After creating a fresh installation of Ubuntu 24.04, I installed DEB Firefox from APT by following Mozilla’s instructions from here. But I noticed that it was secretly replaced with Snap Firefox. I was able to verify this by checking the About Firefox page. This is the third time I noticed this.
They have been doing this for a while.
Would recommend you to stick to MX,Mint or if you care only about stability and not Updates debian.
Yeah they’ve been doing that for a while
I suggest Mint or straight Debian. I prefer Mint for anything graphical, Debian for headless
Why use Mint when Mx exists.
What benifit does Mint have over Debian for anything graphical?
Its driver manager is better for newbies. Worse for experienced users though imo.
I’ve just found it’s more polished right out of the box. Definitely more new-user-friendly, like Ubuntu, but with Snap gutted out.
I have been using the regular Mint (based on Ubuntu), but I’m probably going to use the Debian edition next time I install a new system
They started doing that in a couple of years back. Saw quite a bit of backlash in the Linux news media at the time.
That snap shit was so bad it made me switch to Arch.
I’m aware that when the user runs(without adding Mozilla’s apt repository),
sudo apt install firefoxthe snap version of Firefox is installed. But I never heard that, though APT is configured to install Firefox from Mozilla’s repository, the DEB version will be uninstalled and the Snap version will be installed.
Firefox now has instructions on their “Debian-based” install section about pinning their repo over Canonical’s so that doesn’t happen.
Because you’re right, Canonical does think so highly of their product that they will constantly attempt to undermine other options against your will.
Yes, this is known. They do the same for Chromium. If you want a browser from ubuntu, it’s going to be a snap.
w3mis a proper deb 😛Looks like only firefox, chromium-browser and thunderbird are these dummy transitional packages. There’s a
fwupd-snap, but the defaultfwupdis a full deb.
Not defending Ubuntu but wasn’t this clarified to be Mozilla’s deploying it via Snap and requesting to remove the apt installation?
Source: https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-deb-apt-ubuntu-22-04
It was a collaboration, although I’m having trouble finding a source for who wanted it first.
From a security standpoint? Not even close. From a software-release validation requirement, not even in the same galaxy. If they look the same, it’s only due to Clarke’s law.
It’s a joke based of the fact that when you type apt install firefox on ubuntu, it will install the snap instead of the deb package, which is what you would expect when you use apt to install something.
You are missing the attribution. The person you are replying to is making a joke that Canonical says they are the same, not that they are actually the same.
Clearly they’re cosplaying as a Canonical engineer whose internal explanation and pleas for them to not take this approach fell upon deaf ears /j
In Ubuntu they are the same.
firefoxversion1:1snap1-0ubuntu5is a deb that literally runs the commandsnap install firefoxin the preinst script. Check line 77 infirefox-1snap1/debian/firefox.preinstin the source tarball: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/1:1snap1-0ubuntu5There’s no magic there.
That is not the same thing as “snap and apt Firefox are the same”. They just hijacked apt to force snap in.
So both commands do the same thing… right? I’m not saying snap and apt are the same in general.
Yeah for sure, I read your comment as excusing canonical screwing with user intent but I see that’s not what you meant.
Yeah, I really dislike snap and have puppet clean it out and add in the real mozilla repo for me. If I wanted sandboxed apps I’d probably look at flatpak but I think there’s still work to be done there also.
You are missing the attribution. The person you are replying to is making a joke that Canonical says they are the same, not that they are actually the same.
Well, yes, except Canonical have made them actually do the same thing in the case of Firefox. I’m not aware of any other packages that have the deb install just run the snap install.
Yep, I am agreeing with you. The statement was never snap and deb are identical, its that canonical is making them do identical things.
Yeah, I just liked that bit of the meme. In the prank the meme is based on, they really are the same.
Chromium too iirc
Yup,
apt install chromium-browsercallssnap install chromium. Looks like thunderbird is the same. There’s a fwupd-snap deb but fwupd seems to be the default.
Not a secret, but annoying as hell. I usually replace it with a Flatpak and uninstall Snap.
Agreed, not a secret, and not wanted. I uninstall Firefox and install Google Chrome from a .deb - disadvantage: you have to update it manually. Advantage: it doesn’t update itself automatically.
Disadvantage: you’re now using a browser from the biggest
spyad-ware company and killed web heterogeneity.Too late, they own my soul already. I have successfully resisted Meta, X, Microsoft, and any number of lesser daemons, but the one true G has shown me their light and I am unable to look away.
Try sunglasses? But maybe other souls can still be saved from evil…
They delivered their promise: they were at least not evil, at first.
Why would you use an inferior product? Firefox via Snap is shit but it’s still better than any version of Chrome
I have used both, back and forth for years.
