Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Ubuntu Open Source Linux

Ubuntu Criticized For Bug Blocking Installation of .Deb Packages (linux-magazine.com) 118

Posted by EditorDavid from the it's-a-Snap dept.
The blog It's FOSS is "pissed at the casual arrogance of Ubuntu and its parent company Canonical..... The sheer audacity of not caring for its users reeks of Microsoft-esque arrogance." If you download a .deb package of a software, you cannot install it using the official graphical software center on Ubuntu anymore. When you double-click on the downloaded deb package, you'll see this error, "there is no app installed for Debian package files".

If you right-click and choose to open it with Software Center, you are in for another annoyance. The software center will go into eternal loading. It may look as if it is doing something, but it will go on forever. I could even livestream the loading app store on YouTube, and it would continue for the 12 years of its long-term support period.
Canonical software engineer Dennis Loose actually created an issue ticket for the problem himself — back in September of 2023. And two weeks ago he returned to the discussion to announce that fix "will be a priority for the next cycle". (Though "unfortunately we didn't have the capacity to work on this for 24.04...)

But Its Foss accused Canonical of "cleverly booting out deb in favor of Snap, one baby step at a time" (noting the problem started with Ubuntu 23.10): There is also the issue of replacing deb packages with Snap, even with the apt command line tool. You use 'sudo apt install chromium', you get a Snap package of Chromium instead of Debian
The venerable Linux magazine argues that Canonical "has secretly forced Snap installation on users." [I]t looks as if the Software app defaults to Snap packages for everything now. I combed through various apps and found this to be the case.... As far as the auto-installation of downloaded .deb files, you'll have to install something like gdebi to bring back this feature.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ubuntu Criticized For Bug Blocking Installation of .Deb Packages More

Ubuntu Criticized For Bug Blocking Installation of .Deb Packages

Comments Filter:

  • Devuan (Score:5, Interesting)

    by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @03:17PM (#64447986)
    I have given up with Ubuntu years ago and moved to Devuan, which really is what Ubuntu should have been.
    • I've been using KDE Neon, but think I'll be moving to Devuan.

    • Re:Devuan (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @03:31PM (#64448028)

      I have given up with Ubuntu years ago and moved to Devuan, which really is what Ubuntu should have been.

      Mint 21 (Cinnamon) for me -- Snap disabled by default and pledged to stay that way.

      • Yep. Install Mint. Problems gone. No forced Snap, actual native packages for all the important stuff, plus support for Flatpak (if you really want those huge/complex containers).

        And the next Mint, based on 24.04 should be out in a few months, as well. Plus, every in-place upgrade I have done has been flawless, so far...

        • I like Mint too - but AFAIK there's no server variant. So if you want to live in that general universe, your choices are either to fiddle with a bunch of different settings (especially some of the aggressive energy-saving ones) post-install, or just go with Ubuntu Server.

          In the end I don't think Canonical is any better than IBM / Red Hat... I just think they don't have the footprint to be quite as blatant about their anti-user moves. Yet.

          • Exactly my thoughts. For desktop, Mint is great. But I am struggling with what to use on servers now that I refuse to use *EL. Debian stable isn't updated long enough. No experience with SELS. That leaves just Ubuntu. And, like you, I think they are headed down a bad path like RedHat, they just don't have enough leverage yet.

            • At least for now, on servers I've gone with AlmaLinux - which admittedly was the lower-work option for our formerly-CentOS servers anyway. I do like the steps they've taken to this point, and they're saying the right things at least.

              In my mind, though, the one big unanswered question is just how far out of its way IBM intends to go to make Alma's and Rocky's existence untenable.

              • Red hat has been trying to push people to actually collaborate and contribute, which is exactly what Alma is doing. Rocky on the other hand...

              • I, too, am also using Alma. Seems we are much alike.

                But I think Redhat is going to continue to get more aggressive. Plus there are fewer and fewer supported packages. One of my main uses is an application server (yes, for actual thin clients) and that can be difficult at time with *EL, since it is much harder to find desktop apps. Sometimes I steal from [old] Fedora. Sometimes I compile myself. The destruction of X is particularly threatening and annoying.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by ufgrat ( 6245202 )

                  Red Hat has backed off on some of their more egregious policies. Starting with RHEL 8.x, you couldn't run Docker or tomcat-- And while I know both products have their issues, many of our users have applications that require one or the other.

