there is simply too much extra crap launched from systemd (I don't have a problem with systemd, just all the extra ubuntu-specific stuff they've added as new daemons) and too many kinda-ubuntu-proprietary things shipped in xubuntu now.
There's also instructions for converting a running system, but I've had no luck with that. It just resulted in an unbootable system for me as it couldn't fully remove systemd there.
I'm going to try 22.04 before deciding, but I'm eyeing Manjaro or Endeavor OS in case I jump ship. I'm also eyeing Qubes OS, but it looks needy and resource heavy.
They are good for server installations as well, except Docker/containers are almost always a better solution. Although the auto updating features make it a good solution for potentially creating self hosted services.
They’re just a terrible fit for the desktop. Unsurprising because they were never designed for the desktop.
Ubuntu’s aggressive approach with snaps would have been bad enough if snaps were the perfect desktop app solution. It’s a lot more frustrating considering snaps are probably the 3rd best new packaging option behind Flatpak sand appimage.
Why have you chosen OpenSUSE and how has your experience been? I've been eyeing Debian, as it's pretty similar and I already have it on a server. My main concern with switching to a completely different distro would be that the packages are sometimes named differently.
Or I could switch to NixOS if I wanted things to be actually better, but the idea that I'd have to spend time nurturing my system just doesn't sound that appealing in 2022.
As for the experience, I mostly like it. There is some re-learning to do (zypper not apt!), but the vast majority of things are the same. Since the distro isn't as popular, there are fewer asked-and-answered questions out there, but most Ubuntu answers work with minimal adaptation and the OpenSUSE wiki is pretty good.
Another downside of going non-Debian is that proprietary software may be less well-supported. I think I only have Steam and Spotify, and they have worked well so far.
> Source?
https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/feature-freeze-exception-seed...
The reason probably being that for Canonical and Mozilla, it is a pain to support/backport multiple ubuntu versions, so why not just support 1 build.
It makes it simpler for them to release as it's directly integrated in their build system.
Considering how small a percentage linux users are, it isn't an illogical decision.
If offering a Deb is such a major issue for Mozilla, why are they still offering a distro-agnostic one that works just fine?
This whole story just doesn't make sense but fits in perfectly with Canonical's obsession with making snap a success.
Most of that work is done by package maintainers that have an interest in the project and package the update for each release.
The projects that usually do make their own debs/rpms/whatever are usually backed by companies that have a strong interest in making their software easy to access. I guess mozilla should be in that group but they aren't.
MS releases full versions of code, Google Releases Chrome, you can get a terraform deb you can get neovim. Not really sure why FF doesn't release one but the way I understand it, FF is kinda back burner for Mozilla so who knows.
Lots of projects seem to producing DEB files. I think they're the most common shared distribution format except for maybe PKGBUILD files for Arch.
Loads of projects have their own package repositories but cross distro distributions like Flatpak and Snap tend to be recommended before the docs refer to the repositories. The extra two or three clicks necessary to get the repository URL seem to make a big difference in popularity.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1523551
> Matthias Versen [:Matti]
> Again, there was never a PPA by Mozilla but rather by the unofficial Mozilla-team and the Mozilla-Team is not Mozilla.
> They are AFAIK a group of people from the Ubuntu community who maintain and provide the Builds for Mozilla.org products for Ubuntu users.
> You have to ask at Ubuntu or ask directly the Members of the Ubuntu Mozilla-Team about the status of those builds and who generates them.
[1] IIRC, it had to do with using the Firefox name even though Debian was lightly modifying sources to remove a couple of things. This was resolved a while ago and the Firefox branding resumed.
If Mozilla was so keen on snaps of their own accord why wouldn’t they be pushing other distros to also pack it up as a snap and/or Flatpak.
Additionally, it is being done by the same folks who drive development of linux-specific features (like wayland support or video decoding acceleration) anyway.
Its so they can screw with it instead of just shipping what Mozilla released.
Building the binaries themselves do. Mozilla does it few days in advance, so at the release they can push everything (and the binaries are available on the ftp.mozilla.org day before, uusually around 16:00 UTC). Other parties can start building their binaries only after the release.
In case of Fedora, it is pushed into the testing stream and only after positive feedback (or few days) it is pushed into the release. If you want it earlier, you can get the tested builds from bodhi (bodhi.fedoraproject.org). You can also see the status of all builds there.
> “This is the result of cooperation and collaboration between the [Ubuntu] Desktop and Snap teams at Canonical and Mozilla developers, and is the first step towards a deb-to-snap transition that will take place during the 22.04 development cycle,” Ubuntu desktop team’s Ken VanDine explains in a Discourse post.
This quote does not in any way support the claim that "Mozilla asked for it". Maybe find better sources for your info.
You're not forced into one method?
I searched for a previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23439326. The linked article is nonsense... and most of the comments are either just as nonsensical or they actually like snap. The one criticism I find is that it is slow. The other seems to be around the idea that Canonical controls it too much for some people to feel comfortable... but other than that, I don't get it.
The other seems to be around the idea that Canonical controls it too much for some people to feel comfortable... but other than that, I don't get it.
I'm not going to accept Canonical behaving like Microsoft.
If you want containers, why would you go with a proprietary canonical technology instead of one of the better open source solutions? After all isn't one of the main promises of containers increased compatibility?
Even the ubuntu derivatives are switching away from snap.
Which is fine, it does what people need it to do for now. Arguably it may fall further and further behind over time though.
It's a container not a vm so I don't think it would help if a package can't be run using the stock kernel.
it's nuts to wait 20 seconds for a program to start up in 2022
My biggest problem with Snap is that trying to install something like Chromium via apt, will, most likely unbeknownst to the user, just install the Snap version instead.
I recently installed Chromium via apt, and it actually installed the snap!
I mean, if I wanted the snap I'll use the snap command. If it's not available via apt just say so and quit. I don't want it to install the snap version when I asked for the apt (.deb) thing.
In this particular case the means to the end matters.
There are alternative solutions: QubesOS uses VMs as the isolation layer, desktop application confinement using firejail with its good selection of profiles tweaked to my liking, systemd-run confinement configured through the vast resource control options made configurable through systemd. There is no reason ~ or even / shouldn't appear completely empty to Firefox the process except for the resources you pass to it (open file, grant download permissions...) or which it needs to run (of course, those would be immutable as far as possible). SELinux and AppArmor are child's play; you don't have a lot of problems of those tools if there are no objects a process could acceess in its namespace to begin with.
macOS I believe is already there in terms of desktop app confinement. Windows is not but at least it has the controlled folder access layer available after they gave up on making store apps meaningfully secure as its own app category (too many escapes/config tweaks possible now). Desktop Linux though has not had squat in that field in the mass market for 2 decades. Basically, you guys run all applications unconfined. Snap is a way to work on changing that.
Not saying though that the current implementation is exceptionally good. It's too slow, and they should have reused systemd or whatever for a thin, tweakable resource control and container layer, not invent a container format from scratch.