Quoting: Eike

Quoting: scaineI agree with all of that... but it's not really relevant here, is it? His point was that if you care, you can't turn off snaps. But as a computer user (as you put it), why would you care? Just use the computer. That's what Ubuntu is good at - getting out of the way and just working.

E.g. because your primary daily driver, the browser, starts slower?

Sure, yeah. But a) only the very first time after boot and b) it's already fixed according to an earlier comment. These things get blown out of proportion, I think. Right now, for example, I'm using a LUKS-encrypted drive I ticked a box for in my Endeavour OS install. On Pop and Ubuntu, that means I type a password after the BIOS and then again to log into my desktop. On Endeavour, I type the password after BIOS and sit patiently for about 30 seconds while... something... happens. It's annoying, but... it's once a day at the most. It's a shitty design decision, but it's hardly a deal breaker.

Narrator: This was a deal-breaker. Scaine is moving back to Pop_OS at some point over the coming summer.

Okay, so yes, I'll be moving back to Pop_OS, and yes the shitty boot sequence is a contributing factor. But it's not the only reason. These things do get blown out of proportion a fair bit. I've really enjoyed my time on Endeavour.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: ShabbyX

Quoting: Lycurgus87And learn to use your system, because probably (about 99%) you are the problem, not your machine, nor the software.

Oh no no no, never say that. Take any device (a computer, a door, a hose, whatever), and if most users have trouble using it, that's definitely a design flaw of the device.

Here, see this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yY96hTb8WgI

At work we've got, on a single walk through a single floor, doors that
* are just opened manually,
* must be opened manually, but only after you show your entrance card to some device,
* open automatically after you show your entrance card to some device, and must not be moved by the handle they've got, because otherwise, most probably, world explodes.

Please, if you constructed a door so stupidly that it must not be moved by its handle, AT LEAST DON'T GIVE IT A FU**ING HANDLE!

At our work, we do have quite a few doors with pull-handles that are push. At least the opposite isn't true, I suppose! But it does make me wonder what people are thinking when they put doors up. This isn't brain surgery you know? If you need to push a door to open it, why does it feature a pull handle?? Infuriating.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI really hate having to explain this all over again all the damn time. Ahem: No.
I am a computer user. I use Linux because it is a better operating system to use. And for reasons related to the politics of open source, true. But I want to use Linux, like it's an operating system and helps me get things done that I do on computers, like playing games or doing word processing or using whatever random bits of software I feel like loading up and using for whatever comes up.
If instead I have to be fiddling with the computer to make it do that stuff, Linux is failing to be a decent usable operating system. It is instead being some sort of pedagogical tool for computer developers. I am not a developer or a programmer or a server admin or anything like that and I'm not interested in having a computer designed to teach me how to fiddle with the OS via its design flaws.

I agree with all of that... but it's not really relevant here, is it? His point was that if you care, you can't turn off snaps. But as a computer user (as you put it), why would you care? Just use the computer. That's what Ubuntu is good at - getting out of the way and just working.

So either you're not technical and don't care, or you are technical and can tinker a bit to remove snaps. Sure, it could be easier, but that's not in Canonical's interests here, so I doubt it will happen.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraWhile I basically agree with your post as such this last part does not compute at all. Just like Canonical, Red Hat got a lot of irrational hate for pulse and systemd to the point that it now have become a conspiracy theory of it's own where evil Red Hat in cahoots with eviler IBM are working behind the scenes for total world domination of Linux systems by replacing sysvinit with systemd...

Ah! I wonder if that passed me by because I'm not a Fedora/Redhat fan. I knew there was a lot of hate for Pulse/SystemD initially, but a) it died out (eventually) and b) I wondered if it was just Poettering-hate. Maybe it was Redhat-hate instead. Seems that folk don't like the companies behind Linux for some reason.

Quoting: F.UltraBut it still proves your point, many times, if not close to frickin always, when some one does something new or different in Linux it will always bring out the Knights of NIH on forums.

The Knights of NIH! I love that!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dr_jekyllOtherwise we can of course agree to disagree, as it is also a pointless discussion, because no one from KDE will change their way because of these comments.

