Firefox to be kept as SNAP or should change to DEB in Ubuntu?

But in the right situation you can install stuff. There was a question posted about Balena Etcher and how the writer of question could not get Etcher installed in Ubuntu 22.04. I tried it in VirtualBox and installed the Deb file version that was made back in April this year and it installed. Only after changing from Wayland back to X11 though. It’s alright finally having Wayland, but when you’re like me and like Deb Files over everything else and not able to install stuff, because of display preferences. They should of released Wayland when all apps especially Deb Files are compatible. X11 is fine when running with onboard AMD or Intel Laptop, Desktop display. It’s when you’re running a Nvidia card with X11 or Nouveau is when the nightmare can ensue, especially if your card does not recognise X11 or Nouveau Displays.

Indeed. but you said earlier:

Which sounds to me like, the user should discard Wayland entirely and keep using X11.

It’s fine to switch to anti-optimal software for certain purposes, temporarily and in a very restricted manner. However, staying and relying on it is a bad workaround and not a solution.

Indeed, I think this is a huge problem in the Linux community. People see this new thing, Wayland, then something does not work and people start shitting on Wayland. However, this is the wrong way around. X11 is so atrocious, we desperately need an alternative, which Wayland is. So, if people complain, they should complain about how horrible and disgusting X11 is and almost always has been.

I don’t think I have to explain the logistical implications of what you are saying. This would take decades and once you are finished, you have to start all over, because you have just made it compatible with decades old software.

I’d say it “runs” in some way, if you have a single display. However, if you have more than a single display, then goodbye. Everything goes down the drain.

Yes, Nouveau is another crap driver, which is one of the reasons, distributions need repositories containing unfree software.

So systemd is terrible, but it mostly works so we live with it
but
X11 is terrible , but it mostly works so we replace it

At least Wayland has some design to it

There is a big difference. The alternative to systemd proposed by systemd opponents is to just stop using it, instead of offering an alternative.

Whereas, the opponents of X11 offer an alternative. It’s not only a valid alternative, but a better one. You get more features and everything works better with Wayland (does not mean it has to be instantly & flawlessly compatible with every software that “runs” on X11…).

If there were an alternative to systemd, that works better, as in being more secure, but without sacrificing features and abilities, then I bet you, people would start moving away to this alternative, the same way people are moving away to Wayland. In 10 years X11 will remain part of UNIX history, nobody would want to touch ever again, except for making it a topic on how to NOT create software… :laughing:


Another thing with systemd is, it actually does not only work mostly, it works pretty good, from a user standpoint (not a technical standpoint).
At the same time X11 has such extremely huge flaws, even Linux beginners notice them.

So, while X11 barely works, barely runs anything, systemd manages everything pretty well. It just does it in a very insecure and badly designed way.

There are about 10 alternatives… see here

I think some of the systemd features need to be sacrificed in the name of simplicity , good design, and security.

Show me how systemd works “better” as an init system, excluding all its outgrowth tentacles.
My personal experience with runit is it is a very easy way to start and stop processes. Dont know about the others.

Me:

You: “This is a proper alternative to your vehicle, Sir.”

:rofl:

No. The only way to get rid of the features is to move them to a different program, that also runs at startup. This is the only workaround I see for this issue.
However, as long as systemd offers all the features so conveniently, nobody is going to sacrifice anything. I’m not for this bloat, but that’s just how things work. We have to progress, instead of reverting to what was 30 years ago.

Yes, I hear that a lot about so many things Linux on this forum. Then I ask, what people do and thesy say “surf”, “mails”, “browser” and “the occassional YouTube video”.
I mean, yes, if people don’t do anything on Linux, then nothing breaks and everything works fine. Then runit is fine enough, too.

However, does no simple user notice, how the people who actually do tons of shit on Linux use “bloated” stuff like systemd, etc. all the time?

I do advanced stuff all the time with Linux, every single day. @daniel.m.tripp has loads of servers, computers and whatnot at his hangout, using all kinds of advanced stuff. I also personally have friends who use Linux all the time.

And guess what, we all use those “not so simple” and “bloated” crap, because there is no valid alternative. However, if we are given a real alternative, we actually use it. Most of the people I know use Wayland, instead of X11. Because it’s not only a valid but a better alternative.

If systemd opponents want systemd to go, they need to come up with a solution to have a better alternative for what systemd offers right now. If they don’t do that, nobodoy is going to switch, because nobody wants to downgrade their experience for the sake of philosophy and security problems no one feels or can touch, anyway.

1 Like

It comes from the pressures of business computing. Deadlines mean people look for the easiest way to get there, even if it means using bloated stuff. They want a quick fix for everything.

In a more relaxed academic environment , or at home, people have time to stop and think…do I need to learn about all this bloated stuff?
So they tend to choose simpler things. Choice is important… even in the init system .

Well it does not offer anything that I cant do by hand
I can run a linux system without any init system at all… I need an init process but nothing else. I can start and stop any daemon I want by hand. I dont need a ‘system’ just to look after daemons. They are just processes running in background. If I want things to start on boot I can use a simple startup script.
What else does systemd do that is so essential?

That’s absolutely true. That’s how the capitalistic system works. It’s based on the fittest product, not the best. The “fittest” just means, that it fits the current mainstream way of thinking most. Obviously, this is often not the best option available.

