Linux

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 17 points 7 months ago

I agree. Flatpaks have similar challenges. I understand the dilemma, I understand what they're trying to do and what they're trying to solve, but shifting responsibility for these sorts of things from "here" to "there" is not actually solving the problem it's just moving it, and often moving it to somewhere that someone who has no business dealing with it will ultimately end up dealing with it in a way that's even worse than what you started with.

Personally I try to be pragmatic and not ideological about software packaging. I usually prefer distro-provided deb packages whenever I can get it as a strict first-place-to-check, and I try to convince myself to use that even if it's a somewhat older version or kind of stupidly packaged, falling back to the project's own deb repos if they have them for more up to date versions, and if that fails I might consign myself to building from source or banging my head against a docker, unless I really absolutely need to use some other packaging option some specific reason. I've even used a flatpak occasionally (often for something I would like somewhat sandboxed) But snap is pretty garbage and has few redeeming features and I've never really felt the slightest interest in using it for any reason.

It's a mess, but it's a manageable mess, mostly because I'm forced to manage it whether I like it or not. This is the unfortunate reality of software packaging on Linux. With great choice comes too many choices. It's a tradeoff I'm willing to make, because I like having choice.

parent

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

I like to post issues like that in the bug tracker with concise phrasing like “Why can't the file editor edit files?” Give them nothing to think that you actually know the answer, make them spell it out.

parent

[–] entwine@programming.dev 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

Yeah waste open source maintainers' time by acting like a child. That will surely accomplish whatever you're hoping to accomplish.

parent

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago

Oh yeah, it's certainly not the maintainers wasting time by peddling the snap bullshit that doesn't work, without thinking beforehand.

parent

[–] Omgboom@lemmy.zip 10 points 7 months ago (1 child)

Ubuntu is dead to me

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

It's been dead to me ever since they started adding ads to their premium services. None of their decisions have made me reconsider.

parent

[–] Tuuktuuk@nord.pub 7 points 7 months ago (7 children)

I haven't really found a DE that I like more than Unity. Basic Gnome gets close, but the ability to separate switch between programs and their windows is a big thing for me.

But, because of snap packages being annoying, I would really like to migrate away from Ubuntu. Meh.

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@piefed.world 6 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

On KDE the key combination Alt+Tilde tabs between the windows open for one program. E.g. if I have 4 firefox windows and 2 Konsole windows, if a Firefox window is active Alt+Tilde will tab through only the 4 Firefox windows, while Alt+Tab will tab through all the Firefox and Konsole windows.

parent

[–] Tuuktuuk@nord.pub 1 point 7 months ago

What I was missing on KDE was a way to switch between programs without going through a bazillion windows. At one point I had five Firefox windows open, plus four file managers, and getting to GIMP ended up requiring a lot of keypresses: Firefox -> Firefox -> File manager -> Firefox -> File manager -> GIMP. I would have much preferred just Firefox -> File Manager -> GIMP. Is there a way to switch directly between programs and not between individual windows until I happen to land upon a window belonging to the program I actually need and can then Alt+Tilde to the correct program?

(Also, I think "Tilde" here does not really mean "AltGr+^ followed by space", but instead some other button; probably the one overneath Tab?)

parent

[–] MrSoup@lemmy.zip 5 points 7 months ago* (3 children)

the ability to separate switch between programs and their windows

What do you mean?

Anyway, Ubuntu no longer uses Unity, it's just Gnome with extensions. There's still community effort put into Unity and there's an Ubuntu Unity distro.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] Tuuktuuk@nord.pub 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I mean that if I have four Firefox windows open, three file manager windows open, GIMP open and Steam open and press alt+tab, I get cycled through four things: Firefox, File manager, Gimp and Steam. If I want a specific Firefox window, I first Alt+Tab to Firefox and then use Meta+Tab to cycle between the different windows of Firefox. That is incredibly convenient!

On my other computer I'm currently trying OpenSUSE, and its version of Gnome does not have the option for enabling this in the keyboard shortcuts. Not really sure if my Ubuntu really uses Unity or something else, but anyway it's something that has a feature that makes the workflow much better.

parent

[–] MrSoup@lemmy.zip 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

If I'm not wrong the default shortcut to cycle between app's windows is Alt + the_key_above_tab.
Currently I'm not in front of my computer, afterwards I'll check shortcut name and tell you.

Edit:
Inside Settings > Keyboard > Customize Shortcuts, there are:

Switch applications
Switch windows
Switch windows of an application

parent

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 2 points 7 months ago

That has been the default behaviour of GNOME for a while. I think the default keys are Alt+Tab (for applications) and Alt+` or Alt+~ (keyboard layout depending) for windows within applications.

parent

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago*

Mint's Cinnamon might get app grouping in the switcher if the author of this PR changes it according to the feedback. Or, you can try their solution by replacing the js files of the switcher widget.

parent

[–] Die4Ever@retrolemmy.com 6 points 7 months ago (7 children)

is this an Ubuntu problem that I'm too Kubuntu to understand?

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Does Kubuntu not use snaps? One would think that packaging works the same across Ubuntu flavors.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] lengau@midwest.social 3 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Discover has long had integrated Deb, snap, and flatpak integration. Oh, and fwupd too.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

Is that supposed to be good? I prefer snaps unintegrated with my debs. This very post is about how Ubuntu integrated them too eagerly.

parent

[–] aloofPenguin@piefed.world 2 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

They are talking about how discover has backends for flatpak, snaps, deb, and fwupd. not that they are together in the Ubuntu sense or other, just that they can be managed in the same application. Therefore snaps in discover are completely optional

parent

[–] SlurpingPus@lemmy.world 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Ah, okay, sounds similar to Mint's 'Software Manager'.

parent

[–] Die4Ever@retrolemmy.com 4 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

Kubuntu uses Discover instead of the Ubuntu App Center

It's really easy to avoid Snaps

parent

[–] Janx@piefed.social 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It's also really easy to avoid the company that made the slow, proprietary, corporate-owned Snaps default as a slap-in-face to the open-source community they depend on.

parent

[–] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works -4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

App sandboxing is stupid, those that need it need something more refined than snap or flatpack, and all others don't actually need it, but think they do due to inexperience and end up having problems and asking for support online.

The amount of times i lost time helping someone that pinkie promised that no, i did not installed it via flatpack, but then it turns out they did and their permissions are messed up is not acceptable.

I freaking hate snap, flatpack annd sometimes noobs even attempt some docker bullshit for something that is an apt-get away smh.

These things are used as a crutch for unstable or badly supported programs. Sandboxing often creates more problems that it solves because you actually need to support the instance to do it correctly, the very problem that is attempted to solve.

[–] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)

Except for when sandboxing is better, like for server-type things that need to "just work" and won't directly interface with anything else on the system.

Like, a WiFi mesh network controller has no need to access anything on the system at all and users will only interact with it by a web portal. Docker (or an alternative) is perfect for that.

parent

[–] Eggymatrix@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

Agreed, but how many requests do you see for support for people understanding mesh networking enough to set a server up in docker? Those are the people that use it and need it, and surprise they use docker, not flatpack or snap.

I am talking about non powerusers, non it personnel that are installing steam or gimp via snap or flatpack and then flood support threads with their problems. In those cases sandboxing is fucking stupid.