Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Available To Download; Mozilla To Offer 0-Day Firefox Releases Via Snaps 74
Reader prisoninmate writes: The latest, and hopefully, the greatest version of Ubuntu is now available to download. On the sidelines, Mozilla today announced the availability of future releases of its popular Firefox web browser in the snap package format for Ubuntu 16.04 LTS. Earlier today, Canonical unleashed the final release of the highly anticipated Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (Xenial Xerus) operating system, bringing users a great set of new features and improvements. Also today, it looks like Canonical has renewed its partnership with Mozilla to offer Firefox as the default web browser on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS and upcoming releases of the Linux kernel-based operating systems. As part of the new partnership, Mozilla is committed to distributing future versions of Firefox as a snap package. Having Firefox distributed in the snap format means that you'll have 0-day releases in Ubuntu 16.04. Yes, just like Windows and Mac OS X, users are enjoying their 0-day releases of Mozilla Firefox and don't have to wait for package maintainers of a particular GNU/Linux distribution to update the software in the main repositories. For Mozilla, having Firefox as a snap package means that they'll be able to continually optimize it for Ubuntu.
.deb repositories (Score:2)
Yes, just like Windows and Mac OS X, users are enjoying their 0-day releases of Mozilla Firefox and don't have to wait for package maintainers of a particular GNU/Linux distribution to update the software in the main repositories.
Really? I mean, are you guys so fucking retarded that you're not able to setup your own .deb repositories? Fuck, you can even use Launchpad's PPAs!
Re: (Score:2)
Adding an extra repo to your package manager once and getting the update the same day ever after...vs. manually going to their website and downloading it each time.
Hmm.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe snappy packages are self-updating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:.deb repositories (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a regression, and a bad one. You can push 0-day updates via the standard ubuntu/debian package repository. Firefox doesn't even really have that many dependencies (it has an amazing amount of shit compiled into it. libjpeg, libpng, gzip..it links to the system libraries for almost nothing). This is for stability, but it also increases the risk of security holes quite a bit. A researcher at RMIT did a talk at Ruxcon one real about tools he wrote to scan manjor software projects to find vulnerable versions of embedded libraries.
In any case, snappy are a regression. Linux package management was always way superior to Android/Apple monolithic self contained apps. Linux now has svchost (systemd) and monolithic packages (snappy). How else can we fuck it up even more?
Re: (Score:1)
Preach. Sane, secure, centralized package management is a really big reason to use Linux. Snaps seems to ignore this important philosophy. I understand that Ubuntu must keep this long languishing dream of convergence going and that Snaps are there most recent flounder towards that...but come on now.
Re: (Score:2)
Linux package management was always way superior to Android/Apple monolithic self contained apps
In every way except for everyone being able to push their latest software whenever they want. I'm as much of a fan of apt-get install x to just have something magic its way on my computer as the next person. Linux package management is frigging amazing, but it's not a panacea for everything. In fact I was keen to get this Ubuntu update just so I can move to a newer version of the very outdated samba server that was in the standard repository. Attempting to add another PPA for the updated software just proc
Re: (Score:2)
If you want bleeding edge just reconfigure your package manager to track Unstable or Hurt Me Good or whatever they call it.
How long is turnaround for Testing anyway? Or does it vary too widely to really have a useful answer to that?
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh yes, just reconfigure an entire system to use unstable packages for the sake of one program.
Nope, I'll just install a Snap package.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I didn't say it was better. It just sounded like you were saying it wasn't possible.
Re: (Score:2)
No, don't get me wrong. If there's one thing that Linux is known for is that somehow everything is possible in one way or another.
But frankly I'm getting sick of the meme that you can do anything by (insert stupendously complicated instructions here), and doubly so when it refers to something as basic as installing a program.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds pretty accurate. My first reply was a bit provocative to begin with.
Have a nice weekend :)
Re: (Score:3)
I need somebody to give me a sanity check on this snappy thing. Sounds like you're packaging your app and all it's dependencies in one archive, and installing that in a sandbox/chroot or just funky LD_CONFIG so that the binaries in the snap access their own private libraries. Is that about right?
So now with system-installed libraries like OpenSSL, if there's a vulnerability in OpenSSL, you patch OpenSSL, maybe kill/restart everything linked to it on the system, and life goes on.
If I'm groking snaps proper
No. Just no. (Score:5, Insightful)
The constant usage of "zero-day" is annoying enough already without taking it and applying it to something completely different.
Unless literally Mozilla is going to release builds of Firefox to exploit unpatched vulnerabilities in Ubuntu...
