I know there are lots of people that do not like Ubuntu due to the controversies of Snaps, Canonicals head scratching decisions and their ditching of Unity.
However my experience using Ubuntu when I first used it wasn’t that bad, sure the snaps could take a bit or two to boot up but that’s a first time thing.
I’ve even put it on my younger brothers laptop for his school and college use as he just didn’t like the updates from Windows taking away his work and so far he’s been having a good time with using this distro.
I guess what I’m tryna say is that Ubuntu is kind of the “Windows” of the Linux world, yes it’s decisions aren’t always the best, but at least it has MUCH lenient requirements and no dumb features from Windows 11 especially forced auto updates.
What are your thoughts and experiences using Ubuntu? I get there is Mint and Fedora, but how common Ubuntu is used, it seemed like a good idea for my bros study work as a “non interfering” idea.
Your thoughts?
I think Ubuntu made sense back in the day when Debian wasn’t as user-friendly.
Now that Debian is, it looks like Ubuntu is trying really hard to just be as commercialized as possible.
I still don’t understand the logic behind their paying for updates for certain programs when Debian doesn’t require it.
I think Ubuntu made sense back in the day when Debian wasn’t as user-friendly.
This is a very good point.
When Ubuntu launched, it was a big moment for linux. Before then, setting up a linux GUI was a lot of pain (remember setting modelines for individual monitors and the endless fiddling that took - and forget about multiple monitors). Ubuntu made GUI easy - it just worked out of the box for most people. It jumped Linux forwards as a desktop a huge way and adoption grew a lot. They also physically posted you a set of CDs or a DVD for free! And they did a bunch of stuff for educational usage, and getting computers across Africa.
That was all pretty amazing at the time and all very positive.
But then everyone else caught up with the usability and they turned into a corporate entity. Somewhere along the way they stopped listening to their users, or at least the users felt they had no voice, and a lot more linux distros appeared.
For me, Mint offers everything good about Ubuntu without any of the bad.
That being said, I don’t hate it, but I also don’t recommend it ever to people. The pitfalls that can come up from Snaps, plus the default layout of Gnome, are reasons why a brand new Linux user might struggle with it unless they are already somewhat of a techie.
For ex-windows users like my parents who aren’t tech savvy, I just install Mint, set up their shortcuts and desktop icons, and away they go, happy little penguins.
Every time this is asked, I post the same comment. I used Kubuntu for years and liked it, but more recently they started doing things that annoyed me. The biggest was related to snaps and Firefox. Now, sandboxing a browser is probably a great idea, but I wanted to use the regular deb install, so I followed the directions to disable the snap install and used the deb. However, Ubuntu overrode that decision several times - I’d start browsing, then realize I was using a snap AGAIN. Happened a few times over a couple years. If it happened once, eh, maybe an error, but it happened 3 or 4 times. I came to the conclusion I wasn’t in control of my system, Ubuntu was.
I switched to Debian and am happy with my choice.
I had the same experience on my one gui Ubuntu machine. I also have several headless machines, and due to some shared libraries I always ended up with snapd installed even though none of the packages I was running were installed through snap. I always found it through the mount point pollution that snapd does.
Why do you care if it’s a snap or a Deb? To me the biggest problem with snap is the pollution in /dev/loop*.
I use 1Password and the Firefox snap with no problems. How is the deb different?
The thing is. Snaps isn’t the first controversy.
Canonical, with Ubuntu early on was helping drive things forward, but they reached a point where they started to do things their own way with disregard to the broader ecosystem.
Each time they did this, they cause fragmentation, struggled, and then deferred to the choice the rest of the ecosystem has. The problem with this is that they’re not sharing their effort, they’re just throwing it away.
They merely doubled down hard on snaps which is the latest controversy.
Snaps have their own advantages, but Canonical owns the store. Which becomes its own stalewort
Since when is fragmentation a negative around here? Its part of what makes Foss great.
Personally I don’t consider it a con unless rampant. However in many cases they’ve dumped the projects. It is effort that could have helped along another project.
imo the negative side effect is the wasted effort and the abandonment.
I think there are good kinds of fragmentation (choice and/or competition) and many bad kinds/causes of fragmentation (clinging to abandonware, reinventing the wheel, rejecting reasonable changes, “rewrite it in X-lang”, demanding complete control, style/design choices that don’t actually matter…)
Canonical lives and dies by the BDFL model. It allowed them to do some great work early on in popularizing Linux with lots of polish. Canonical still does good work when forced to externally, like contributing upstream. The model falters when they have their own sandbox to play in, because the BDFL model means that any internal feedback like “actually this kind of sucks” just gets brushed aside. It doesn’t help that the BDFL in this case is the CEO, founder, and funder of the company and paying everyone working there. People generally don’t like to risk their job to say the emperor has no clothes and all that, it’s easier to just shrug your shoulders and let the internet do that for you.
Here are good examples of when the internal feedback failed and the whole internet had to chime in and say that the hiring process did indeed suck:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31426558
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37059857
“markshuttle” in those threads is the owner/founder/CEO.
