like one of the best distros to use. I've fallen off from Ubuntu since 11.10 though.
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2024
80 points (93.5% liked)
Linux
53385 readers
672 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 AlpΓ‘r-Etele MΓ©der, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
it has a gui installer (i use arch btw)
Snaps, Ads, and how many projects they've let go.
Snaps, they are against one of the main tenants of FOSS. Obscure content validation and reduction in free access.
I just hate snaps because they're dogshit and don't fucking work.
I made the unfortunate mistake of doing sudo apt install docker dotnet -y on a dev machine, thinking that I was going to get correctly packaged deb installations of those two tools.
After about two hours of having neither fucking tool work, I found that Canonical highjacked the deb installation with their shitty snap packages, which didn't fucking work thanks to the shit sandboxing that snap tries to do.
Don't fucking waste your time with Ubuntu. It's an actual liability.
And also, their singular promise (security and trust) keeps getting undermined by third parties using it to ship malware.
So we're asked to give up control but we're not any safer for it.
There's nothing bad about Ubuntu, but Canonical rips a fat line and says, "I'm going to make my own display server, with black jack, and hookers!" Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, innovation is good and all, but they release a steaming pile of crap that doesn't really integrate well into the rest of the Linux ecosystem. They spend years telling everyone that their display server is the best thing ever and no they won't offer any alternatives or integrate it into any of your systems thank you very much.
Then 10 years later they unceremoniously dump it in favor for whatever everyone else has been using.
I just wish they would funnel all that innovation upstream instead so everyone benefitted instead of just Canonicals bottom line.
The .deb format has serious impairments toward validating content.
Security people shake their heads when "how do we know" fails, and build/rel people can't answer the question "is that what's expected" for all files.
It's a major difference between enterprise Linux and debuntus, and I've been in groups where this breakage has eliminated that branch of Linux distros from opportunities.
I don't really have any experience with enterprise Ubuntu (we use RHEL at work and I'm not a sysadmin anyway) but its kind of hard to blame that all on Canonical since they inherited it from debian.
I mean, I'm sure you could change the package format that your nascent distro uses, but at that point you might as well make a completely new, unforked distro since you're basically rewriting the entire system.
That's what Ubuntu's doing with Snaps. Ubuntu Core is their "Oops! All Snaps" project.
There's lots of examples. Mir, Unity, Snap, PPAs, and more.
I think Ubuntu Core is a bad example. Immutable distros is where the industry is headed for a lot of good reasons, and it makes sense for Canonical to jump on that train. Snaps are bad (although honestly I do like that they can package server apps unlike flatpak, that's cool), but the concept for the distro is not.
Ubuntu Core is all snaps. That's the selling point.
The selling point is that it is immutable, not that it uses snaps (which it does). Fedora does the same thing with Silverblue and IoT. You don't install rpms, you install flatpaks. You can install rpms, but you're not really meant to.
Since Canonical refuses to get onboard with flatpak (for now) they use snaps instead of debs, but snaps aren't the direct appeal.
The whole idea is that you have a core system in a known configuration. Updating the system just means using a different image. If an update fails, then you just roll back to the last good configuration. Bazzite uses this to nice effect too.
There are a lot of advantages to end users and enterprise admins with systems in this configuration.
I'll give some anecdotes.
- A friend long ago was setting up VSCode and Java. He wasn't the most familiar with Ubuntu, or Linux at all -- imagine his struggle when his JDK couldn't be found. Why? Non-obvious to him, it was sandboxed as a
snap. - When I was a noob, I was looking for a package for some app, but when I found a PPA, it was an enormous command to set up. And hunting online for software... how Windowsy.
- When I was a noob, I was theming my system with a mildly rare theme. But Firefox was a
snap. And since the theme didn't have asnap, I had to try to integrate it myself or de-snapFirefox... shiver
Maybe it's changed now. But (1) pushed me to Mint, (2) pushed me further to distros with simpler text-based package management, and (3) is hopefully easier nowadays.
Bottom line (as many agree): Snaps are uncomfortable for a lot of levels of Linux.
For me: not Gentoo.
Generally I recommend OpenSUSE Thumbleweed or Slowroll.
For me, Snaps are the thing. Ubuntu has chosen to use Snaps even for things readily available on other distros / in many repos without the need for Snap.