Do I even want Firefox updates?! (Score:1)
I know I need to install Firefox updates often and quickly, because they typically include security fixes.
But aside from those security fixes, I really, really don't want to upgrade Firefox.
Starting with Firefox 4, I think that every Firefox upgrade has left me worse off.
Firefox's UI is now way harder to use, especially after Australis was released. Firefox 3.6 was easy to us because it had sensible menus, a sensible toolbar, a status bar, and other useful UI functionality. But that has been gradually strip
Re: (Score:2)
Try out Pale Moon :) They've even got a Linux version.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we just want the old paradigm of Firefox (3.x days) back where they didn't have ANY* pointless extra bloat like Pocket, Twitter integration, etc., etc. built in. If you want extra functionality, install the extensions.
So your entire post is apologetic nonsense.
*well okay I'm sure there was some but nothing compared to these days
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that the entire reason they started Firefox was to de-bloatify the Mozilla Suite, right? So not so much "always."
So you're saying that it's impossible to write software without buckets of bloat. Since you ignored my entire post so will I yours.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying there aren't settings that you could change but what it is that you're constantly dicking around with in there that is a requirement for making it "usable"? Even if you have a particular preference, just set it when you install the browser and be done with it.
Way back in the 3.0 days it was just a couple settings in about:config that some people disabled to prune down the AwesomeBar behavior. Then it required an extension. Then they took out the status bar. Then Australis rolled and they started removing the about:config options you used to undo all this crud...
So yes, in theory you can do it just once when you install it, but there's quite a few values to twaddle and even some things that can't be turned off at all. Have you seen Classic Theme Restorer? It's ba
Re: (Score:2)
What you think is necessary in a browser simply doesn't match what others think is necessary.
Except for the part where Mozilla is hemorrhaging users. So yeah, apparently it does.
And I'm talking about core features of 90% of program GUIs in the last 3 decades. Ditching menus and status bars are not "optional features." Oh, and as you say above, I'm sure that's just a couple k right, so it doesn't matter? But I'm the one being inconsistent, somehow.
they're moving in the very direction you wanted them to move in
Nope.
yet you're quibbling because what you really want is for them to support what YOU want them to support.
I'm going to tell you one more time that you're full of crap. I want the classic GUI elements we've all been using for the last couple decades, and m
Already so (Score:5, Insightful)
Looks good! My Tiny review. (Score:3)
Downloaded the mate spin, and so far, looks really nice. No virtualbox guest issues, the virtualbox boot resolution error is gone. Installed zfs and partitioned and made some zpools, flawless.
All I had to do apt-get install zfsutils-linux zfs-initramfs and modprobe zfs, and it was good to go.
I tried loading zfs in the live cd, and checked if gpart showed zfs, but it didnt. That would have been the icing on the cake, create a zfs for a boot/root/swap and go.
I didn't have the restricted repo installed, so i just apturl apt://ubuntu-restricted-extras and had all the 3rd party installed.
Mate seems to be locked at 1.12.1 when 14 is out, prob not a big issue.
GTK is 3.18, so no 3.20 issues to worry about. Noticed clearlooks is now named tradtionalok, assume thats to fix the gtk2/gtk3 meta theme, no need for clearlooks-phenix anymore. Firefox Beta/Dev doesnt support GTK 3.20 yet, so nice to see. (And breeze theme is broken in 3.20 if your a KDE user, so wanting themes to match across gtk2/gtk3/qt, nice to see no issues there. Bring on unix themes!
Software Boutique would not work with my proxy. The rest of the system appeared to use the proxy just fine.
Looks like a good Mate spin to me! And LTS, my co-workers will be happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu is the distro. Mate is the spin -- it has all the same ubuntu packages, but a different default-installed selection. It's a useful distinction since there are so many different spins of ubuntu for each different desktop environment and it would be wrong to imply that any of them have anything unavailable to the others.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried loading zfs in the live cd, and checked if gpart showed zfs, but it didnt.
Errr ZFS doesn't run on a partition level, it's a bit different from the traditional filesystem so I don't think there are any plans to ever add zfs to tools like gparted.
That said there's been no problem running ZFS as your root filesystem in the past and I imagine there won't be a problem now either unless they royally screwed something up.
Re: (Score:1)
Hello m$ shill #1701! Please go the counter for your cheque! Ty.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about him being a Microsoft Shill? Being anti-systemd has nothing to do with Microsoft.
Snaps are for LUDDITES. (Score:1)
Modern app appers ONLY app apps, NOT LUDDITE SNAPS!
Apps!
Tabs fucked up (Score:2)
Ubuntu 16.04 minimal server step by step (Score:1)