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.

  • Lvxferre@lemmy.ml
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know what, enough is enough. Snaps run like shit in my system (IDK/DC why), I hate companies forcing their shit down my throat, and I was planning a clean reinstall anyway from Ubuntu 20.04 to 22.04. Might as well use the opportunity to go back to Debian. Or Mint. Or Mint Debian Edition. Who knows.

    Next on the news, Ubuntu ("humanity") gets renamed to Amasimba ("shit"). /s

  • CaptainJack42@discuss.tchncs.de
    ·
    1 year ago

    There's a simple reason why Mozilla/canonical does this and that is security fixes. Due to the difference in support cycles of Firefox and Ubuntu LTS versions fixes would have to be manually backported to the system Firefox version and newer versions won't run due to library dependencies. Snap solves all of that.

    Don't get me wrong though, snap is still terrible, but other than flatpak or doing the work of backporting it's the only option to get security fixes to Ubuntu

    • cmeerw@programming.dev
      ·
      1 year ago

      and newer versions won’t run due to library dependencies.

      Mozilla seem to be able to limit library dependencies in their builds: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/system-requirements/

    • cmeerw@programming.dev
      ·
      1 year ago

      But are they actually doing this? I am not seeing any changes: https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa still has the .deb packages

    • silent_water [she/her]
      ·
      1 year ago

      literally every other distribution can solve this problem but Ubuntu can't?

      • OptimusPrimeDownfall@discuss.tchncs.de
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not really. After working with CentOS (RIP) for a half decade, that Firefox version was so out of date I was practically in diapers when it came out. Getting the latest version of Firefox was such a pain that my org didn't bother even if it would have given us some niceties.

        LTS and other "enterprise" distros don't push the latest version precisely because of dependencies.

  • aport@programming.dev
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are several high quality community run distributions which aren't beholden to corporate tools.

  • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • moonpiedumplings@programming.dev
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • LeFantome@programming.dev
    ·
    1 year ago

    Time to switch to Mint ( or Debian ). I have not like Ubuntu for a while but this forced match to snaps seems too much.

    I use Arch myself. I have been considering trying Debian Stable with Distrobox / Arch. The stability of Debian with a totally current and massive package inventory ( thank you AUR ) sounds like perhaps the best of all worlds.

    • library_napper@monyet.cc
      ·
      1 year ago

      For one, packages aren't cryptographically verified after downloading them, as is done with apt.

      This is a massive security vulnerability.

        • library_napper@monyet.cc
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your link is just guesses on a forum.

          Link me to the official documentation that describes how signatures work.

          • cmeerw@programming.dev
            ·
            1 year ago

            You mean like https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/jammy/en/man8/snap.8.html

            Still better than a random user claiming

            This is a massive security vulnerability

            with no justification whatsoever.

            • library_napper@monyet.cc
              ·
              1 year ago

              That's usage documentation. It doesn't describe how snap verifies packages.

              The burden of proof lies with the program's docs to prove their security. In the absence of such documentation, we should all ageree to distrust it as insecure.

              Apt clearly documents how the manifest file is cryptographically signed with PGP (and if that Sig or the signed hashes dont for any package it refuses to continue).

    • lily33@lemm.ee
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I'm sure some people hate snap in general, most people simply hate being forced to use it. Or rather, bring forced to switch distro and reinstall everything.

    • nestEggParrot@lemmy.sdf.org
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • ennemi [he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      Digital sanity. I do not want any of my tools to constantly beg to be updated.

        • PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          ·
          1 year ago

          EndeavourOS. It's available for Arm64. Has firefox, has chromium, has vivaldi, and even has a widevine plugin builder in their AUR repo for the first two.

          For UTM hypervisor, select the Arch for ARM from their gallery and install it. Then follow the instructions for Parallels to EndeavourOS it. Oh, expand the disk and filesystem first, though.

          It's quite a step back in time for an installation process, though. Even after getting it installed and setup for KDE Plasma, still need to install a lot of things:

          • NetworkManager
          • git base-devel
          • man-pages man-db
          • dnsutils
          • LibreOffice Plus all the things one installs for customization on any Linux... preferred shell(s), if not bash, shell customizations and completions, various cli's you'll want or need, your favorite IDE, browsers, browser extensions, programming languages, ansible, terraform, helm, kubectl, podman and or docker, etc etc.
  • sleepyTonia@programming.dev
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah… For years I already suggested anything good but Ubuntu to those interested in trying Linux, but now I'm going to directly tell them not to touch it. Sure, you've got lots of online discussions from the past 20-ish years of people teaching each other how to install PPAs for up-to-date versions of programs or drivers and that's sweet. But how about a distro where that stuff is just available out of the box and one that doesn't force you to use snaps as if they didn't cause issues left and right?

  • mustkana@lemm.ee
    ·
    1 year ago

    They are mostly Mozilla members, not Ubuntu members, who are responsible for the PPA. Are you sure, that your complaints and grievances are directed to the right address? See here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Contacts

    • Drug_Shareni [comrade/them, he/him]
      ·
      1 year ago

      It's been time since Ubuntu was selling user search data to Amazon, and adding ads to the terminal... It's a shit distro with an even worse company behind it.

  • flashinthepan@lemm.ee
    ·
    1 year ago

    Firefox snap on Ubuntu is still slow to start after all this time. The binary from Mozilla starts nearly instantly.