Ubuntu Starts the Package Manager Wars

[raymac46]

https://www.howtogeek.com/874510/kubuntu-lubuntu-and-other-ubuntu-flavors-are-making-a-big-change/

 

Flatpak support will not ship by default in Ubuntu derivatives starting with the April 2023 release, named “Lunar Lobster.” It will remain installed for anyone upgrading from an older version, as long as they’ve used it in the past.

Edited February 23, 2023 by raymac46

[sunrat]

It would be advantageous to include a pertinent quote when posting a link so we can decide if it's worth loading.

This is about Ubuntu not shipping with Flatpak OOTB. Not a big change considering their obsession with snap.

 

Ubuntu should be banned from calling themselves Linux IMO.

[securitybreach]

Canonical has been trying to distance itself from Linux for years now and become their own brand.

[abarbarian]

I thought the idea of open source stuff was that folks could decide what they wanted to do and then go and do it. The article in my opinion is written in a way to make Canonical look like a bad actor.

 

Quote

Some Linux desktops have pushed back harder against Snap, like Linux Mint working directly with Mozilla to offer a non-Snap version of the Firefox browser.

 

Whilst the above may be true. It is also true that you can install FireFox non-Snap in any linux distro as normal practice. I do not see Arch/Fedora/etc as pushing back hard against Snap just because Arch/Fedora/etc offer a non-Snap FireFox.

 

Quote

The change can certainly be interpreted as Canonical pushing its own app ecosystem over competitors like Flatpak, especially when it has done so in the past.

 

Every business on the planet will push for the adoption of their own preferences. Nothing new there then. Underlining the last part of the sentence is a clear attempt to make you think that this is a bad thing.

 

Quote

Many apps are available through both Snap and Flatpak, and presenting both choices (in addition to a PPA option, if available) isn’t a great user experience, especially when each version could have different advantages and disadvantages.

 

Funnily enough a great many articles written concerning linux and open source state how wonderful it is to have many different choices and ways of doing things. The writer seems to be swimming against the tide here.

 

Personally I do not have any love for Canonical or any of the buntu's. Partly as I am not a fan of Gnome or KDE which used to be the buntu's main offerings way back. An why would I jump ship from the one man in charge of Windows offering to the one man in charge of the buntu's  offering. 

 

[crp]

I'm left wondering if the person who wrote the article understands the ecosystem of Linux'es.

How many Linux systems have one and only one repo setup?

and wait till the person finds out that you can install outside of a package manager.

 

 

[securitybreach]

47 minutes ago, abarbarian said:

I thought the idea of open source stuff was that folks could decide what they wanted to do and then go and do it. The article in my opinion is written in a way to make Canonical look like a bad actor

 

Canonical has a long history of trying to make money over the open source model by selling out their own userbase. Think deals with microsoft and adding amazon search to their menu among other things. Just wait until they release their IPO this year.

[raymac46]

3 hours ago, sunrat said:

It would be advantageous to include a pertinent quote when posting a link so we can decide if it's worth loading.

This is about Ubuntu not shipping with Flatpak OOTB. Not a big change considering their obsession with snap.

 

Ubuntu should be banned from calling themselves Linux IMO.

Done.

[raymac46]

Quote

Whilst the above may be true. It is also true that you can install FireFox non-Snap in any linux distro as normal practice. I do not see Arch/Fedora/etc as pushing back hard against Snap just because Arch/Fedora/etc offer a non-Snap FireFox.

The default behavior for Firefox in Ubuntu is to be installed as a Snap package. Using apt doesn't work unless you configure a PPA and pin that PPA's version as default. Ubuntu doesn't offer a non Snap package now.

 

https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-deb-apt-ubuntu-22-04

Edited February 23, 2023 by raymac46

[crp]

4 hours ago, securitybreach said:

 

Canonical has a long history of trying to make money over the open source model by selling out their own userbase. Think deals with microsoft and adding amazon search to their menu among other things. Just wait until they release their IPO this year.

I have absolutely no problem with that.

[securitybreach]

6 hours ago, crp said:

I have absolutely no problem with that.

 

Which part?

[raymac46]

Long term I believe Linux Mint may as well switch to Debian for its basis. I've run both Snap and Flatpak and both seem slow to update and launch - mind you I'm using them on old hardware. As a casual user I think they are both a solution to a problem I don't have. The whole issue seems like the old VHS vs. Betamax format wars of the 1980s.

[V.T. Eric Layton]

I'm old. It's really nice when things don't change much... or ever.

 

Slackware - because it doesn't change much nor very often

[crp]

7 hours ago, securitybreach said:

 

Which part?

all parts.