                  As of RHEL 8.8 and 9.2, tomcat is once again officially supported, and while they don't have a supported version of Docker, you can install official docker (yum was blocking it previously).

                  So they're getting some serious pushback from licensed customers, and they're sta

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ufgrat ( 6245202 )

              Try out SLES / Leap. Leap is to SLES what CentOS was to RHEL. It's still pretty much what we expect from an RPM based distro, without any dodgy "thou shalt run our software", and you can flip back and forth between SLES and Leap pretty easily.

      • How have you actually switched from Ubuntu when Mint is based on Ubuntu? I see these statements all the time and the self-deception is mind boggling.

        • Re:How Have You Switched From Ubuntu? Mint. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @07:01PM (#64448332)

          How have you actually switched from Ubuntu when Mint is based on Ubuntu? I see these statements all the time and the self-deception is mind boggling.

          Mint comes with slightly different, as well as Mint-developed, apps pre-installed and no snaps. They have different installers and Mint is a bit easier to manage, especially for newer users, though that wasn't a major factor for me as I have 30+ years as a Unix(ish) admin.

          As for Ubuntu, I used it up to version 18.4 but soured when Canonical started pushing snaps, and delivering some apps only as snaps (like Firefox, Emacs) -- w/o having to resort to PPAs to get the packaged versions. While I'm not a huge fan of Snap (or others, like Flatpak) I really don't like being *forced* to use them and I probably would have stayed with Ubuntu if they had left it as a choice.

          Also, extending your logic, one might ask how running Ubuntu is not actually Debian as the former derives from the latter, but there are obvious differences, as there are with Mint and Ubuntu.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by ufgrat ( 6245202 )

          Mint is Ubuntu with different policies at the Layer 8 level.

      • Mint 21 (Cinnamon) for me -- Snap disabled by default and pledged to stay that way.

        Hm.

        Mint is a derivative of Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a derivative of Debian.

        Mint is not fully escaping the influence of the partisan folks at Debian and Ubuntu.

    • Ubuntu is exactly what it is, a corporate distro.
      I installed Ubuntu on a new laptop to begin using Linux in 2000, then later converted to Debian when I wanted a more sleek installation.

      Devuan is what Devuan is, the spiritual successor to Debian.
      Migrated to the first stable version after systemd became default with Debian and have only used that since on laptops and PCs..

      • I installed Ubuntu on a new laptop to begin using Linux in 2000,

        You're off by 4 years if you really did install Ubuntu. Ubuntu didn't exist until Warty Warthog 4.10, that was released in October 2004.

    • I've moved back to Arch based distros, currently trying Majaro. Snaps and flatpacks always have some issue

  • I can't complain about Software Center. ... Because it simply never worked for me since its inception. Some (first, early) releases it was an empty blank window. Some Ubuntu releases, the software thumbnail images never loaded and install button did nothing. Today (on 22.04LTS) - since I work weirdly enough from behind very conventional web proxy - Software Center simply can't do anything at all. And there is no interface whatsoever to set proxy. Because it's a different setting. Because it's "snap"s that a

    • I can't complain about Software Center. ... Because it simply never worked for me since its inception...

      P.S. The "apt" on command line still works (but I hear they are going to f*ck it up with "snap" too). Back to good old "apt-get", I guess.

      Synaptic Package Manager FTW. On the negative side, it doesn't feature or recommend programs. But on the plus side, it doesn't feature or recommend programs. And no, the way I wrote those two sentences wasn't an error.

      Synaptic allows you to search for a program, then tells you what all the deps are and how much extra space it will take up on your drive. I've found that to be very useful. For example, there are a lot of programs I'd like to install from KDE. But most of them want to bring in pretty much the

      • I do that too. Use Synaptic to browse packages and dependencies. It's useful to get an overview. Then in most cases apt install xyz.

        I don't use snaps, no systemd around here, but I have found appimages useful in many cases. For instance something like Signal that forces updates every 90 days... Your installed version is dead in the water anyways... and you don't have to let the app insert it's tendrils all over your system. (disclosure: don't even know if Signal is available as an appimage)... but firefox o

    • I can't complain about Software Center. ... Because it simply never worked for me since its inception.

