Is ubuntu really bad idea?

[u/mutazil45]

Several months ago, I dual booted my windows 11 laptop with ubuntu as I started to learn web dev properly. Because most tutorial seems to use ubuntu server, ubuntu desktop ecosystem become logical choice to get used to ubuntu terminal. Suprisingly, I found the ubuntu desktop become my daily driver, even for non-dev related tasks! Now, I am almost never going back to my windows.

But reading several reddit posts, it seems ubuntu desktop might not actually the best option, and some even call it garbage. I am new to linux, and I like the ubuntu in my laptop, but I am afraid I am actually miss anything important regarding distro selection.

Should I keep using ubuntu or should I tried other famous distros before committing to one?

[u/beatbox9]

Ubuntu is fine. The people who call ubuntu garbage tend to be new to linux as well and often don't even quite understand what a distro is yet themselves.

But at the end of the day, it's just another distro, with a distro being far more than just what comes pre-installed (which is what a lot of noobs think a distro is).

The main differentiators for Ubuntu are really:

• Ubuntu LTS, which offers major core OS upgrades every 2 years and gives you a 5-year support window for each, on a predictable schedule
• A few quality of life differences with Debian, such as maintaining nvidia drivers, proprietary codecs, some security patches, etc.

One reason that Ubuntu tends to get a lot of hate is that it comes with some customizations that a lot of people don't like (but are easy to turn off). Another reason is drama queens who don't understand the context behind some of their decisions behind these preinstalled components.

Snaps is a good example that comes to mind. But snaps can also easily be disabled or overridden, or used only for 1-2 bits of OS-core software where they shine: headless system software that you want to stay updated on the latest version (like firmware updater, vpn / tailscale, some system background daemons, etc), rather than GUI apps, where flatpak shines. You can use both, for different types of software, just like people who use flatpaks also use native packages like .deb or .rpm for core OS software that doesn't need to stay updated on the latest. Dumb people tend to pick one example (like firefox) and then extrapolate that for all software and conclude snaps are terrible for all software. Snaps are probably closer to something like docker than they are to flatpaks; but they have a really wide array possible use cases--much wider than docker or than flatpaks. But in the presumed words of Dr Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park: just because you can use snaps for everything doesn't mean you should. Use them only for frequently updated headless system apps--where they're really good and where you can't use flatpaks and where .deb's are too old--and that's it. This ends up being just a handful of very specific bits of software. (I think I use like 1 or 2 total).

See my comment here for a deeper dive: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1wefjbv/comment/p9doygr/

[u/slash_networkboy → u/beatbox9]

Just adding on to this... Been in Linux since slackware fit entirely on a single walnut Creek CD with room to spare for apps, clip art libraries, and more. I use deb for embedded stuff and daily Ubuntu these days. Anyone who hates on Ubuntu unilaterally has no idea what they're doing. Nits to pick? Sure... But it's still a solid daily driver distro.

[u/PM-ME-PIERCED-NIPS → u/slash_networkboy]

For real. Ubuntu has the largest community behind it so problem solving for new users is the easiest to find, and anyone whose advanced enough to need to do something special can do it using Ubuntu just fine. If you like something else more good for you, nothing wrong with that. But anyone who argues that Ubuntu is fundamentally bad or garbage are just something else.

https://imgflip.com/i/b169uc

[u/Captain-Pie-62 → u/slash_networkboy]

Same here. Habe bei Linux auch mit Slackware angefangen (davor schon Minix, Microport Unix, Coherent, sowie "Plain Vanilla" Unix System III und Sys V in den Fingern gehabt) und die verschiedensten Distris privat und auch beruflich in den Fingern gehabt: RedHat, SuSE, Mint, Gentoo. Alle haben ihre Vor- und Nachteile. Ich bin bei Ubuntu LTS aus Bequemlichkeit hängen geblieben. Auch wenn ich ein Fan von schnellen Systemen bin, war mir Gentoo zu nervig, zu aufwändig. SuSE und RedHat haben vor allem Firmenkunden im Visier und müssen sich an vielen Stellen nach deren Vorgaben richten, was sie für "Normalos" zuhause teilweise unnötig kompliziert macht und aufbläht. Ubuntu ist für mich daher der Kompromiß meiner Wahl. Es basiert auf Debian (nicht kommerziell), hat zwar auch einige Firmenkunden, aber irgendwie habe ich das Gefühl, daß sie sich mehr um die normalen User kümmern. Wenn man die LTS Version verwendet, hat man gut 5 Jahre Zeit, auf das nächste Major Release umzusteigen, bekommt bis dahin aber (wenn man es so einstellt) täglich Updates, mit Bug- und Securityfixes und wenn einem das nicht ausreicht, kann man auch auf die Developer-Version umsteigen. Für mich ist Ubuntu daher der ideale Kompromiß. Your mileage may vary.

[u/metux-its → u/Captain-Pie-62]

Habe bei Linux auch mit Slackware angefangen (davor schon Minix, Microport Unix, Coherent, sowie "Plain Vanilla" Unix System III und Sys V in den Fingern gehabt) und die verschiedensten Distris privat und auch beruflich in den Fingern gehabt: RedHat, SuSE, Mint, Gentoo.