[crp]

interesting, certbot insists on 'snap' being used regardless of distro.

 

[abarbarian]

On 2/23/2023 at 12:50 AM, raymac46 said:

The default behavior for Firefox in Ubuntu is to be installed as a Snap package. Using apt doesn't work unless you configure a PPA and pin that PPA's version as default. Ubuntu doesn't offer a non Snap package now.

 

https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-deb-apt-ubuntu-22-04

 

You can always use " dkpg " to install to any Debian based distro. It ain't exactly rocket science.

 

https://www.wikihow.com/Install-Software-in-Debian-Linux

[abarbarian]

On 2/22/2023 at 11:31 PM, securitybreach said:

 

Canonical has a long history of trying to make money over the open source model by selling out their own userbase. Think deals with microsoft and adding amazon search to their menu among other things. Just wait until they release their IPO this year.

 

I agree that Canonical is nearly as bad as Microsoft in their business practices. However FUD and badly skewed articles are not much better.

[raymac46]

1 hour ago, abarbarian said:

 

You can always use " dkpg " to install to any Debian based distro. It ain't exactly rocket science.

 

https://www.wikihow.com/Install-Software-in-Debian-Linux

That may be OK for Debian but Ubuntu as far as I can see won't offer a .deb package so it just brings you back to snap.

[raymac46]

I don't think the article is all that skewed although it might be a bit clickbaity. If you want Chromium and Firefox in upcoming Ubuntu releases and you don't want to workaround via a PPA, you are going to get a snap package. It is what it is, and if you are OK with it, it'll work for you.

[abarbarian]

20 hours ago, raymac46 said:

I don't think the article is all that skewed although it might be a bit clickbaity. If you want Chromium and Firefox in upcoming Ubuntu releases and you don't want to workaround via a PPA, you are going to get a snap package. It is what it is, and if you are OK with it, it'll work for you.

Quote

#4th method using Debian binary

6. Use the Firefox executable

Well, in this method we are not using any kind of package manager instead here we will download the FireFox package manually from the browser’s official website.

To makes things a little bit easy, we can get the Firefox executable using the wget tool

wget -O ~/Firefox.tar.bz2 "https://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-latest&os=linux64"

The file we get will be in Tar archive format, let’s extract and move it to some safe location such as /opt.

sudo tar xjf ~/Firefox.tar.bz2 -C /opt/

Create a new symbolic link for your downloaded firefox version.

sudo ln -s /opt/firefox/firefox /usr/bin/

https://www.how2shout.com/linux/4-ways-to-install-firefox-browser-on-ubuntu-22-04-lts-jammy/

 

Quote

The good news is that you can install a Firefox deb on Ubuntu 22.04 (or 22.10) with a couple of commands. You fist add the Mozilla Team PPA, install the Firefox deb from the PPA, then ‘pin’ the package to ensure that the Firefox Snap is not reinstalled at a later date.

https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-deb-apt-ubuntu-22-04

 

Or you could use the " dkpg " method I posted about earlier. So there are many ways to install a non Snap/Flatpak FF on Ubuntu. Just saying.

[securitybreach]

Wow!!! Why is it so difficult now??? Before, a simple sudo apt-get firefox was all you needed to install firefox on ubuntu. I do not understand why Ubuntu wants to complicate things with PPAs and Snaps, I thought Ubuntu was the "easier" distro to use. Good thing I always suggest LinuxMint to new folks. I couldn't imagine a new user running commands just to get a very common browser installed, its ludicrous.

 

H***, Archlinux is easier to use in that sense, sudo pacman -S firefox.... done.

[raymac46]

3 hours ago, abarbarian said:

So there are many ways to install a non Snap/Flatpak FF on Ubuntu. Just saying.

Sure it can be done but it requires a lot of extra work and most new users will just go with the defaults - which will be a snap package.

As apt is just a front end for dpkg and using apt will just default to snap I don't see how dpkg on its own will work. You will not have a .deb package for Firefox in the Ubuntu repo.

Edited February 25, 2023 by raymac46

[raymac46]

1 hour ago, securitybreach said:

Wow!!! Why is it so difficult now??? Before, a simple sudo apt-get firefox was all you needed to install firefox on ubuntu.

Yep and Linux Mint had to install its own .deb package for Chromium and also now work with Mozilla to get a .deb package for Firefox. It can't get either of them from the Ubuntu repos now.

If you want to run your browser in a walled garden you may as well just get a Chromebook.