Absolutely. However, init systems are so low level, I am sure that even techy people do not care as much about it. We, as Linux freaks, do care because it’s our hobby. However, if someone just needs a working Linux, the init system is most likely of smaller concern.

I’ll again let this train of thought grow and grow, to make my point clear.

You might as well stop going to the super market, because you can grow your own potatoes, tomatos, leek and onions. So why go to the super market?

You also don’t have to buy any clothes. You just buy yarn and knit the clothing yourself.
Wait, don’t buy yarn. Just plant your own cotton plantation and make your own yarn.

All these markets and shops do not offer anything you can’t do by hand. Right? :wink:

Because you know what you are doing. Most don’t and don’t want to. They also don’t need to.

It makes life easier.

If you want specific technical details, I would recommend having a read on cgroups2 and whatever else virtual systems, like Docker, need.

Other examples are shown when researching the reasons why Arch Linux and NixOS rely on systemd.

You will see real world examples why systemd features are used and how, if you research these topics.

OK, I will have a look.
like your reply and agree

“It makes life easier”
I refer you to one of our former prime ministers… Malcolm Fraser
“Life was’nt meant to be easy”

1 Like

Yes, .deb files are the best option, however if they are not available at repositories, the problems with dependencies could arise. I use nomacs image editor. It was in the official repositories of Debian 10, but for some reason, it was removed from Debian 11. I downloaded the “nomacs_3.12.0+dfsg-2_amd64.deb” file, but couldn’t install it because of missing about 9 dependencies. After manually installing the dependencies, everything works fine. Debian provides only Firefox ESR, which is outdated. In order to use the latest version, I download the “firefox-100.0.2.tar.bz2” 73.7 MB in size, decompress it in my /home folder, then create firefox.desktop file in the /home/user/.local/share/applications folder and everything works OK. The firefox.desktop file contains the following:
[Desktop Entry]
Type=Application
Terminal=false
Name=Firefox
Exec=/home/user/firefox/firefox %u
Icon=/home/user/firefox/browser/chrome/icons/default/default32.png
Categories=GTK;WebBrowser;Network
NoDisplay=false

2 Likes

I use nomacs in Void linux. It is a really nice image editor.
I have it running under the Lumina desktop… it fits well there brcause it is Qt5 same as Lumina
Why would Debian drop it?

Hi Neville,
Here is why they removed nomacs from Debian 11: “Migration status for nomacs (- to 3.12.0+dfsg-3): BLOCKED: Rejected/violates migration policy/introduces a regression.” https://www.reddit.com/r/debian/comments/pkaj56/nomacs_in_debian_testing/ It was also removed from Devuan 4.0. I install it by copying all dependencies in one folder “Nomacs”, then apt install /home/user/Nomacs/*.deb and it works just fine. I also like viewnior and gpicview. They are less capable than nomacs, but extremely light and fast.
Cheers

1 Like

Been tinkering with Xubuntu 22.04 core ISO in VirtualBox, which basically is just the base of Xubuntu without all the bloat. They decided also like Ubuntu to keep Firefox as a Snap, no deb file choice. So I added Waterfox to .local/share. Then wrote a desktop entry script in .local/applications for it to be opened up in menu. The only problem is, is it automatically hides any apps you add to Categories in Desktop Entry, leaving you to install menulibre to switch wanted menu Categories on. I love my Xapps from Linux Mint, managed to download only Xed (A better version of Gedit.), Xviewer (A better version of Image Viewer.), Xreader (PDF Viewer.) through Synaptic in Xubuntu 20.04 and all installed apart from Xreader, which complains that it is made for 20.04, but so are the other apps? Waiting for
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:savoury1/xapps to update his or hers PPA thing (Thought I’d better stay politically correct with the his or hers thing. Ish :grin:)

I put my waterfox in /usr/local/bin.
Dont know if that makes any difference
The Lumina desktop automatically adds anything you install to the app menu. So did not need a script. Just had to click on it in the app menu and ask for an icon.
So why did you need a script… because your desktop has not detected your waterfox install. It is not looking in .local/share. So you need to make a link from somewhere where it is looking… eg from /bin or /usr/bin.
Thats my take on it anyway… might be wrong.
I think you will find waterfox itself OK. It works for me, but I dont do anything complicated
Regards
Neville

1 Like

.local/share is where I extracted it and made a script in .local/share/applications. It’s XFCE which is slightly different to any other OS, it’s about DIM Do It Myself. :grin: A lot of apps you don’t necessarily have to install, just write a script pointing to it to open. I do that with AppImages and stuff I want opened with Firefox on my main OS which is Xubuntu 20.04. I opted for Waterfox in VirtualBox, running Xubuntu 22.04, as do not want or like Snaps or Flatpaks. If I could be bothered I’d setup a petition on Change.org to ban Flatpaks and Snaps altogether, but know in my heart that I’ll just get a lot of flack and not Caroline either, bless her heart. :smile:

Yes, any method to tell it where to find the binary will do.
An install is just copying it to somewhere where the launcher will find it.
What I have not conquered is modifying where the dte looks for binaries.
There used to be a variable called LDLOADPATH. It seems to have disappeared.

Most system application launchers (*.desktop files) are in /usr/share/applications folder. User application launchers are in /home/user/.local/share/applications.

1 Like