Trying Out Ubuntu 17.10 On A Laptop One Month Ahead Of Release

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • johnc
    Official X.org Fanboy
    • May 2011
    • 2276

    #21
    Originally posted by JeansenVaars View Post
    I know Ubuntu people is working hard, but this may be too rushed and too risky...
    Not uncommon for Canonical though. Even in their latest LTS Plymouth is still broken and I see no signs of it being fixed. And it was working fine going all the way back to Oct. 2010, as far as I see.

    Canonical has no interest in providing something other than a half-broken unpolished mess. Unfortunately this kind of spirit of mediocrity is ubiquitous across the Linux spectrum.

    Comment

    • theghost
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2013
      • 346

      #22
      Originally posted by MagicMyth View Post
      One thing worth noting (according to OMGUbuntu) is Ubuntu seems to have borked Flatpak in Gnome software in there attempt at pushing Snaps. The Gnome Software devs have done nothing to block the integration of Snaps into Gnome Software so this seems cheeky to me as it was Richard Hughes who basically created Gnome Software and it was Richard Hughes who integrated Flatpak really well into it and is responsible for AppStream - important to to get the best out of Gnome Software. Something as far as I can tell Canonical is being stubborn about integrating despite the fact that devs have pointed out it would solve many of their distribution issues.

      IMHO Flatpak is the better option for desktop apps and Canonical should get on board rather than fracture things further. However, I am not outright against Snappy as it is basically a better docker than docker. Snappy's design is well suited to server application/service deployment. Canonical should reposition Snappy specially for servers as it fits perfectly with their cloud products which is there bread and butter. As Flatpak is 100% desktop app centric it will never challenge them there.

      On a side note. Is it Snaps or Snappy? I see it written both ways everywhere and I've just done that myself!
      The system is called snapd and the packages are called snaps.
      They haven't borked Flatpak, Flatpak is just not installed by default (we know the reason why, to promote snaps).
      Also Flatpak is outdated because no one stepped up to apply for SRUs. As it means additional work, no one of Canonical will do it. But you could do that if you have time and care.
      They focus on snapd to establish a store for paying customers (if that contains desktop users, not sure).
      That Canonical does not care for Flatpak is somewhat understandable, they don't want to promote a concurrent product for snapd but I think this strategy is not going to work out, atleast on the desktop. Furthermore it hurts the user experience once more and drives away users because something is not working without PPA hacking.

      Comment

      • theghost
        Senior Member
        • Sep 2013
        • 346

        #23
        Originally posted by johnc View Post

        Not uncommon for Canonical though. Even in their latest LTS Plymouth is still broken and I see no signs of it being fixed. And it was working fine going all the way back to Oct. 2010, as far as I see.

        Canonical has no interest in providing something other than a half-broken unpolished mess. Unfortunately this kind of spirit of mediocrity is ubiquitous across the Linux spectrum.
        I think you should not put Canonical's definition of LTS or quality on the same level of other distributions "across the Linux spectrum".

        Comment

        • skerit
          Junior Member
          • Dec 2016
          • 32

          #24
          > Shortly after the system booted, it auto-added my network printers

          This also happens on my Ubuntu Gnome 17.04 install. And it'll keep on doing so. Every day I get a notification that the printer has been added, even if I've already done so manually. It's quite annoying, actually.

          Comment

          • JeansenVaars
            Phoronix Member
            • Dec 2016
            • 119

            #25
            from 1 to 100, how much can you have a running wayland system without installing any x11 library? I mean, without going too far with rare apps, is it even possible? for a terminal, libreoffice, multimedia players, pulseaudio mixers, software centers and a frequent bunch of apps on qt/gtk.

            the preston thing or xwayland, it does rely itself on x dependencies right??

            Comment

            • Masush5
              Senior Member
              • Mar 2016
              • 207

              #26
              Originally posted by JeansenVaars View Post
              from 1 to 100, how much can you have a running wayland system without installing any x11 library? I mean, without going too far with rare apps, is it even possible? for a terminal, libreoffice, multimedia players, pulseaudio mixers, software centers and a frequent bunch of apps on qt/gtk.

              the preston thing or xwayland, it does rely itself on x dependencies right??
              At least if you use gnome, it's not currently possible at all. Both mutter and gbm are dependant on xwayland on won't work without.

              Comment

              • GreatEmerald
                Senior Member
                • Sep 2008
                • 3686

                #27
                Originally posted by Masush5 View Post
                At least if you use gnome, it's not currently possible at all. Both mutter and gbm are dependant on xwayland on won't work without.
                Same in KDE, KWin_Wayland depends on XWayland. But then just having a library installed is no big deal, it all depends on whether you run a legacy app or not.

                Comment

                • MagicMyth
                  Junior Member
                  • Nov 2016
                  • 39

                  #28
                  Originally posted by theghost View Post

                  The system is called snapd and the packages are called snaps.
                  Thanks for for clearing up the naming.

                  Originally posted by theghost View Post
                  They haven't borked Flatpak, Flatpak is just not installed by default (we know the reason why, to promote snaps).
                  I should have been more clear. Flatpak in Gnome Software under Ubuntu 17.10, even when you update Flatpak with the PPA version and install the gnome software plugin does not work. It did not work for my quick live test and it did not work for the guy at OMGUbuntu:
                  Read this site regularly enough and you'll learn that I love Flathub. Flathub, for those of you who haven't heard of it, is the quasi-official app store


                  As it seems though Gnome Software in Ubuntu is pretty broken in general. They muddled in the command line apps (which Software is not designed for) and tried to make it a generic package manager (messing up descriptions) plus the whole Snap sign in part is unneeded and seems to be unreliable as well. If you've tried Software on Fedora you'd know it is a smooth experience but Canonical have managed to bork a nice piece of software (uh its kind of annoying its called Software when talking about software).

                  Originally posted by theghost View Post
                  But you could do that if you have time and care.
                  Now this kind of comment always peeves me off! It implies, if you can't do it yourself don't comment! I already contribute to other Open Source projects. I'd ask "do you?" but it does not matter in these conversations. Discussing software related topics should be free from "just do it yourself" comments.

                  Sorry if that sounds a bit aggressive. The rest of your response is perfectly amicable and reasoned.

                  Originally posted by theghost View Post
                  That Canonical does not care for Flatpak is somewhat understandable, they don't want to promote a concurrent product for snapd but I think this strategy is not going to work out, at least on the desktop. Furthermore it hurts the user experience once more and drives away users because something is not working without PPA hacking.
                  Totally agree here. I just would have hopped Canonical would have learned from Mir as this feels like Déjà vu. And I would really hate for not only more wasted effort but for Snap to fall into total irrelevance as we need a good package deployment system for service apps on servers. Canonical's (or is it specifically Mark's) stubbornness will likely lead to this outcome though.

                  BTW If anyone is curious there is SRU discussion for Flatpak over on this Github issue:
                  As Joe Sneddon of OMG! Ubuntu! says, it's annoying that at the moment one has to add a PPA to use a universal packaging format which should do away with PPAs and the like... Would it be possible (e...

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X