[raymac46]

One other point. If you do a fresh install of Ubuntu Kinetic or Lunar you will have Firefox as your default browser but it'll be delivered as a snap package.

[Hedon James]

1 hour ago, raymac46 said:

One other point. If you do a fresh install of Ubuntu Kinetic or Lunar you will have Firefox as your default browser but it'll be delivered as a snap package.

another example of why I left the Ubuntu camp.  I appreciate having choices....shall I install from repo, a downloaded DEB package, a SNAP, or a Flatpak?  But when you start making my PREFERRED choices difficult to obtain, I'll go where MY CHOICES are respected and prioritized.  I think Barbarian said this reminds him of Microsoft....shoving things down your throat the way Microsoft wants it done.  And I agree with him.  But what really floors me is that Ubuntu pitches itself as a viable alternative to Windows, with the freedom to curate your OS the way you want it.  I suspect many Ubuntu users are Ubuntu users because this message was well received by those Windows-migrators.  But now Ubuntu is doing the very same thing(s) that Microsoft did, which caused folks to abandon Windows.  In effect, they're voluntarily ceding the "higher ground" they created for themselves.  If Ubuntu dictates your choices like Windows did, and one can leave the Windows ecosystem and still get things done, then users will figure out they can leave the Ubuntu ecosystem and still get things done.  Ubuntu has a history of this....it's like they never learn their lesson.  They've never slit their own throat, but they have 1,000 scars from paper cuts.  And they keep doing it.

 

If SNAP really is a "superior" technology, masses will adopt it and uptake will solve itself.  If you have to FORCE the uptake, that tells me something too.  I'll stick with my native repos, thank you very much, and supplement with DEB packages to fill in any holes of packages needed but not provided by repos.  I might consider a SNAP or a Flatpak, if it was as easily accessible to install and just as functional as a "native" package.  But if it fails either of those tests, I've lost interest; and if it fails both of those tests, it just ain't happening.  I'd rather compile from source and make my own DEB for installation.  JMO...

[raymac46]

If you choose one of the "mainstream" distros and just install and go with the defaults you may find it hard to evade Flatpak or Snap technology. Linux Mint is delivering some of their themes as Flatpaks.

But a browser is absolutely an essential part of any O/S and to give no choice and install something that is noticeably slower to launch seems to me to be a regression. I am sure Canonical has a rationale for doing this but what it is escapes me at the moment. Red Hat has put a lot of development time into Flatpak so I am sure they have their reasons as well. All too complicated for my little mind, unfortunately.

[abarbarian]

3 hours ago, raymac46 said:

I don't see how dpkg on its own will work.

 

Hi there your right there is no FF non Snap in the Ubuntu repos. You would have to download straight from the main Debian repos then use dpkg. A bit of farting around but not too difficult. One of the articles gives a way to get a non snap FF and keep it updated too.

 

If folk do not like Canonical's way of doing things then there are plenty of other Debian based distros to choose from. 

 

 

[crp]

On 2/25/2023 at 9:31 AM, abarbarian said:

If folk do not like Canonical's way of doing things then there are plenty of other Debian based distros to choose from. 

 

Canonical didn't fully buy Debian?  

[securitybreach]

13 minutes ago, crp said:

Canonical didn't fully buy Debian?  

 

They barely contribute upstream

[Hedon James]

12 hours ago, securitybreach said:

 

They barely contribute upstream

what they do contribute seems to be summarily rejected.  Upstart, Ubiquity, Unity, Snap...I could go on.  For some reason, the linux community at large does NOT like Ubuntu.  I wonder why?  Is it jealousy?  Is Shuttleworth a 1st class jerk?  Ubuntu seems to get "shunned" a lot, and I just wonder if that's a "cause" or an "effect"?  I started with Ubuntu circa 2009ish, but now in the Debian camp, and I can see both sides of the argument.  But I can also see there's more than meets the eye here.

[Bookmem]

4 hours ago, Hedon James said:

what they do contribute seems to be summarily rejected.  Upstart, Ubiquity, Unity, Snap...I could go on.  For some reason, the linux community at large does NOT like Ubuntu.  I wonder why?  Is it jealousy?  Is Shuttleworth a 1st class jerk?  Ubuntu seems to get "shunned" a lot, and I just wonder if that's a "cause" or an "effect"?  I started with Ubuntu circa 2009ish, but now in the Debian camp, and I can see both sides of the argument.  But I can also see there's more than meets the eye here.

It might just be my impression, but I've felt for a long time that Ubuntu is attempting to find a way to monopolize the Linux market.  But nobodies buying it.  Every time they introduce their own tech, it gets rejected.