      Early versions of Discover didn't work for me, but it has been greatly improved since then. I do all of my system updates using it, and it does the job well.

      While I like deb packages, I have grown to prefer snaps for most programs since they are usually more up to date than the deb repositories (when the program has a snap at all, which isn't always the case).

  • Mint is OK (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 4wdloop ( 1031398 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @03:24PM (#64447998)

    Just tried with Mint 21.3 (based on Ubuntu Jammy 22.04LTS). Double click on .deb file opens graphical installer and there is no problems installing .deb packages.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by leptons ( 891340 )
      I also switched to Mint Linux from Ubuntu for this exact reason. You're dead to me now Ubuntu!

      It was a good run, but there's too many Linux distros to stick with one of them when it messes up the features I used.

  • just wondering

    More seriously, my new laptop had Debian installed, my desktop will switch soon (and will never get 24.04).

  • Who cares. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aergern ( 127031 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @03:42PM (#64448044)

    Ubuntu =/= Linux and they don't give a shit what users want.

    Folks need to move on because Canonical won't give up on Snaps, they are too invested in them. Unless their user base drops ... they will never stop pushing those slow, garbage packages.

    • exactly.
      Linux was first hijacked by what someone here called SystemD-os (redhat)... and Ubuntu has Snap to tie you down.
      So, basically, the value added by redhat and ubuntu is really only there to create a microsoft-like dependency.
      Devuan ftw!

      • Be mindful that both Ubuntu and Red Hat contribute a LOT to various open source projects.

        Both have significant contributions in systemd (some hate it, others love it) and the Linux kernel. However, their contributions don't stop there. I wouldn't be amazed if, for example, both have put developers on GNOME (to name but something).

        • systemd (some hate it, others love it)

          I think the main complain is that it does, or tries to do, too much -- certainly more than it *needs* to do (eg: DNS) -- and some not in the way it ideally should (eg: PID 1). Basically it suffers from mission creep and bloat.

          Personally, I started with BSD and have used or been an admin on many flavors of Unix -- I think I've used them all except those from Apple -- as well a several flavors of Linux (I prefer the Debian-based ones, I currently use Mint) and they have run the gamut of system startup/co

          • I started with BSD ...

            And by that I mean 4.3BSD on a VAX 11/785 -- I'm old. :-)

          • I think the main complain is that it does, or tries to do, too much -- certainly more than it *needs* to do (eg: DNS) -- and some not in the way it ideally should (eg: PID 1). Basically it suffers from mission creep and bloat.

            It's also somewhat harder to debug than the shell script based versions. If it's working fine, and in practice it does most of the time now, then that's OK. But it's a big old chunk of C code split over a number of communicating processes. If you trigger a bug, good luck.

        • What Ubuntu and Redhat contribute is in their pants!

          Ubuntu's contributions are self-centered and self-serving...for the most part.

          Redhat's contributions are now locked up behind paywalls...if you want to examine the source code...cuz It's Licensing Baby !

          I have not used Ubuntu in a decade or more, same with Redhat and it's Fedora offspring.

          I used to use Centos before Redhat smothered it to death.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by caseih ( 160668 )

            I agree RH tried to smother CentOS to death, but it obviously has failed. AlmaLinux is still doing fine.

            If you haven't used either Ubuntu or Fedora in 10 years, then I'm not sure your criticisms of either are valid. For all their warts, Ubuntu and Fedora seem to form the foundation of most of the popular and successful distros out there, so they aren't completely doing things wrong. Of course Ubuntu itself stands on Debian, a giant for sure.

            RH's source code is still available, both in the form of the ori

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          Gnome might not be the best example. At least TWO distros were inspired by the desire to avoid Gnome shell. At least one to avoid SyetemD. Linus had to yell at the SyetemD people to stop them from crapping up the kernel.

      • I hate Snap and Flatpak too, hate the way Ubuntu's _own updater_ chokes and dies when it's time to update them - can't make it work without a trip to the command line, so why have a GUI anyway?