Chrome serves me better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_(The_Twilight_Zone)
It is one of the reasons many people turn away from Ubuntu.
Yeah it’s not really a secret
I got a notification about it when I upgraded from 20.04 LTS that they will only serve it as a snap package.
Yes. That was the last straw for me. I switched to debian stable, and haven’t looked back since
Hah! Me too, exactly this.
Me too
Debian will have snaps and flatpaks and all the same insecure black-box drek.
Given how much they violate ISO27002, I can’t see them ever being run in a regs-compliant shop.
I feel like snaps are black boxier tho.
Solve the problem. Drop ubunutu
Or you can just remove snap. I have been running a up-to-date snap-free ubuntu for 2 years
And pin other repos so Ubuntu doesn’t replace it. And change the apt.conf rules that alias out apt install commands for the snap install equivalent. And whatever the countermeasure is for the next sneaky ploy they put into action.
I like my operating system to work for me not against me. So no. I’ll just never use their shitty spin of Linux and rely on someone that makes a quality distro. Not one that forced it’s users to use their pile of shit proprietary nonsense.
Not secretly, no.
But it’s not obvious either. When I say ‘apt install firefox’, specially after adding their repository to sources.list, I’d expect to get a .deb from mozilla. Silently overriding my commands rubs me in a very wrong way.
It takes a little more than just adding a different repository to your package manager, you have to tell apt which to prefer:
echo ’
Package: *
Pin: origin packages.mozilla.org
Pin-Priority: 1000Package: firefox*
Pin: release o=Ubuntu
Pin-Priority: -1’ | sudo tee /etc/apt/preferences.d/mozillaTrue, but more often than not mozilla should have newer packages on their repository than any distribution. And the main problem still is that Ubuntu changed apt and threw snap in to the mix where it doesn’t belong.
I’m not disagreeing with anything you’ve said?
I’m saying that just adding Mozilla’s PPA to your sources won’t change apt’s behavior when installing Firefox unless you tell apt to prefer the package offered by the Mozilla PPA.
As someone who uses Kubuntu as a daily driver, I’m well aware of the snap drama and have worked around it using the method I pasted above.
Even though it’s an underhanded move by Cannonical, I’m still glad the OS is open source since it makes the workaround so trivial.
Since when this became a known thing? I’m aware that the snap version is installed when the user is trying to install the deb version of Firefox by running,
sudo apt install firefoxBut I never heard that the installed DEB version of Firefox is replaced by Snap version of Firefox.
The deb version is a pointer to the snap in their repos. Nothings being replaced, it no longer exists. The deb version of Firefox in Ubuntu repos is a wrapper that installs snap and has no binaries in it. Has been for 3 years or so.
It’s more than that. Ubuntu copies the Debian repos and then applies their own changes on top. Debian has a native (DEB) Firefox package, so Ubuntu specifically has to remove it for every new version.
I had it happen a few times. I moved away from Kubuntu as a result.
At least a few years. I switched to Linux a year ago and that was a huge consideration for me when choosing Debian over Ubuntu.
Well then you haven’t been following it closely. As someone else said, the reason is simple: the Snap version is more recent (like it or not) and in Ubuntu
aptis configured to take into account Snap packages.Canonical added an epoch prefix to the firefox version number. Because that epoch (1) is higher than the implicit default (0), the official ubuntu dummy package is always considered to be a higher version than the official Mozilla package. apt doesn’t look at snap packages, it installs the deb, but the ubuntu deb just runs
snap install firefoxand basically nothing else.
Exactly. Enough with the inane conspiracism.
Welcome to 2020, where Debian is once again your trusted distro.
Always was.
Definitely not you, they absolutely do this with snaps and have for a while. This was the main reason I stopped using Ubuntu.
This is why i switched to Debian. It’s 99% of Ubuntu, without the crap.
I must have hit that 1% last time. I assembled a new PC, wanted to install debian and could not get a login screen after installation. At that point I wanted something that just works. I installed Xubuntu and had the machine ready right away.
Thats… odd. The installer packages aren’t really that different. When was this?
My guess is: prior to Bookworm, when they started including non-free firmware on installation media by default.
Ahhh yea, that would make sense.
I… I… I don’t know why I haven’t done that myself. (Am now on NixOS btw) but for work maybe I ask for Debian cloud box.
For work, you could also try Fedora Workstation or Linux Mint Debian Edition. Debian is pretty barebones, but if that isnt a bother then do whatever.
It’s not barebones. I use it as my main desktop and barely notice any difference from Ubuntu, it has every package I’ve ever needed. I think that mentality of Debian being “bare” is outdated.
@beeng@discuss.tchncs.de this is for you, too.