Haha - nope! Still good fun to chat about it though!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: SoltrummanAs a Ubuntu user since 06.06 snaps are probably the biggest misstep up there with MIR and we all know how well that NiH-project turned out.

I've covered before how ridiculous calling things "NIH" is. It's literally how Linux evolves and becomes better. Weird that Canonical gets hate for that, but no-one bats an eyelid when Redhat decide to replace the entire sound system, or indeed, the entire fucking init system.

Hang on a minute. I'm pretty sure there was, in fact, a lot of hate over the "init system" thing.
And I mean, any new sound thing on Linux gets an automatic pass as everyone hopes against hope that it will be better than the last one.
So, no, I'm not seeing the contrast.

Well, sure, initially. But when was the last time you heard anyone griping about it though? But people still, FUCKING STILL (sorry) talk about Mir. As you can tell, it really gets my goat!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestWell snaps are being forcibly pushed on people, so it's worth discussing the matter.

Yeah, they should be discussed, definitely, and improved. But it's rarely covered in a consistent way. Canonical get a lot of flack for stuff that nearly every other member of the Linux community gets a free pass on.

Canonical are definitely "forcing" snaps, because they're a success story on other Ubuntu platforms like IOT and the independent vendors that Ken mentions. Hopefully they address the various shortcomings in the desktop clients quickly, because rightly or wrongly, they're already pushing people away from desktop Ubuntu.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SoltrummanAs a Ubuntu user since 06.06 snaps are probably the biggest misstep up there with MIR and we all know how well that NiH-project turned out.

I've covered before how ridiculous calling things "NIH" is. It's literally how Linux evolves and becomes better. Weird that Canonical gets hate for that, but no-one bats an eyelid when Redhat decide to replace the entire sound system, or indeed, the entire fucking init system.

Flatpaks have lots of problems too - go google how well Steam runs as a flatpak. But it's gotten better. Flatpaks, generally, will get better.

So will snaps. People need to stop shitting from a great height on something that doesn't even need to affect them.

• Slow start up on Firefox - install the deb until it's fixed. It will get fixed.


• Don't like the snap folder in your home? Neither did I - easily fixed with a .hidden file.


• Snaps too big? Well, last I check was a while back, but Firefox was around 200Mb. If you're on a low-resource system that you care about Mb instead of Gb then sure, maybe snaps aren't for you. But then, neither are Flatpaks or AppImages.

Can't speak to the Loopback issue because in 20+ years of Linux, I've never, ever had to check my /dev/loop devices. Ever. Maybe I'm lucky that way.

But bottom line, why all this weird hate? It feels like the usual anti-Canonical sentiment. Other, far worse technologies aren't grilled like this. I just don't get it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dr_jekyll2. I call it a structural flaw, because as one user pointed out, rsync works much faster and smoother without freezing the desktop etc. (I tested it multiple times myself).

The bug also notes that comparing the rsync or cp is a waste of time, because the KIO helpers that perform the action in KDE are multi-purpose and have to work consistently across local filesystems, SMB, NFS, FTP, SSH, WebDav and everything else. So yes, I'd like it to be faster. But no, it's not a structural flaw. It's actually a very cool design that just performs poorly in certain edge cases.

As for the rest of your comments, we'll just agree to differ. The KDE priorities will never please everyone, of course, but I much prefer their decisions, approach and transparency compared to, say, Gnome.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dr_jekyllSome of these flaws are quite heavy and point to structural problems, for example this bug:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=342056

I'd like certain stuff to be a bit faster, but I wouldn't call that a structural flaw - even the original reporter of that bug noted that his use case (that of millions of small files in tens of thousands of directories) is an edge case. Nice to see Nate Graham commenting on it though.

I'd honestly rather Nate & Co keep doing what they're doing by focussing on the small things that put people off in KDE. Canonical did a similar thing with Ubuntu - it was called the 100 papercuts project. Now they're replicating that effort in KDE (15 Minute Bugs) which is great to see.

Theming could use a tidy-up too, although it's admittedly so powerful, that would be a fairly big challenge.

View this comment - View article - View full comments