Every so often i start believing all the posts about how Linux really made a lot of progress, and the desktop experience is so much better now, and everything is supported, and i give it another try.
I've got a small intel 13th gen NUC i use as a small server, and for playing movies from. It runs windows 11, but as i want to run some docker containers on it, i thought, why not give Linux a try again, how bad can it be. (after all, i've got multiple raspberry pi's running, and a synology diskstation, and i'm no stranger to ssh'ing into them to manage some stuff)
Downloaded the latest Ubuntu Desktop (23.10), since it's still a highly recommended distro, and started my journey.
First obvious task: connect to my SMB shares on my synology to get access to any media. Tough luck, whatever tool Ubuntu uses for that always tries SMBv1 protocol first, which is disabled on my synology due to security reasons. If i enable it on my synology i get a nice warning that SMBv1 is vulnurable and has been used to perform ransomware attacks, so maybe i'd rather leave it disabled (although i assume that's mostly the case if the port were accessible from the internet, but still). Then i thought "it's probably some setting somewhere to change this", but after further googling, i found an issue that whatever ubuntu is using for SMB needs a patch to not default to SMBv1 to get a list of shares.... Yeah, great start for the oh so secure linux, i'd need to enable a protocol that got used in ransomware attacks over 6 years ago to get everything to work properly... (yeah, i ended up finding how to mount things manually, and then added it to my fstab as a workaround, but wtf)
Then, i installed Kodi, tried to play some content. Noticed that even though i enabled that setting on Kodi, it's not switching to the refreshrate of the video i'm playing. Googling further on that just felt like walking through a tarpit. From the dedicated librelec distro that runs just kodi that has special patches to resolve this, to discussions about X not supporting switching refreshrates, and Kodi having a standalone mode that doesn't use a window manager that should solve it but doesn't, and also finding people with similar woes about HDR. I guess the future of the desktop user is watching stuttering videos with bad color rendition? I'd give more details about what i found if there were any. Try googling it yourself, you'll find so little yet contradictory things...
Not being entirely defeated yet, i thought "i've got this nice GUI on my synology for managing docker containers & images, let's see if i can find something nice on ubuntu", and found dockstation as something i could try. Downloaded the .deb file (since ubuntu is a debian variant it seems), double clicked the file and ... "no app installed for this file"... google around a bit, after some misleading results regarding older ubuntu versions, i found the issue: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2023/10/install-deb-ubuntu-23-10-no-app-error
Of course Ubuntu just threw out the old installer for debian files, and didn't replace it yet. Wouldn't want a user to just be able to easily install files! what is this, windows?
For real, i see all the Linux love here, and for the headless servers i have here (the raspberries & the synology), i get it. But goddamn this desktop experience is so ridiculous, there has to be better than this right? I'm missing something, or doing something completely wrong, or... right?
Ah yes, i should have known better than to rely on the documentation of the website of an application i should install. Do you guys really consider this a sane ecosystem? I google what kind of apps there are for what i want. I find the site of one i want to try, it says "here is a deb package for ubuntu", and then hell ensues. And when i share this experience your reaction is "you should have known better" O_o... yeah no. This is just insanity. If according to you even the developers of applications fail to send their users in the right direction on how to get their application installed, there is probably little hope for a mere user like me.
Well, go blame the developer of that application for failing to do things right.
Why would consequences of their actions somehow affect the sanity of the "ecosystem"?
That the ecosystem seems so complex that even developers don't know how they should recommend their users should install an application. Haven't encountered that yet on windows. And i've had plenty of people here tell me "yes, you CAN install deb packages, and many apps will GIVE you deb packages, and the ubuntu page says Debian packages is the very HEART of ubuntu. But you'd be insane to install something like that". Does that sound like a good ecosystem, where people aknowledge that the best way to do stuff is ignore everything app developers & the makers of one of the largest distros say, and do the opposite and ignore apps that you can't install in the way that i should magically know is the best way.
I stand by my words man, but you're free to try to convince me :).
Talking as if being able to develop software made you a superhuman.
Most developers of something with Linux versions do get it right and if there's a "downloads" or "get X" section on their website, it just instructs to install the thing from the repository, with the package name. Sometimes with a separate section for every of the most popular distributions and nice distro icon.
It's not a single "ecosystem". Every distribution is its own "ecosystem".
First you blame Ubuntu for some unknown app's developer's choices, then other distributions for Ubuntu developers' choices. It just doesn't make sense.
I'm not blaming them for an unknown apps developers choices, i'm blaming them for putting on their site that deb packages is the heart of ubuntu, but when i complain here that installing one is a nightmare on the latest ubuntu i get thrown at my head that installing deb packages is a stupid idea and i should somehow know better.
You can keep throwing up strawmen, but that won't change my point in anyway. But you can keep ignoring the point i guess, you're quite good at it it seems.
That one is on Canonical/Ubuntu, too.
Ubuntu is a bastard spinoff of Debian and is run by a pretty evil corporation.
They took the Debian .deb packages and their format and modified them so they are sometimes compatible and sometimes incompatible to the original Debian packaging format. And on top of that, they didn't even rename the package suffix so there are now two kinds of .deb packages: original Debian and semicompatible from Canonical. They also have different package dependency definitions, so installing the same program on either might pull in different dependencies (which is actually not a bad thing, as packages might got sliced differently; mentioned for completeness)
Always use the distribution's package manager to install packages from the distribution's repositories, try to avoid installing packages directly, as they are then outside of the repository ecosystem. Do not do it!
I would go as far as saying: if the program is not packaged, think twice if an alternative wouldn't be the better option as otherwise you'll have a foreign package installed in your system, with possibly broken dependencies and that does not get updates, which in effect undermines one of the core Linux principles, there is not a single Linux distribution without a kind of package management. (Disclaimer: there probably is because with Linux you can do pretty much everything but it would just be a rare one and not for general consumption)