        That said, I work helping a group that publishes tri-platform software, and the engineers went with Flatpak for Linux because we had no hope of getting the package into the Debian repo. Maybe a redistribution of Java thing I think (don't recall the details).

        So anyone installing from the Debian repo gets a many-years-o

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dskoll ( 99328 )

          You can create your own apt repo, you know. Back when I ran a company distributing software, we created apt repos for various versions of Debian (stable and oldstable, I believe.)

          • I use specialty repos for some apps on a local home server, so I know how that works, though I don't see what it gains us over Flatpak - user needs to know fewer magical incantations to install with the latter.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dskoll ( 99328 )

              Really? apt update && apt install the_software is too complicated?

              • How about "import a gpg key, edit sources.list, add a bunch of gobbledygook you don't understand and hope you get it just right" before you do those. And hope fervently the geek that offered to "help" didn't point you at vi.

                I'm not saying _I_ can't do this, but people who just want to USE the software, not learn how to be a BOFH can't do this. If you're forced to use the command line _at_all_, yes, it's too complicated for the users we want to reach.

                Next, maybe you want to go to "you shouldn't have a comput

                • there is no need to edit sources.list, you simply make a new one under sources.d/ and all of those steps can be done by a .deb that you publish on your site leading to users simply having to download that deb, double click on it (or do sudo dpkg --install package.deb) and it will setup everything.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by jddj ( 1085169 )

                    Even so, what does this get us that's easier for the user than Flatpak or the right package in the Debian repository? People we're trying to reach are software users first, tinkerers way down the list.

                    "Easy for the user" is what Flatpak provided - and that the Debian repo would have done as well. Usability has to trump everything else. There's no other choice that can help grow the desktop user base.

                    But "Security!" you shout. I agree - security is a top-level priority, but an OS that doesn't make it easiest

                    • what you get is that all your updates are being applied at the client when they do their normal os updates, you also get the benefit of not having to be ontop of every single dependency, flats and snaps are just like distributing software on Windows where you have to bundle all your dependencies and also keep track of if/when they are hit with some security issues and then you have to update your flats, snaps and windows installs and later hope that your clients updates to your new version somehow, meanwhil

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by dskoll ( 99328 )

                  You can wrap all of that in a downloadable shell script if you like. It's way less of a big deal than you make out; our customers never expressed any problems with installing the software.

                  • Shell. Nope. Intimidating if someone hasn't used it,

                    Your customers probably have more tech expertise than we're wanting users to need.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sjames ( 1099 )

          The recent debacle with the xz based security hole explains well why Debian likes to think twice about updating package versions.

          • That caution is certainly warranted, but so is leaving packages well past their use-by date un-updated. And in this case, the package in the repo relies on a _very_ old version of Java to be installed on the system. We could fix a couple of those problems for them given a little cooperation.

            That part of Debian needs to be better-resourced (ya, EVERYTHING in Open Source needs to be better resourced...)

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dvice ( 6309704 )

          I hate snap only if it is forced on me. If I can use it only when I need it, I think it is a pretty good thing. I used it once to install a package that was hard to get on my distro with any other way.

  • I hate modern Linux distros (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xack ( 5304745 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @03:52PM (#64448060)
    Snap or Flatpak , they are all the same buggy apps. The old rpm and deb systems worked better. I kind of wish Mandrake was still around, Mageia is a good tribute but the fact you could get a boxed all in one distro from a retail store with properly packaged apps is something I miss.
    • rpms and debs are inherently distro-specific and don't support user only installs. The reason to not support debs in original article was that they always require root to install thus are gaping security hole. Not sure about snap but flatpak allows you to do a user install that doesn't require root.

    • Nothing's changed. If you lament the "old ways" then you'll be happy to know the same process you used to install debs on the "old" systems still works on today's modern systems. You don't *need* to use snap or flatpack. dpkg -i still works like it always did.

      That said a generalisation of "worked better" is just demonstrating ignorance of the complexities of package managers and why snap or flatpack exist in the first place. Each has benefits and downsides. None is inherently "better".

      • In the case of cannonicial pushing snaps, I would be apt to see them as 'just the messengers'.

        However, the real source of the missive (*application creators*), are pushing the message out of an abundance of arrogance, that has been growing steadily over the years.