I had a friend jump ship from Windows and they said that Debian felt barebones. I personally dont have any problem with it, I use it all the time for VMs, server, and I used to main it. I still think it is missing a lot of user-friendly small things that i never noticed on my own because I am very comfortable with Linux.
They do install less by default, but I’d love to pick their brain to understand what they meant. Oh well ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Linux just isnt transparent about some things. Beginners most have problems when they use a GUI tool and then have to still edit a file. Like dirt example, adding a new drive using GUI disk utility and then sometime in the future disconnecting the drive and being forced into emergency mode.
Uhh, that’s a thing in any modern distro? I plug and unplug SATA drives all the time.
I’d suggest the KDE flavor of Debian, then. Its settings manager is divine, and its software management platform ties every other package management system in (apt/dpkg for Debian, yum for Redhat, pacman for Arch, plus flatpak, nixpkg, and even snaps if you absolutely must). By default starting in Plasma 6.0.
More to @fmstrat’s point, and to suggest a possible cause your friend had that impression: if you install the Minimal flavor of any distro, you’re going to get a minimal experience.
I like gnome, but i guess i could look at fedora.
I would like to stay with apt as package manager so the package names stay the same to what I know, or is yum/dnf/etc gonna use the same for most?
Mostly the same, and if not all it has taken for me to figure it out was searching “fedora $pkgname”
You can get Gnome on Fedora. It won’t have Apt.
Packages will have a different naming scheme based on the maintainers’ preferences, even between Debian and Ubuntu (though those are usually pretty minor).
Your muscle memory is gonna trip you up for a while though.
At this point, why is anyone using Ubuntu for desktop? You have soooo many options
Unfortunately it’s my only option at work because my employer wants the security of Ubuntu pro
Because not everyone wants to spend their time babysitting an OS and Ubuntu has a 20-year track record of dependability.
While I get that, Debian fits that role extremely well.
I was waiting for this! Debian is great. I used it for years. But IMO it’s not polished enough for normies. The website is fugly and the onboarding funnel assumes too much knowledge. The installer, last time I tried it, was glitchy and unintuitive. I think that techies underestimate how offputting even ostensibly minor issues like this will be to ordinary users. Also, Debian has a ton of unmaintained packages (altho I gather that something is being done about this). Debian is fundamentally amateur in the best and unfortunately worst senses. I think a Linux flagship distro needs to be more pro and systematically thought out. For that, it’s always going to help to have a big company or organization behind it.
I have a laptop that needs a proprietary wifi driver. I just “love” it when the debian net installer works out of the box, but after first boot wifi dies because the driver is missing in the installed instance :D I need to find a lan cable, do some athletics to get to the router, then install the driver and only then I can connect via wifi :D
The installer, last time I tried it, was glitchy and unintuitive.
I used it a few months ago and it was pretty smooth.
I used it decades ago (using the CLI installer for a Sid install I eventually fucked up beyond repair) and it was okay for a slightly tech savvy teenager, even then.
I suspect a lot of these issues are down to hardware compatibility more than anything else.
Was a kubuntu person for a long time, I haven’t really loved the default Ubuntu DE for a while, but that’s personal preferences. At the end of the day, use what you like.
I personally like debian (swapped from Kubuntu over time) but keep mint on my thumb drive for family who needs something on older hardware, especially those used to windows it seems to be an easy jump. I love that there are so many options available to people with various levels of prepackaging and configurations.
And there are still other options!
I’m a relative Linux noob and Manjaro Arch works perfectly for me, no babysitting required.
I agree Ubuntu is the easy choice. You can totally find a desktop you don’t have to baby sit, but Ubuntu has the marketing to help you find them and feel safe.
I’ve had no issues with fedora, I’ve been running it for about a year.
I think fedora is best for user that want a recent kernel and reasonably fast update cycle (like not a year behind) but are not interested in rolling (for whatever reason ever).
I love rolling and had no issues due to rolling yet
Exactly. But I would go further. I think Linux needs flagship distros with big solid institutions behind them, and it needs us to support those distros by using them. I know this is not an popular opinion here.
I see those flagship distros precisely as Fedora and Ubuntu.
I’m a bit of an anarchist so I disagree on principal lol, but I do agree that that would help Linux usurp windows.
My fear is that it would just then become windows within a decade or less. Getting big and institutional may work out. I’ve just seen a lot of cases go sour.
To me the beauty of Linux is that it is less connected to large impersonal capitalistic structures. That’s why it feels different from Windows.
Red Hat and Ubuntu.
There is RedHat and SUSE. Which are also the only two certified distros for running corporate/enterprise CAD/CAM/FEA and PLM software. They both provide rock solid stability.
