Radioactive Butthole

Proud junk drawer owner checking in.

There’s a third option: Black holes create new universes through some as yet undiscovered process. Then your existence just becomes a statistical eventuality, as do every other life that you could ever live.

Honestly I never really did. I asked some kid in 5th grade what Santa got him for Christmas and he scoffed at me for still believing. I went, “uhhhh yes… this is information I definitely already knew. Yesssssss…” and never really brought it up with anyone again. ¯\(ツ)/¯

Almost all of those are for the database release, not the production release.

Even if they are for the current production release was last April. Considering the buggy mess their product is, that’s kind of unacceptable for an app that is supposed to hold your entire lifes data.

The selling point is that it is immutable, not that it uses snaps (which it does). Fedora does the same thing with Silverblue and IoT. You don’t install rpms, you install flatpaks. You can install rpms, but you’re not really meant to.

Since Canonical refuses to get onboard with flatpak (for now) they use snaps instead of debs, but snaps aren’t the direct appeal.

The whole idea is that you have a core system in a known configuration. Updating the system just means using a different image. If an update fails, then you just roll back to the last good configuration. Bazzite uses this to nice effect too.

There are a lot of advantages to end users and enterprise admins with systems in this configuration.

https://discuss.logseq.com/t/why-the-database-version-and-how-its-going/26744

I get it. And I don’t necessarily disagree with them, but it gives me concerns over the long term viability of the project. If obsidian did blocks the same way logseq did I’d probably jump ship and use that, but you can’t really brain dump in obsidian the same way you can in logseq.

There’s lots of examples. Mir, Unity, Snap, PPAs, and more.

I think Ubuntu Core is a bad example. Immutable distros is where the industry is headed for a lot of good reasons, and it makes sense for Canonical to jump on that train. Snaps are bad (although honestly I do like that they can package server apps unlike flatpak, that’s cool), but the concept for the distro is not.

Basically unmaintained at this point until they release the DB version “some day”. And you’re delusional if you think they can maintain both versions at the same time. They can’t even update the current production version that they already have without focusing all their efforts on a new app that hasn’t been released yet.

Use both! You can switch between them when you log in. Find what you like.

I enjoy gnome but that isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.

This is the power of Linux. Not that it gives you a nice configuration (it does) but it gives you the power of choice and control over your own device.

deleted by creator

I don’t really have any experience with enterprise Ubuntu (we use RHEL at work and I’m not a sysadmin anyway) but its kind of hard to blame that all on Canonical since they inherited it from debian.

I mean, I’m sure you could change the package format that your nascent distro uses, but at that point you might as well make a completely new, unforked distro since you’re basically rewriting the entire system.

There’s nothing bad about Ubuntu, but Canonical rips a fat line and says, “I’m going to make my own display server, with black jack, and hookers!” Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, innovation is good and all, but they release a steaming pile of crap that doesn’t really integrate well into the rest of the Linux ecosystem. They spend years telling everyone that their display server is the best thing ever and no they won’t offer any alternatives or integrate it into any of your systems thank you very much.

Then 10 years later they unceremoniously dump it in favor for whatever everyone else has been using.

I just wish they would funnel all that innovation upstream instead so everyone benefitted instead of just Canonicals bottom line.

Forgejo-jo-jo