        Namely, the following sins:

        1) my time is infinitely more valuable than yours.

        2) the assurances that my beautiful software runs exactly the way I intended it to, trumps any and all concerns you may have about the way your computer runs, DEAR USER.

        3)

        • (or, less derisively)

          Most of the time, the "need" for a specific version of a library, or even to have a library that is out-of-tree or out-of-distro, comes from less than correct programing practices, where a codebase relies on a depreciated library, a library that is excluded for some other very specific reason, or because a distro does something unusual with the way user data gets stored, and they want to hard-code locations (instead of abstracting, and then using the abstractions in their code.)

          These ar

    • We need something better than Snap or Flatpak.

      Maybe the replacement should be called Flapjack

      Flapjack would still work well even if you are a bit off in your dependencies ... bacon & eggs, sausage & potatoes, coffee, juice, tea.

      Only known bug so far ... flapjacks only work their best on the weekends ... Saturday & Sunday.

      • How about something really crazy like static binaries? Or did people forget that was ever a thing?

        • It's not a big deal to just have more libraries installed in most cases. It would be nice if it were a little easier, though. You can have as many versions of whatever library around as you want, that's not a problem, but then there's those libraries' associated resource files in /usr/share or whatever.

    • >"Snap or Flatpak , they are all the same buggy"

      It isn't just buggy, they are HUGE and COMPLICATED. Some of them even have their own dependency hells, and updates are much slower and riskier. And due to those complication, it makes customizing and maintaining stuff a lot more of a pain.

      No distro should be dependent on containers for anything. It is a nice option to have if you need something unusual or you are running an older distro and need a newer package. But forcing them is really awful.

      >"I k

    • A warm salute to another Mandrake/ Mageia user. Back when Ubuntu came onto the scene, I did extensive comparisons and between Mandrake, Ubuntu and SuSE it was give and take on which was easier to use. Ubuntu just always had better marketing. Mageia still does it for me. Not sure which way I'll go if it stops being okay, I'd want a nice kde friendly distro, with options of all DE...

  • snap? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 4im ( 181450 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @04:00PM (#64448080)

    I've been using Kubuntu on the desktop for a very long time now, through many upgrades. If there's one thing seriously annoying, it's the message that somehow snap wants du update firefox, and I've still got it open. Sorry, but upgrades are to happen when I hit "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade".

    Lately, I wanted to upgrade my virtual server, running mail and web servers with all that entails (classic LAMP essentially). I did try ubuntu server. The moment I saw snap stuff around, that VM got nuked, and I went plain old Debian (yeah, I'm not happy at all about systemd, but still less bad than ubuntu at this point, and I've had my issues with Devuan).

    Ubuntu/Canonical, you should have a very hard look at what you're doing. The way I see things, you're going to lose your userbase, very quickly, if you persist in these ways. People are running as fast as they can away from other abusive IT providers (cough, Oracle, cough), the same can much more easily happen to you.

    While I'm at it: you'll provide/support only docker images? Bye-bye!

    • I had the same issue with Firefox, it really left a bad taste in my mouth. The UI says to restart Firefox to upgrade, so I close it and see nothing. Wait a little bit and start it again and the update isn't done. That and I didn't like my mount output being blown up and the new snap Firefox didn't use the correct file portal. Like the other guy that replied said, de-snapping is actually really easy. I was really happy with my system after doing it and easily switched to the Firefox and Chromium apt repo, it

  • They've been "deprecating" deb packages as much as they can in favor of snap. This is not surprising at all. I feel most could either just move to Debian or some distro like Linux Mint if you're wanting to stay in the debian package world. They respect your choices and aren't pushing snap on you at all costs.

  • And the entire time if I've ever wanted to install an application, I'll either download the .deb and use apt to install or or I add the repo and use apt to install it. I've had spotty luck with the software manager apps over the years and like that apt just works. Of course, I've used Linux long enough that my first thought for making changes is always what config file to edit it.

    The utilities have definitely improved over the years and most of it just works now. Package management is best done with apt tho

  • TIL... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @04:55PM (#64448146)

    Today I Learned that you could install a .deb file from a GUI or with the Software Centre. Seriously I've never tried this. I simply figured that literally anyone who would download a .deb file would be running dpkg from the console.

