Ubuntu-minimal depends on Ubuntu-advantage-tools(bugs.launchpad.net)
bugs.launchpad.net
Ubuntu-minimal depends on Ubuntu-advantage-tools
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-meta/+bug/1930914
65 comments
Thanks for the laugh, that first line is amazing
IMO, PopOS is the ideal Ubuntu alternative right now. They're mostly doing things right. For Desktop, anyway.
IMO, PopOS is the ideal Ubuntu alternative right now. They're mostly doing things right. For Desktop, anyway.
I tried Pop_OS! on my gaming laptop last year.
It does have some nice UI improvements.
It is also terrible:
- Suspend did not work
- My GPU would always be activated, which would make my fan run at maximum speed.
- Steam didn't work out of the box, so I never actually played any games, which was the whole point. Steam did work with some effort on regular Ubuntu.
- Eventually, the system became glitchy in record time, i.e. random crashes.
Going back to Ubuntu server edition, I felt like I had been given a new computer again.
It does have some nice UI improvements.
It is also terrible:
- Suspend did not work
- My GPU would always be activated, which would make my fan run at maximum speed.
- Steam didn't work out of the box, so I never actually played any games, which was the whole point. Steam did work with some effort on regular Ubuntu.
- Eventually, the system became glitchy in record time, i.e. random crashes.
Going back to Ubuntu server edition, I felt like I had been given a new computer again.
I don't have any of those problems on my Dell XPS laptop. Installed it in October-ish.
Same for me. Ran perfectly on my Thinkpad X1E (including for gaming!).
But does Debian have the same security support speed as Ubuntu?
Debian is a community project, therefore everything is best-effort rather than guaranterd like Ubuntu or RHEL/-clones.
Although for all the hate it gets, Ubuntu Pro is genuinely a good offering when comparing it to something like RHEL.
Also fuck snaps, no body wants to use that crap, neither on the desktop(flatpak is just better) or the server(use containers already).
Debian is a community project, therefore everything is best-effort rather than guaranterd like Ubuntu or RHEL/-clones.
Although for all the hate it gets, Ubuntu Pro is genuinely a good offering when comparing it to something like RHEL.
Also fuck snaps, no body wants to use that crap, neither on the desktop(flatpak is just better) or the server(use containers already).
All the data is there: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/
I'm asking in general, is it as fast as Ubuntu?
You’d have to ask someone who runs both Debian and Ubuntu systems; I don’t know.
If you want to study the data, I guess you could compare <https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/rss.xml> with <https://www.debian.org/security/dsa-long>.
If you want to study the data, I guess you could compare <https://ubuntu.com/security/notices/rss.xml> with <https://www.debian.org/security/dsa-long>.
[deleted]
I've been using Linux for...huh, I guess next year makes 30 years. I run Ubuntu on all of my machines, because it's easy and well-supported and I got tired of tinkering with my Linux install for its own sake roughly 20 years ago.
I'm in the same boat.
26 years of Linux, been running Ubuntu for at least a decade.
Ubuntu server on laptops, because it gives me nice things.
Debian on servers, because it's minimal and conservative.
26 years of Linux, been running Ubuntu for at least a decade.
Ubuntu server on laptops, because it gives me nice things.
Debian on servers, because it's minimal and conservative.
Linux since Slackware 1.0, and started using Ubuntu as soon as it was available. Still using it on some cloud servers, but they've put enough dents in my "trust" sentiment that I avoid using them where possible, now, and my desktops are usually Manjaro.
I'm unhappy with them but it will be a tragedy when they are finally acquired.
I'm unhappy with them but it will be a tragedy when they are finally acquired.
Can recommend considering Endeavour as a Manjaro alternative.
the lxc-lxd and snap issues are the stuff that makes me go from "I don't care about ubuntu" to "I hate ubuntu"
I uninstalled/purged snap on a machine my coworker provisioned, we don't use anything that snap offers. After that I don't have an issue with Ubuntu at all.
