484
Ubuntu's Mozillateam PPA now forcing users over to snap install for Firefox. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
237 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 2 years ago (8 children)

What's up with the hate on snaps, again, please anyone?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (1 child)
    • There is only a single Snap server, and it is a proprietary one exclusive to Canonical
    • Upgrades are pushed in a mandatory fashion, which means things will break if a bad upgrade ever gets pushed
    • Snaps have about the same integration issues that Flatpaks have due to their sandboxing, but overcoming them is even harder due to lack of tools on the Snap side of things
    • Snaps are mostly Ubuntu-centric, and don't quite work on other distros
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Mostly agree, except the last two points. Snaps are available anywhere...if you so wish (I wouldn't).

    The biggest issue with snaps is that they are SLOOOOOOOW when compared to a standard binary install, or even Flatpak. Most of this has to do with fuse, but when you have many versions of a specific package, it just gets slower and slower.

    The local versioning system also takes up a ton of local space by not expiring caches regularly, so it's not fit for lightweight installs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    For me it's the fact that Ubuntu forcefully shove snap into my system when I want the normal deb install with apt. I'm sure snap has gone better over the years but this is something that I absolutely hate. When I want to use snap/flatpak, I can use snap/flatpak install, and when I say apt install it should be deb install as it's supposed to be as a Debian variant. Linux tools has always been known for doing exactly what is told, whereas what Ubuntu is recently doing is the opposite of it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I mean the alternative would be to just stop providing the package at all I guess? Like it seems they want to switch to snap.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think that would be a higher integrity move for sure. The issue of course is how to migrate existing users. If they just remove the deb, many users will just stay on the old version forever. They may never know the snap version even exists.

    I get the problem. I just hate their solution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    Beyond the complaints about Canonical's hostility to Flatpak and other formats, but the real risk snap poses is that Canonical has a lot of control over the snap store, and lack of integration with distros beyond Ubuntu.

    There's a vague promise of "new stores" and better integration with other distros but Flatpak is a truly open technology that gives you the option to install apps from ANY source and other distros are collaborating to improve it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

    This is a massive security vulnerability.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Verifying a snap package’s authenticity seems to suggest otherwise. What's the source for your claim?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Your link is just guesses on a forum.

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Main reasons I see being raised a lot are Canonical's absolute control over the snap ecosystem and the dependency problem inside the snaps, meaning they often ship outdated versions of dependencies which might have known bugs or flaws.

    The fact that it is forced on users is mentioned by other people here already. Afaik this is not a thing yet on Ubuntu server, so maybe install that one + the GUI packages? Not an Ubuntu user myself, so this could be oversimplified.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent