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.
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.
Hot take: PPAs suck
Agreed. I’d rather install manually than use a third-party PPA. I’ve had way too many problems, especially when it comes time for an OS upgrade.
snaps/flatpaks are better
I see this as a false dichotomy. The point of a distro is to have a wide array of stuff tested and available in official repositories. If the official repositories only contain half-assed snap ports, what’s the point? I either suffer with a shitty Firefox or jump through more hoops than ever before to install it from external sources? Ugh.
I’m on Ubuntu again, and I’ve had it up to my eyeballs with snaps. When the time comes to upgrade again, I’m either going back upstream to Debian, or downstream to a de-snapped Ubuntu derivative.
I haven’t had any problems with using Snap. I am currently switching from Chrome to Firefox. Firefox has ran great with Snaps so far.
But I also have an Nvidia RTX 3080. The Linux community hates both Snap and Nvidia. But they are working fine for me.
I tried PopOS but they didn’t have the current drivers for my Nvidia card, so I switched back to Ubuntu. This was about a year or so ago
I’m on ARM, arm64 to be more specific. There’s no native Widevine package for the browsers. There is a way to rip it from the new chromeOS for arm64, and to then plug it into chromium and firefox… but not with snap firefox. And to top it off, flatpak doesn’t even have firefox or thunderbird for arm64.
The NVIDIA driver in Pop!_OS is currently 535.98. I’ve been using a RTX 3080 with Pop!_OS since the pandemic lockdown.
Valid opinion and immutable distros like silverblue might be where the future is headed.
It’s not the point though, I’m not going with a distro that tries to force their proprietary solution on me.
Not a fan of immutable distros like Silverblue because you’re giving a lot of control to the upstream, unless you have the ability and time to maintain those system images yourself. And if you’re doing that, except for within an organization, there’s not a huge reason to not just use a traditional distro.
If you don’t want that control, they’re great.
In NixOS you can do an overlay and just make your own package. If the package works, you can submit it to the NUR. If it’s good, you can maintain it in the official channel. I’m doing both, the crappy fork of some GUI is in the NUR, the underlying service is maintained by me in nixpkgs
Hot take: it doesn’t feel nice to have a change forced.
It should be the personal preference of the user to decide whether to use native or snap/flatpak. If native package manager decide to not support the package any longer it would be better to make user aware and stop maintaining app, than to install a snap package. This is a user’s decision.
Also this can have far reaching consequences. Imagine you cannot use/install snaps on your machine due some reason, what now?
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.
Or how about… they each have their advantages and disadvantages, and therefore are each better suited to different uses and it doesn’t have to be a competition?
I tried so hard to embrace snaps and flatpak. I really did. But the snap service kept bogging down. Installs specifically of Firefox were ponderously slow to start up. And ultimately I ended up with regular installs, PPAs, snaps, and flatpaks all together with their own daemons, update paths, and quirks sucking up my system bandwidth and emotional resources. System was constantly slow. Felt like I was running Windows.
I flipped over to endeavours, really enjoying it. Feels like Ubuntu did in the earlier years. Great support community, lots of choice, but a straightforward path to just using your system if that’s what you’re there for. And the same computer runs a good 25% faster.
I can agree with that only if they solved the problems with extensions and a few other features that were not working with the snap version. If they did not, then they are assholes.
I use keepass to fill login forms, and that does not work with the snap version.
Just curious if you know why? I thought snap was just a package format, not a siloed container.
In my case, KeePass and ExpressVPN could not function. For KeepassXC, this was the reason:
It is impossible to support native messaging when a browser is running as a sandboxed snap. This is a limitation in snapd not keepassxc.
It appears they found some work-around with an extra script after installation as of 2 years ago. Basically, snaps are sandboxed, which is a feature. That wreaks havoc with certain tools, though. ExpressVPN’s browser plugin was having similar problems, and on Linux, that’s you’re only GUI interface for ExpressVPN.
I just checked, and I was updated to the Snap version, and I had no problems with either extension, so they did solve the problems. Therefore, I’m not outraged. Ubuntu has the right to standardize their deployments on a system that makes their work easier or less chaotic - as long as it does not screw over their customers.
Edit: i was mistaken. I still use the Mozilla PPA, so the problems migjt remain.
I get that people don’t like being forced, but otherwise I couldn’t care less about Firefox snap vs deb. All problems I once had have been ironed out. On the contrary, I like sticking to the “recommended” path with more developer focus and hopefully higher stability. For my usecases I have zero problems with snap.
I also hate that anyone would side for snap based browser installation, and that any of you are upvoting it is horribly icky.
