Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
You could always use a distro made by sane people.
I have also used Ubuntu when they sent out those free CDs. And for work when they had the Unity desktop (12.04 LTS). It was a good distro once.
I am pretty happy with the Arch (btw) I installed as a VM on Ubuntu 12.04 and then used as my main OS on the new work PC since 2017.
As a user of Windows my entire life, I've tried Ubuntu and Manjaro before and went back to Windows. I randomly felt like trying Linux again recently and set up Debian 12, and am finally not going back.
Yea do it. It boggles my mind why anyone would use Ubuntu at this point. Makes more sense to use Mint, even.
Kind of crazy that Ubuntu has some packages exclusively as snaps...
Crazy is installing a package through apt and having it install the snap.
This... If I wanted an app in snap form, I would install it through snap instead. But installing an app through apt redirects to snap? No. It's ridiculous and unacceptable.
It makes sense that they don't want to maintain 2 versions. What doesn't make sense is that when you ask it for an apt, instead of saying "this package isn't avalible as an apt" and maybe "by the way it is available as a snap if you want", it just installs the snap without telling you.
Canonical is not maintaining fuck-all. They're just re-distributing Debian packages (sometimes with a few patches on top at most). The Debian team is doing all the heavy lifting of packaging software (including
firefox-esr).It's not a technical limitation that Canonical doesn't offer firefox as a deb. It's an intentional attempt to trap people into their walled garden.
I didn't say it was a technical limitation, I said it was laziness. Even if they just straight up take the deb from Debian, they are still responsible for if it works well on Ubuntu.
Anyway, it's hardly a very good trap. You can still download the deb from Debian, or use Mozilla's ppa, or use flatpak. Or hell, snap is the main difference between Ubuntu and Debian at this point anyway, so just use any other Debian distro. I hate to be the person defending Canonical here as I vastly prefer community distros, but when the vast majority of people are using OSs from Microsoft, Apple and Google, painting Canonical as a big greedy villain sounds like a joke.
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-deb-apt-ubuntu-22-04
Unfortunately this is the best you can do with Ubuntu based systems