Alas this is not always the best solution. In the end, the party with the most influence generally wins out as long as it’s “good enough”. I think we can do better than either of these two, but the big problem is getting everyone on board. In the end, the better solution will win out, whether that means traditional packages or images. Removing redundant code was the reason we invented shared dependencies in the first place. Maybe not such a huge problem if your at home running one application at a time, but for a multiuser system with everyone using their own copies of everything it can easily bump things to swap and kill performance. It depends, the problem is there can be a lot of duplication of resources in every package. It lets the app have exactly what it needs, doesn’t drop stuff on your system, and takes the load off distro maintainers. Putting applications into containers (whether they be snaps, flatpak, or OCI (aka Docker) images) isn’t a bad thing. Hopefully something like that will happen in the near future. Something most people could use and recommend again without much issues involved. Then this would again become a no-brainier. That would reintroduce a sane desktop experience and if Ubuntu desktop team would polish it further. After the next LTS release something should in my opinion change. No real innovation anymore by Ubuntu desktop people. Like bad default shell experience, solutions that offer less then they did before. I read you can’t install Gnome Shell extensions by using a snap based Firefox. deb could opt-out and still use the (official). ![]() deb to snap would i guess be OK if people that prefer. Gnome Shell on the other hand is just whacked and most people don’t want to have much with it. Gnome 2 and Unity were reasonable choices and recommendations. Sure some people nitpicked but this was the truth. If you wanted to use GNU/Linux on desktop or wanted to recommend a GNU/Linux distribution to somebody else.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |