Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: TuxeeSpeedometer: 78.0 (deb) vs. 77.2 (snap)
JetStream2: 63.678 (deb) vs. 67.811 (snap)
MotionMark: 48.29 (deb) vs. 65.92 (snap)

This is completely off topic, but what's going on with your Firefox? I know my 5700 XT is slightly more powerful than your non-XT 5700, and your 5900X packs a good deal more oomph than my 3700X, but how are you getting a measly 65.92 in MotionMark when I get 876.18? That's like nowhere near comparable. JetStream2 gave me about double your result, and Speedometer way more than double (164). What's going on with Ubuntu if Mint's build of Firefox is this much faster?

The benchmark was done on my laptop which already got 22.04 - it's an AMD 4750 Pro APU. (I should have noted this somewhere.)
On my desktop SpeedoMeter gives me... wait a second... or a few... 137 and MotionMark 553.22 (which is still rather poor compared to your result).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: TuxeeWell, the post says "Just curious if anyone else experienced this. I haven't seen any similar postings."... (And he was on Ubuntu 20.10?) Anyway, I had it up on my laptop with a 22.04 Ubuntu and didn't experience any "anomalies".

Have you done an extensive benchmark between the performance of the apps in Flatpak and Snap? As far as I know, with Snap you lose an average of 6%, and with Flatpak on average between 0 and 2%.

That means that thanks to Snap you lose an average of 5% in performance compared to Flatpak.

I did the 3 browserbench Benchmarks and compared the deb-Version from the PPA with the snap version. Both versions with the same add-ons and same number of tabs open.

Speedometer: 78.0 (deb) vs. 77.2 (snap)
JetStream2: 63.678 (deb) vs. 67.811 (snap)
MotionMark: 48.29 (deb) vs. 65.92 (snap)

Looking at this anecdotal result the snap version is actually faster than the deb package - definitely not "measurably" slower.

Quoting: GuestThe start-up times are also a big difference.

To give an example: https://old.reddit.com/r/Ubuntu/comments/tjwsza/firefox_now_only_available_via_snap/i248zy2/

Quote- Firefox snap start up performance immediately after boot (no file buffer-caching): 10 seconds, ugg
- Firefox snap start up performance with buffer-caching: 4 seconds, this is annoying since I open the browser and close often in my workflows

You can see he says 'i9-11900H and 2TB SSD'
Guess how long the latest Firefox takes to boot on my very old i3-3240 and 850 EVO 500GB SSD on my FreeBSD system? The answer: less than 2 seconds.

Is that progress?

Well, if "startup time" is your prime concern, then we peaked decades ago when I could cram a whole application written in assembler in a few kB. This is not the prime goal of either flatpak or snap.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: JustinWoodAs someone very new to all things Linux, I ended up landing on the recently released Nobara Project by Glorious Eggroll. Sounds like it simplifies some of the on-boarding versus traditional Fedora spins. https://nobaraproject.org/

Small edit: That being said, it's not my daily driver. I've got a drive reserved for it to run games that have better performance on Linux, particularly but not limited to Elden Ring currently.

Well, when you are new to Linux I would definitely stick to one of the mainstream distros like Fedora, Mint, Manjaro or Ubuntu. You will inevitably run into "problems" (probably not problems per se, but things that are just... different) and having forums and documentation for your distribution (and not just a "quite similar one") helps tremendously.

jm2c

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: TuxeeAgain: What "lower performance"? The first startup is slower (and not even Canonical denies that). But a Firefox snap is just as fast as a deb one with JS benchmarks (BTTD). Blender seems to do just fine, despite being a snap package. I do have a fair share of Flatpaks as well (Hugin, KiCad, etc.) and they work perfectly fine, but this constant snap bashing is just... lame.

I've seen performance comparison from Firefox several times in the last few months, snap versus flatpak, and snap is always improbably crappy. Here's an example: https://www.reddit.com/r/FoundryVTT/comments/tnpkdx/firefox_snap_causing_cpu_and_fan_spikes_flatpak/

If the performance and stability aren't there, why force the technology?
It is telling that 'unsnap' is being developed by an old Canonical employee:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Ubuntu/comments/twwuid/a_new_tool_unsnap_helps_you_move_from_snaps_to/

Well, the post says "Just curious if anyone else experienced this. I haven't seen any similar postings."... (And he was on Ubuntu 20.10?) Anyway, I had it up on my laptop with a 22.04 Ubuntu and didn't experience any "anomalies".

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Tuxee

Quoting: GuestWhat I have also noticed is that their website where you can view the versions of packages is worthless: https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/chromium-browser The Ubuntu LTS currently has Chromium version '100', not version 80.0.3987.

That's because it is a transitional package. It was introduced with Chromium 80 - since then Chromium has always been a Snap package. And it's actually smart: Should you use a repo which provides a Chromium 100 it will automatically replace the Snap package.

Why are all these pages still kept online by Canonical, when it no longer contains useful information?

Because this very package has this very version. Go to "focal-updates" and it shows 1:85.0.4183.83-0ubuntu0.20.04.2 as the version. Exactly the same version Synaptic finds in the repos. So the web page is spot on (and presumably auto-generated from the apt database). This package does not provide Chromium - just a simple script which does something like "snap install chromium".

Quoting: GuestI have to say that after several years of using FreeBSD, I'm increasingly wondering why Ubuntu was designed.