What wrong with lxd on Ubuntu?
LXD is only available via Ubuntu proprietary Snap packages and not native .deb packages. Native as in Ubuntu is a Debian derivative, and .deb packages are the native package for Debian.
Snap has some downsides for server/infrastructure packages. Automatic updating being the most visible, but they are generally all about lack of control. This is what Snap does, it moves the power from users to developers.
Snap has some downsides for server/infrastructure packages. Automatic updating being the most visible, but they are generally all about lack of control. This is what Snap does, it moves the power from users to developers.
Not true any longer. Debian has been officially [1] supporting LXD Debian packages [2] since September last year. And you can add this APT repo [3] — which follows the same Debian recipes - into your sources.list to install LXD natively with APT.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/LXD
[2] https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/lxd
[3] https://apt.calenhad.com/
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/LXD
[2] https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/lxd
[3] https://apt.calenhad.com/
I looked at moving our cloud machines to Debian rather than Ubuntu.
I concluded it may not be worth it:
- Debian still has the unattended-upgrades thing. I don't like this.
- Debian's package manager doesn't support zstd compression so you can't use modern Ubuntu packages on it (I _think_ they're fixing this)
- Debian's packages can be quite far behind, for example the current version of Boost is 1.74 where the offical release 1.81
- I couldn't see any obvious performance improvements (Apache stack)
+ No snap shit.
If anyone can provide me with more ammo to move to Debian I'd welcome it.
- Debian still has the unattended-upgrades thing. I don't like this.
- Debian's package manager doesn't support zstd compression so you can't use modern Ubuntu packages on it (I _think_ they're fixing this)
- Debian's packages can be quite far behind, for example the current version of Boost is 1.74 where the offical release 1.81
- I couldn't see any obvious performance improvements (Apache stack)
+ No snap shit.
If anyone can provide me with more ammo to move to Debian I'd welcome it.
> - Debian still has the unattended-upgrades thing. I don't like this.
Then don’t install it? I don’t get the problem.
> - Debian's package manager doesn't support zstd compression so you can't use modern Ubuntu packages on it (I _think_ they're fixing this)
Fixed and released a week ago: https://bugs.debian.org/892664
> - Debian's packages can be quite far behind, for example the current version of Boost is 1.74 where the offical release 1.81
Boost 1.81 is in experimental; download the package if you want it.
> - I couldn't see any obvious performance improvements (Apache stack)
“No obvious performace improvements” is a negative? What you can reasonably expect of Debian is the same as Ubuntu, minus the bloatware.
Then don’t install it? I don’t get the problem.
> - Debian's package manager doesn't support zstd compression so you can't use modern Ubuntu packages on it (I _think_ they're fixing this)
Fixed and released a week ago: https://bugs.debian.org/892664
> - Debian's packages can be quite far behind, for example the current version of Boost is 1.74 where the offical release 1.81
Boost 1.81 is in experimental; download the package if you want it.
> - I couldn't see any obvious performance improvements (Apache stack)
“No obvious performace improvements” is a negative? What you can reasonably expect of Debian is the same as Ubuntu, minus the bloatware.
> > - Debian's packages can be quite far behind, for example the current version of Boost is 1.74 where the offical release 1.81
> Boost 1.81 is in experimental; download the package if you want it.
1.74 was a year old when bullseye was released, and there had been at least three boost releases in that time. PHP is another example. From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28180482 :
> PHP 8.0 is 10 months old, and debian’s upcoming release will be upgrading from 7.3 to 7.4, which will make 7.4 the standard for the next ~3 years (even though it only gets upstream support for 1 more year)…
There is plenty of software this happens to in Debian, and Debian isn't the only distro this happens with. We need distros maintaining stability as must as we need distros moving fast and breaking things, and everywhere in between. It just means that some distros might not be an exact fit for all use cases. And that's fine.