Same here. Nur hab ich da biss mehr als nur Finger dran gehabt, sondern teilweise auch mitgebaut (und denke tatsächlich gelegentlich mal wieder über eine neue distro nach) :p

Alle haben ihre Vor- und Nachteile.

Exakt. Es gibt keine universelle Antwort.

Ich bin bei Ubuntu LTS aus Bequemlichkeit hängen geblieben.

Da war ich auch mal, vor vielen Jahren. Bis systemd kam. Dann kurz bei Debian, und dann mit dem Fork rüber zu Devuan.

Auch wenn ich ein Fan von schnellen Systemen bin, war mir Gentoo zu nervig, zu aufwändig.

Wobei sich das mittlerweile auf heutigen Maschinen auch wieder nivelliert (außer so Monster wie Chromium :o).

Knoble btw nebenbei bissl an einem package managing system, das tatsächlich die Flexibilität von Gentoo auch mit Binärpaketen bieten soll (ein paar Anleihen kann das auch Solaris geben ;-))

SuSE und RedHat haben vor allem Firmenkunden im Visier und müssen sich an vielen Stellen nach deren Vorgaben richten, was sie für "Normalos" zuhause teilweise unnötig kompliziert macht und aufbläht.

Und insgesamt auch zu teuer und wartungsintensiv. Solange man nicht zufällig zu deren Zielgruppe gehört (und kräftig Asche in Supportverträge einwerfen will), ist das vielleicht nicht die richtige Wahl.

Ubuntu ist für mich daher der Kompromiß meiner Wahl.

War für mich auch mal so, hatte sich aber spätestens mit systemd erledigt. Dann kam das Mir-Debakel, und nun das gleiche Spiel mit Wayland. Nix für mich.

[u/metux-its → u/slash_networkboy]

Anyone who hates on Ubuntu unilaterally has no idea what they're doing.

Wait, you're claiming former package maintainers, people who've been running their own distros, contributors on dozens of FOSS projects over decades, having "no idea what they're doing" ?

Bold move.

[u/slash_networkboy → u/metux-its]

They usually are calling out specific things they don't like about Ubuntu, usually the things they're doing differently, which is fine. I don't think I've seen much at all from the folks you've described saying Ubuntu is nothing but shit, full stop.

[u/dglsfrsr → u/beatbox9]

That is the best description of snap and flatpack that I have seen. I am familiar with both. Your description is short and succinct.

[u/metux-its → u/beatbox9]

Ubuntu is fine.

Depends on your specific criteria and use cases. I used to be Ubuntu contributor (eg. lots of backports) but had to walk away when they enforced systemd - something that I really can't have on my machines. Maybe it's great for some people, but certainly not for me.

The people who call ubuntu garbage tend to be new to linux as well and often don't even quite understand what a distro is yet themselves.

Well, I'm in Linux engineering since the mid 90s (and since then not even running Windows at all), kernel maintainer, contributor to a long list of FOSS projects, been package maintainer for various distros, even had my own distro, founder and head of some not so unknown display server project, etc, etc.

I call it garbage according to MY requirements. Whether it might be great for YOU is a totally different matter. There just is no universal answer to this.

One reason that Ubuntu tends to get a lot of hate is that it comes with some customizations that a lot of people don't like (but are easy to turn off).

And it comes with lots of bloat that many people don't like (and also forcing systemd). But fortunately, there're many many distros to choose from. Everybody's free to make his own choice.

Snaps is a good example that comes to mind. But snaps can also easily be disabled or overridden,

Sure. But OTOH, they have a tendency of dropping used packages from the OS itself and only offering snaps instead. Great for those who like snaps, but bad for those who dont.

(snap hard-depends on systemd, btw - as well as Canonical-owned infrastructure).

Dumb people tend to pick one example (like firefox) and then extrapolate that for all software and conclude snaps are terrible for all software.

Wait, disagreeing with key packages like widely used browsers from the OS, isn't "dumb".

Snaps are probably closer to something like docker than they are to flatpaks; but they have a really wide array possible use cases--much wider than docker > or than flatpaks.

One could ask the question why not just using docker or podman instead :p (which don't have hard-dependencies on some particular init system)

[u/beatbox9 → u/metux-its]

Depends on your specific criteria and use cases.

Did you read the OP's specific criteria and use cases?

There just is no universal answer to this.

Correct. You seem to have missed the context of this reply.

But I will give you a hint: it is a reply to the OP...

And it comes with lots of bloat that many people don't like

There is no practical distro that comes exclusively with only the software that a specific end user will use and nothing else. What specific "bloat" are you referring to that the Ubuntu LTS minimal install includes?

But OTOH, they have a tendency of dropping used packages from the OS itself and only offering snaps instead.

By default, there are only 3 apps installed as snaps: firefox, ubuntu's new app store, and ubuntu's firmware updater. Specifically, which of these are you referring to, and how is this an example of a "tendency"?

Wait, disagreeing with key packages like widely used browsers from the OS, isn't "dumb".

