What use to be the PPA that allowed Ubuntu users to use native .deb packages for Firefox has recently changed to the same meta package that forces installation of Snap and the Firefox snap package.

I am having to remove the meta package, then re-uninstall the snap firefox, then re-uninstall Snap, then install pin the latest build I could get (firefox_116.0.3+build2-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1_arm64.deb) to keep the native firefox build.

I’m so done with Ubuntu.

      • Holzkohlen@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mint is great. Definitely one of the best distros around. PopOS I’d wait for their new DE. Though with Ubuntu going balls deep on snaps, all those ubuntu based distros hang in the balance. At least Mint got a Debian edition already and they are working on a new version right now. Or just use straight up Debian with flatpaks, which is what I do.

        • Fonzie!@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Mint also does not force either dpkg/apt-get/apt nor flatpak.
          Even its GUI installer is a GUI wrapper around dpkg and flatpak, every application available on both shows a drop-down allowing you to choose between the two.
          You can also change its config to allow other sources, in case you want to add something else like snap.

    • neutron@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m afraid they’ll break off Debian one day. Supporting snap is one thing, sabotaging well established user cases (apt installing deb, not being a snap prozy) is another.

    • Hominine@lemonine.hominine.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What I don’t get is why. What with the recent Red Hat debacle one would think Canonical would make a stronger case as opposed to force feeding the issue.

        • garam@lemmy.my.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          haha… ubuntu on enterprise doesn’t even touch 5% of the market, where 90% of it is RHEL and 5% another is Windows Server and some OSX… so… I don’t think canonical is dumb enough

          *please read, enterprise market, not hobbyist. Hobbyist doesn’t make money for ubuntu. Well if the hobbyist is a decision maker in enterprise, they probably will have effect, but the problem is, most of them opt in RHEL/Clones

  • LiveLM@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Imagine having to fight your OS to do what you want. True Windows experience.

  • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Hot take: PPAs suck and snaps/flatpaks are better.

    With PPAs, inevitably some repo that hasn’t been updated since 2015 causes dependency conflicts and you have to sit there and troubleshoot, or pick between the software you need and actually having an OS that’s not EOL. With snaps, you can keep your decade old dependencies all bundled up and still upgrade your system even if the package maintainer has abandoned it.

    • moonpiedumplings@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The issue people have with snaps isn’t the containerization or the bundles, but the proprietary backend. There is no way to point the snaps at a different store other than the one canonical controls. Canonicals forcing snaps on people pisses a lot of people off because it’s a blatant power grab, an attempt to get people dependent on something they have control over in a microsoft-esque move. Flatpaks and docker don’t have that issue.

  • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You know what, enough is enough. Snaps run like shit in my system (IDK/DC why), I hate companies forcing their shit down my throat, and I was planning a clean reinstall anyway from Ubuntu 20.04 to 22.04. Might as well use the opportunity to go back to Debian. Or Mint. Or Mint Debian Edition. Who knows.

    Next on the news, Ubuntu (“humanity”) gets renamed to Amasimba (“shit”). /s

    • cloudy1999@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      After using it since Lucid Lynx 10.04, I switched from Ubuntu to Mint last weekend. I’m lazy about distros these days, and I really didn’t want to switch, but Firefox instability was driving me nuts. The web browser must be reliable, IMO. It’s a fundamental requirement for a desktop OS, and this problem didn’t exist before snaps.

  • aport@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are several high quality community run distributions which aren’t beholden to corporate tools.

  • Linuturk@lemmy.onitato.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I like the approach Pop OS takes. Their software store lets you choose between deb or flatpak when you install software. I’ve had issues with flatpak versions of some software, and flipping to the deb package usually fixes it.

      • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. Flatpaks are usually fresher than point release distro packages
        2. Flatpaks are distro-agnostic
        3. Flatpaks are easily containerized for increased security and privacy
        4. Flatpaks can guarantee you have a known-good dependency chain directly tested by the developers/maintainers themselves
        5. Flatpaks can be installed and managed entirely in userspace
      • Linuturk@lemmy.onitato.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        When a project doesn’t publish a deb or other native package, or when the flatpak is much newer and has features you need.