Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 20.04.3 LTS Released With Fixes, Newer Hardware Enablement Stack

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    HWE is absolutely brilliant though, I must say. When I buy/upgrade to new hardware, the *last* thing I want is to have to do a full distro replacement just to get it to work, especially if the current version of DE xyz has bugs or negative "design" changes that significantly affect me (or one of the updated packages does, c.f. VLC3's utterly broken window handling).

    I mean, imagine that all you want is e.g. the new in-kernel NTFS driver, because something you do has significant involvement with that and it'll save you an hour every day - but to get it you have to switch from Gnome2 to the first version of Gnome shell? That's an insane cost, and puts you back in the Windows world. (e.g. Want DX12? Time to "upgrade" to W10: welcome to spyware, Candy Crush, and forced updates, etc).

    HWE is the only sane way to resolve that sort of issue. Rolling releases have the same problems as doing a full distro update, just as a thousand cuts instead. A rolling kernel+Mesa approach should technically be fine, since both are good about regressions and don't generally cause user-facing problems, but HWE is basically that anyway, so it doesn't really gain you anything.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by arQon
      Which doesn't require a badly-designed, badly-implemented daemon that blocks the boot process; doesn't flood the system with semi-random loopback mounts; doesn't require custom configuration to be able to access a network etc; allows you to lock it to a specific version if a newer release has a crippling bug or completely changes the UI, etc.

      So, yes, it COULD have made it simpler for you after all, by NOT introducing a new and incompatible way to do something that was already taken care of.
      apt is more capable, and has none of those negatives. THAT's why nobody wants snaps.
      It blocks the boot process? That's news to me. I have an SSD so maybe that is the difference here, but my system starts up in a few seconds. As far as apt being more capable, like I said earlier, they made Chromium a snap for a good reason. I don't see why you would want to use an outdated, insecure version of the browser rather than a new version using snap.

      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by krzyzowiec View Post
        It blocks the boot process? That's news to me. I have an SSD so maybe that is the difference
        No, it isn't. snaps block startup *until the network comes up* so it can force updates. If your conn goes out, or you're in a hotel with captive portal BS (like I am right now, in fact) you *can't @#$%ing boot* until it finally times out after multiple minutes.

        > like I said earlier, they made Chromium a snap for a good reason.

        You saying it doesn't make it true, sorry. I mean, yes, it's a "good" reason for the *maintainers*, but it's not a good reason for *users*. Especially not since it means suddenly requiring snaps. (Which is, of course, the whole point, in the same way that Google used Search and YT etc to force people onto Chrome in the first place).

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by onlyLinuxLuvUBack View Post
          Once upon a time you did an article: "FreeBSD: A Faster Platform For Linux Gaming Than Linux?" aka ubuntu vs freebsd gaming.

          Do you think we could get a reboot article?
          He'd have to choose which way to test. Can install Ubuntu (or some other distro) into chroot and run its apps through that, run game over Centos 7 default emulation or natively (if there's native FreeBSD port).
          Doubt any results would mean much because there are too many potential variables in play.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by arQon
            No, it isn't. snaps block startup *until the network comes up* so it can force updates. If your conn goes out, or you're in a hotel with captive portal BS (like I am right now, in fact) you *can't @#$%ing boot* until it finally times out after multiple minutes.
            That’s not true. If it was then every single boot would take that long, since network connection doesn’t even happen for me until I get to GDM. Yet I boot in seconds.

            Originally posted by arQon
            You saying it doesn't make it true, sorry. I mean, yes, it's a "good" reason for the *maintainers*, but it's not a good reason for *users*. Especially not since it means suddenly requiring snaps. (Which is, of course, the whole point, in the same way that Google used Search and YT etc to force people onto Chrome in the first place).
            In exchange, users get a secure browser. If you don’t like it, then you can use Debian, but they will recommend that you not use the outdated Chromium deb.

            Comment

            Working...
            X