    • I just double-click on the .deb from the Downloads folder and it installs. The GUI install was new to me as well. Not sure what all the fuss is about.

      • Wait... you can double click deb files? *mind blown*. No literally. We often mocked windows about the ability to execute a privileged task based on file name. I honestly never tried this just assuming it wouldn't work.

        • it doesn't start a privileged task based on file name, it launches the software center with user privileges and once you click install it requires you to enter the password in a sudo way.

          • Obviously it doesn't auto escalate, but the process of installing something is a privileged task. Again I assumed this wouldn't work based on the fact that security escalation prompts are shown to be of limited value (UAC anyone?).

  • Noticed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by systemd-anonymousd ( 6652324 ) on Saturday May 04, 2024 @06:12PM (#64448262)

    Between systemd (Poettering is replacing sudo next), snap, Canonical, etc., I've noticed that Linux updates becoming what Microsoft updates once were: when you get an update, it makes your life worse, not better. That's a surefire sign that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

    • Darn it man, you scared me. Talking about systemd I thought your reply title was about the next screw up by Lennart of some DE related application to be taken over into systemd by the name of noticed.... Whereby once more systemd would expand towards full take over.

  • If someone is comfortable with the command line interface, then do this:


    $ sudo apt install gdebi-core
    $ sudo gdebi your-downloaded-package.deb

    Not only will it install your package, but it will also check dependencies for that package as well.

  • There's a graphical installer?

  • Everyone I've ever known that worked for Canonical was a sleazeball. I don't know how anyone who's been paying attention can be surprised by this sort of thing.

  • Just use Debian (Score:5, Informative)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Saturday May 04, 2024 @08:32PM (#64448438) Homepage Journal

    Ubuntu is a weird borkage of Debian which was mostly obsoleted by Bookworm's inclusion of firmware.

    Unless you need automatic ZFS support in the installer then install Bookworm.

    There's a ZFS howto that just needs a LiveCD image. The lxqt image works better than GNOME.

    • I used the root on ZFS instructions for Debian and they worked pretty well for Devuan. You have to change some commands and package names a little bit for sysvinit instead of systemd, but everything you need is in the repos.

      I did my install with Devuan 4, but I upgraded and am now running Devuan 5 with kernel 6.6.13, and pipewire/wireplumber. The only vestige of PoetteringOS on my system is pulseaudio, which is not running. It's there for the client libraries, and for the package dependency for volume contr

  • I knew you could install a .deb by clicking it but I never did it. Call me old school but I would always download the file and install it manually with dpkg on the command line after checking things didn't look too dodgy.

  • I've stuck with Debian since ~2003. Sure, Debian has had its organizational and interpersonal dramas, but for the most part, Debian developers care about delivering a stable and useful system without any of the enshittification that comes with being a corporation trying to bring in revenue.

  • That's what you get for using Ubuntu.

    I used to say that about using Windows. It's already moved to me saying "That's what you get for using macOS!"

    Next up:
    That's what you get for using Fedora!
    That's what you get for using Void Linux!
    That's what you get for using NetBSD!
    That's what you get for still using computers!
    That's what you get for not killing yourself to escape SkyNet!

  • Software Centre has always looked constricted to me. Forget about it.

    I've generally relied on Muon for all this time. Hell, even PPA links on Launchpad website make use of DEBs via shell commands all the time.

  • Pretty much the first thing I always do when I install ubuntu is to install synaptic.
    I've always found Synaptic far more logical/useful/usable than Ubuntu's own store thing, From my perspective this is just one more justification.

  • I've been installing .deb files for a while now using command line - the only way I do installs.

    sudo apt install mypackage.deb

  • Snap unfortunately and annoyingly has some major disadvantages.

    Snaps do not work inside NFS filesystems, and they have /home hard-coded as the location for home directories.

    If, as we do, you have a corporate/educational system set up where /home is where NFS home directories are mounted and /localhome is where the local admin user keeps its home, then you are basically unable to use a snap with either a normal user or with the local admin user.

    This is deeply annoying.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is better to travel hopefully than to fly Continental.

Close