Let's take a look at FIO, the gold standard for storage benchmarks:
https://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1901268-SP-ZFSBSDLIN95&sha=5ca0c1f&p=2
https://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1901268-SP-ZFSBSDLIN95&sha=12872ac&p=2
https://openbenchmarking.org/embed.php?i=1901268-SP-ZFSBSDLIN95&sha=49228e7&p=2

Network latency of FreeBSD is also better than that of Ubuntu.
ZFS has fewer bugs in FreeBSD compared to Ubuntu.
FreeBSD is a more consistent architecture and also has slightly higher security.
Docker is significantly less secure than FreeBSD Jails.
NginX runs faster on FreeBSD than on Ubuntu.
..

You can also game on FreeBSD:
https://www.freshports.org/games/homura/
https://www.freshports.org/games/linux-steam-utils/

Just about everything Ubuntu has done in the last 10 years has been a failure.
Unity, Mir, Touch,..

Now 'snaps'.

Why not just stop Ubuntu and switch to FreeBSD, the system that has been better than Ubuntu for performance, stability and security for the last 30 years. The system that, unlike Ubuntu, does very little or no idiotic 'innovations' and focuses on things that are really improvements.

Is this about Linux or Ubuntu? Because you always say "Ubuntu" but actually mean "Linux". And what's your point? If you think the improved performance of FreeBSD in certain benchmarks (as a frequent consumer of Phoronix I am well aware, that FreeBSD is occasionally faster in certain benchmarks) is that important - well, use FreeBSD. I work on my machine on a daily basis and I prefer my tools to be (a) available for my OS and (b) work hassle-free.
OTOH: *BSD is of course much more elitist than even Arch...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestI'm glad Liam didn't go back to Ubuntu. Ubuntu, as far as I'm concerned, is no longer the reference for Linux desktop systems that it once was. The Snap daemon makes your startup slower.

By how much in real live? On my desktop system mounting (NFS) shares are by far the most costly startup activity. On my laptop... I mean once past the LUKS decryption we are talking about 8 to 9 seconds including the dreaded file system check.

Quoting: GuestAnd the Snap packages usually have much lower performance than the Flatpak versions. So why does Ubuntu keep pushing Snap when it's not competitive with Flatpak?

Again: What "lower performance"? The first startup is slower (and not even Canonical denies that). But a Firefox snap is just as fast as a deb one with JS benchmarks (BTTD). Blender seems to do just fine, despite being a snap package. I do have a fair share of Flatpaks as well (Hugin, KiCad, etc.) and they work perfectly fine, but this constant snap bashing is just... lame.

Quoting: GuestWhat I have also noticed is that their website where you can view the versions of packages is worthless: https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/chromium-browser The Ubuntu LTS currently has Chromium version '100', not version 80.0.3987.

That's because it is a transitional package. It was introduced with Chromium 80 - since then Chromium has always been a Snap package. And it's actually smart: Should you use a repo which provides a Chromium 100 it will automatically replace the Snap package.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: Tuxee

Quoting: dubigrasuMan, I remember playing this extensively back in the day, it was probably my first foray in multiplayer games.
I thought it was so cool to play with other real people, not npc/whatever.
That until I enabled the chat and read it. I never played it again.

Really? What? I mean War Thunder is super-tame. Really. I've played Heroes of Newerth. Once. That was pure constant verbal abuse. But War Thunder? Come on, some frustrated dude might call you an idiot (this dude could be me), but that's about how far it goes. Since the invasion of Ukraine they've disabled the chat entirely, but even before that everything was pretty civilized. The most severe incident was some guy spouting antisemitism. Got reported (and probably banned).

Not sure why not one, but two people are busily telling dubigrasu how they're supposed to feel about things. If they're not enjoying it, they're not enjoying it--you can't force them to.

Sure if he doesn't like it, he doesn't like it. It's just I can't imagine that he can enjoy any other multiplayer online game, since from my experience they are all far far worse.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dubigrasuMan, I remember playing this extensively back in the day, it was probably my first foray in multiplayer games.
I thought it was so cool to play with other real people, not npc/whatever.
That until I enabled the chat and read it. I never played it again.

Really? What? I mean War Thunder is super-tame. Really. I've played Heroes of Newerth. Once. That was pure constant verbal abuse. But War Thunder? Come on, some frustrated dude might call you an idiot (this dude could be me), but that's about how far it goes. Since the invasion of Ukraine they've disabled the chat entirely, but even before that everything was pretty civilized. The most severe incident was some guy spouting antisemitism. Got reported (and probably banned).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TermyHow's the native client going nowadays? Haven't played it in a long time since EAC got introduced and back then the native client was more or less useless.

Can't complain. With 2560x1440 on "movie quality" I get around 100fps+ for most of the time on my RX5700/AMD 5900X combo. Crashes do occur, but not too often: On average I'd say about every 30 or 40 matches I experience a crash which seems to be completely random - talking to my Windows teammates this seems to be comparable to their OS, OTOH my son playing it on a Ubuntu/NVidia combo doesn't report any crashes. RADV offers better performance than AMDVLK (a few months ago AMDVLK was barely usable). One bug remains: Colored discs appearing occassionally the sky when an explosion happens elsewhere. Used to be pretty bad, hardly happens after the last few updates.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuppyWonder if that means that nvidia will allow nvidia-powerd to work with AMD cpus now, getting a bit old hat that my 130w gpu is locked at 80w on Linux

Shame Mint is still stuck on 5.13 - haven't had to compile a kernel my self in some 15 years and I'm now about to start now

Can't you use the Ubuntu mainline kernels?

v5.17 Mainline Test

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So we have a bundle dedicated to charity and the "discussion" starts with bashing Humble Bundle and people feeling compelled to tell, why they are not donating.
Interesting.

View this comment - View article - View full comments