I like my apps to be contained somehow. I don’t like all the choices canonical made with snap, but I like containment.
Your responses here tho, yeah. Icky.
I like some things as flatpak or appimage. But not my browsers, I use a hacked in widevine plugin.
For one, the snap version is 115 instead of 116, so it’s reverting me to an older version, which makes firefox want to wipe my profile. Not ok. Two, I was purposely using the Mozillateam PPA to get non snap installations, and they up and changed that on us with no warning. Then there is the matter that firefox as a snap is slower. And finally, I can’t add the Widevine for arm64 plugin to the snap.
Snap for browsers is a terrible idea.
If it works for you, fine. I still have this bug to deal with which makes snaps completely unusable in our environment.
Maybe I should try petitioning for us to at least use Linux Mint.
Same for our student PCs - As soon as the setup includes network homes snap becomes completely unusable. Applications just crash on startup because snap doesn’t allow them to access the user’s home directory
What’s up with the hate on snaps, again, please anyone?
For one, packages aren’t cryptographically verified after downloading them, as is done with apt.
This is a massive security vulnerability.
Verifying a snap package’s authenticity seems to suggest otherwise. What’s the source for your claim?
Your link is just guesses on a forum.
Link me to the official documentation that describes how signatures work.
Main reasons I see being raised a lot are Canonical’s absolute control over the snap ecosystem and the dependency problem inside the snaps, meaning they often ship outdated versions of dependencies which might have known bugs or flaws.
The fact that it is forced on users is mentioned by other people here already. Afaik this is not a thing yet on Ubuntu server, so maybe install that one + the GUI packages? Not an Ubuntu user myself, so this could be oversimplified.
Beyond the complaints about Canonical’s hostility to Flatpak and other formats, but the real risk snap poses is that Canonical has a lot of control over the snap store, and lack of integration with distros beyond Ubuntu.
There’s a vague promise of “new stores” and better integration with other distros but Flatpak is a truly open technology that gives you the option to install apps from ANY source and other distros are collaborating to improve it.
Many have issues with stability. Especially with firefox which comes installed via snap on ubuntu. Similarly compared to deb snaps versions occasionally have weird bugs. I personaaly had an issue with opening files properly using snap but worked fine on deb.
Also its unnecessarily forced. Deb works great and apt is widely used as primary package manager. No need to maintain the system with another one in the mix.
Its also repoted not to work well on otknr platforms like fedora or arch. Other package formats like AppImage, flatpak might be better in that regard though I havent used them.
For me it’s the fact that Ubuntu forcefully shove snap into my system when I want the normal deb install with apt. I’m sure snap has gone better over the years but this is something that I absolutely hate. When I want to use snap/flatpak, I can use snap/flatpak install, and when I say apt install it should be deb install as it’s supposed to be as a Debian variant. Linux tools has always been known for doing exactly what is told, whereas what Ubuntu is recently doing is the opposite of it
I mean the alternative would be to just stop providing the package at all I guess? Like it seems they want to switch to snap.
I think that would be a higher integrity move for sure. The issue of course is how to migrate existing users. If they just remove the deb, many users will just stay on the old version forever. They may never know the snap version even exists.
I get the problem. I just hate their solution.
- There is only a single Snap server, and it is a proprietary one exclusive to Canonical
- Upgrades are pushed in a mandatory fashion, which means things will break if a bad upgrade ever gets pushed
- Snaps have about the same integration issues that Flatpaks have due to their sandboxing, but overcoming them is even harder due to lack of tools on the Snap side of things
- Snaps are mostly Ubuntu-centric, and don’t quite work on other distros
Mostly agree, except the last two points. Snaps are available anywhere…if you so wish (I wouldn’t).
The biggest issue with snaps is that they are SLOOOOOOOW when compared to a standard binary install, or even Flatpak. Most of this has to do with fuse, but when you have many versions of a specific package, it just gets slower and slower.
The local versioning system also takes up a ton of local space by not expiring caches regularly, so it’s not fit for lightweight installs.
Hear me out, why not just use snap?
Because it forces me to have a snap directory in my home dir which I otherwise keep very tidy. At least let me put it in .snap or something like any decent piece of software. The snap developers don’t respect users at all.
I’ve used it a few years ago, it might have gotten better but when I was trying to use it it was annoying as fuck, cross-application links that you would expect to open the browser or whatever other app just didn’t seem to work right and that was kind of a big deal for me since I use Slack a lot.
Also I’d imagine your disk usage would go through the roof with it.
I just don’t see the point in it tbh, what was wrong with Linux package management as it is?
Thank you, but no. I have the pinning correct. The ppa has turned to the dark side.