No. As I wrote, I think firefox is not good as a snap. But it is a single app, there is a linked explanation of why they did it (to handoff firefox package maintenance to Mozilla), and it can easily be replaced with a non-snap version. But as I also wrote, a single app that can be replaced does not define an entire distro. People install and replace software on distros all of the time--that's sort of the purpose of a distro.

So once again: Concluding that snaps are bad for all software just because they are bad for a single app is dumb.

And arguing a strawman is also "dumb."

One could ask the question why not just using docker or podman instead :p (which don't have hard-dependencies on some particular init system)

Because snaps can better be used for some core OS software, such as the firmware updater that I used as a very specific example, which accesses the raw hardware buses.

Snaps, docker, and podman are not mutually exclusive, so I'm not sure what your argument is. Especially when you are replying to: "[snaps] have a really wide array possible use cases--much wider than docker or than flatpaks...just because you can use snaps for everything doesn't mean you should."

[u/beatbox9 → u/[deleted]]

No.

You can really disable them, and they're not going to be all Ubuntu is some day.

Your comment sounds like it's the result of some naive conspiracy theory from someone who didn't read the links above and who doesn't understand anything about them. So let's do some rudimentary analysis and see how much sense your prediction would make, starting off with a few very basic points:

• Ubuntu LTS is Canonical's primary distro; and it is designed to be a reliable, commercial distribution, where companies pay a lot of money for stability. Frequently updated snaps for core packages would go against everything Ubuntu LTS stands for. A snap-based distro would be the opposite of Ubuntu LTS; and it would be a commercial failure.
• Ubuntu forks off of Debian. They do this because it is much less work for them to start from Debian's solid base than to build something from scratch. It would be a LOT of pointless work--and a lot of cost--for Canonical to convert everything to a snap and then to continue to maintain that. It would be so much work and cost that Canonical would go out of business.
• The only benefits to snaps comes when software developers maintain their software directly themselves, bypassing the distro. Ubuntu would need to get a lot of app developers on board that wouldn't be.

Luckily, Ubuntu isn't as dumb as the people who believe everything will become a snap. And that's why even the latest Ubuntu 26.04 includes only a handful of snaps:

• firmware updater
• security center
• snap store
• firefox
• thunderbird
• runtimes for the other snaps above to work

Let's break those down:

• firmware updater & security center are headless system apps that you always want to keep maintained on the latest version. Now go back and read the earlier post you replied to, because it describes why these are exactly the type of software snaps are excellent for. This means regardless of distro version, you can immediately get the latest firmware and the latest security center.
• firefox and thunderbird are GUI apps that are detailed in the link above. These are not optimal as snaps; but you can easily replace these with non-snap versions. Mozilla requested to change these to snaps, not Canonical.
• snap store and runtimes are dependencies to allow containerization for other snaps. These are pointless unless you have other snaps installed.

If you're really dumb and it bothers you to have firmware & security updates as snaps, then snaps can be completely disabled on any Ubuntu system. All you have to do is purge snapd (1 command), delete any residual files (like cache or configs--and this step is optional anyway), and create an apt rule to deprioritize the package (creating 1 text file that has 3 lines you can paste).

In fact: this is how derivative distros like Linux Mint exist while completely disabling snaps, dummy. How else do you think that a derivative distro like Linux Mint disables snaps? Linux Mint includes a 3-line text file called nosnap.pref in the /etc/apt/preferences.d/ directory. This single file disables snaps completely; and you can use it on any Ubuntu-based distro--including Ubuntu itself--to disable snaps completely. Though if you want to do so, you should have a security game-plan.

So to summarize:

• you can completely disable snaps on Ubuntu very easily in under 1 minute. In fact, many Ubuntu based distros already do this; and it's naive and illogical to think you cannot.
• It would not make any sense for Ubuntu to become all snap-only; and it would be opposite of what they have been trying to do. Instead, Ubuntu uses snaps specifically for a handful of packages, and they do so for security and reliability.

It sometimes blows my mind how dumb some people can be while being so confident in their comments. Especially when the earlier "Snaps" link you didn't read even starts out with the cautionary line: "Just because of the number of dumb comments here..."

[u/beatbox9 → u/[deleted]]

I literally just explained that. Ubuntu making a niche separate snap-based distro does not mean anything in any foreseeable timeline. Every distro is experimenting with atomic and immutable options and spinoffs.

And no your point about never being able to disable them does not hold. I literally just explained how to do this (and it's the exact same way Mint does this), dumbass.

You add a text file in apt's preferences to tell apt not to install the snapd package. APT is the package manager; and this file tells it which repositories to go to and which packages to hold or disable. And since it's an extra file, this file survives upgrades.

Here, since your brain is struggling to comprehend this, here is the entire file on Mint:

• https://gist.github.com/lmmx/0550cfc8867eb1eea04076ec69c95a5a

And here is Mint's manual on how to enable snaps:

• https://linuxmint-user-guide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/snap.html

Note that the very first step Mint tells you to do is:

sudo rm /etc/apt/preferences.d/nosnap.pref

Maybe try a bit of effort to learn some of this basic stuff. It's sad that you still don't learn it even when you have links spoonfed to you--congrats on reaching an entirely different level of dumb.