Linux is about choice, and making that kind of decision eliminates some choice. And given that Ubuntu is commonly recommended for new users -- partly because it is often one of the few distros with official support for stuff -- it's extra annoying.
Edit: in practice, there are many Ubuntu-like distros that are probably just as good for new users and don't need the Snaps (e.g. Mint). But new users won't know this. If Ubuntu were not the behemoth it is in terms of name recognition, many people would care less.
Snaps obscure content from validation also.
Snaps also can't be mirrored locally or lifecycle controlled in an enterprise environment, as the server portion isn't open source.
They can, through the Snap Store Proxy. You can fully airgap the process and host a local mirror.
As far as I know, you're still locked into their ecosystem, though.
Yes. One more reason why they are against a major benefit of Linux.
I guess it is different reasons for different people. But for me, I started using ubuntu in 2005. When I was learning linux, it was just not complete enough. You install another DE/WM, to try it out, and stuff started to break. So I switched pretty quickly. I tried to return every now and then, because it had an environment of newer packages which I waned/needed. But it was never worth it, this or that always broke when you tried to do something peculiar. I use ubuntu every now and then, but it is mostly no good. The issue is really just snap. Snap firefox on rpi, which is the default, is just trash and unusable. It is crazy that they made it the default. I have also had servers where snap-services just eats too much cpu and first thing I have to do is to purge it. So, in summary, I don't really trust them to provide a reliable system, and I am sceptical of their direction.
Ubuntu initially positioned itself as a staunch advocate for free software, reflecting its roots in the principles of open-source freedom and collaboration. This ethos is captured in early mission statements and community declarations that emphasized the "freedom to use, share, study, and improve" software.
Today, Ubuntu still mentions its commitment to free software, as noted on the Ubuntu Community Mission page, which emphasizes building tools accessible to all and maintaining an ethos of openness and collaboration. However, its approach has evolved to include a pragmatic balance between free software and proprietary solutions.
To me, it's just death by a thousand papercuts. It doesn't have any unique selling points that I'm aware of, and it's slightly worse than my preferred distro in every way that the two differ, at least as far as I can think of.
Canonical, the owners of Ubuntu, love to steal open source projects. They'll help a project with development power, then force the contributors to sign a CLA (for an example see the fork of LXD called Incus). Canonical also uses and forces proprietary systems onto the user's, e.g. Snap uses the proprietary and hardcoded Canonical repository, which Ubuntu now defaults to using Snap for installing packages.
Side note, if it wasnt for Snap using a proprietary backend and also depending on AppArmor (generally regarded as a weaker MAC than SELinux), I would prefer Snap over Flatpak. It creates a better sandbox (aka the actually Security of the software), avoids sandbox escapes, blacklists against broad permissions (e.g. $HOME access), and Snap packages generally have stricter permissions (which determines the real-world security of Snap). Sandboxing is very important for Desktop (and server) security. Android is does the best job of this, but it would be nice if projects like Sydbox, Crablock, or Bubblejail were adopted and built-in to the package manager.
But even without any of the previously mentioned problems, I just think Fedora is a better OS. Fedora comes preconfigured with SELinux policies to confine system services they are quicker to adopt new technologies. Fedora is also a semi-rolling distro, meaning packages are quicker to get updated than on Ubuntu. Fedora stays FOSS, where as Ubuntu becomes more locked down. Also, the package Brace made by the developer of DivestOS is great for quickly hardening a Fedora system.
Snaps are the worst, but there are relatively easy ways to rip that shit out
Having said that, for the rest I like Ubuntu reasonably okay. Going to try KDE neon which should be a bit newer
@phoenixz @liop7k , I hated snaps on the desktop, but I find myself loving them for my server. On desktop, yeah the orchestra of protocols and desktop intercommunication suffered a lot when I used snaps. But on a server, seems to allow me to be the laziest administrator I have ever been, only needing to update my ultra minimal Ubuntu OS.
Apt lays allowed me to be lazy, never had an issue with -by now- thousands of servers over 20 years
I've used ubuntu on and off for years. They have a history of questionable choices. Like making users opt out of Amazon searches. Or using unity. or abandoning unity. The most recent thing that made me switch was forcing snap packages on me, which would then be annoying with updates. I switched to debian stable with gnome and flatpak, and haven't missed anything about ubuntu since.
It's still a fine distro. The Amazon thing was the only egregious problem IMO
view more: next βΊ