> Boost 1.81 is in experimental; download the package if you want it.
1.74 was a year old when bullseye was released, and there had been at least three boost releases in that time. PHP is another example. From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28180482 :
> PHP 8.0 is 10 months old, and debian’s upcoming release will be upgrading from 7.3 to 7.4, which will make 7.4 the standard for the next ~3 years (even though it only gets upstream support for 1 more year)…
There is plenty of software this happens to in Debian, and Debian isn't the only distro this happens with. We need distros maintaining stability as must as we need distros moving fast and breaking things, and everywhere in between. It just means that some distros might not be an exact fit for all use cases. And that's fine.
The Debian packager of PHP and Apache also provides a neat repository with very up to date versions: https://deb.sury.org/
> > PHP 8.0 is 10 months old, and debian’s upcoming release will be upgrading from 7.3 to 7.4, which will make 7.4 the standard for the next ~3 years (even though it only gets upstream support for 1 more year)…
Packaging PHP 8 would have required to drop, e.g., the mediawiki package, which only become compatible with PHP 8 in 1.39, released November 2022.
Packaging PHP 8 would have required to drop, e.g., the mediawiki package, which only become compatible with PHP 8 in 1.39, released November 2022.
Boost 1.81 in Debian currently has some bugs which prevent its inclusion in Debian proper: https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?experimental=1&package=boo...
> - Debian's packages can be quite far behind, for example the current version of Boost is 1.74 where the offical release 1.81
Debian is released every two years. Debian gets security updates through LTS for five years.
If the packages in Debian are "old" it's because of the biennial release cycle. As a sysadmin I'm fine with that, and Debian is no worse than Ubuntu which has its LTS every two years as well.
If you're on the desktop then there could be an advantage to running the more frequent non-LTS releases. But I'm fine with the biennial LTS, which makes Debian and Ubuntu roughly equivalent.
Debian is released every two years. Debian gets security updates through LTS for five years.
If the packages in Debian are "old" it's because of the biennial release cycle. As a sysadmin I'm fine with that, and Debian is no worse than Ubuntu which has its LTS every two years as well.
If you're on the desktop then there could be an advantage to running the more frequent non-LTS releases. But I'm fine with the biennial LTS, which makes Debian and Ubuntu roughly equivalent.
Though Ubuntu LTS has more sane exceptions for things like browsers and desktop apps pre-snap.
Downthread there's this:
>>Canonical has been taking steps to advertise their paid offerings in increasing velocity lately. Is there something that's been triggering this?
>https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/21/canonical-now-hopes-to-ipo... "Canonical now hopes to IPO in 2023" (April 2022 story).
So it sounds like it is the start of an active commercialisation of the users. Since Snap started getting pushed more heavily I've been looking to change. I've tried Pop_OS but it doesn't fit well for me. I want to stay on a relatively vanilla KDE ... probably try Debian next (been on Ubuntu for something like 15 years, was Slackware before that).
>>Canonical has been taking steps to advertise their paid offerings in increasing velocity lately. Is there something that's been triggering this?
>https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/21/canonical-now-hopes-to-ipo... "Canonical now hopes to IPO in 2023" (April 2022 story).
So it sounds like it is the start of an active commercialisation of the users. Since Snap started getting pushed more heavily I've been looking to change. I've tried Pop_OS but it doesn't fit well for me. I want to stay on a relatively vanilla KDE ... probably try Debian next (been on Ubuntu for something like 15 years, was Slackware before that).
Unattended-upgrades is one of the reasons I used to install Ubuntu as a default server OS. Combining that and an automated reboot is practically all you need to keep your server secure enough in most cases.
Ubuntu runs boost 1.74 just like Debian. Upgrading to a new version is likely to break stuff and neither Ubuntu not Debian are rolling release distros, so it wouldn't make sense for them to update already. The upcoming 23.04 not containing the newer Boost version makes less sense, unless there are compatibility problems that can't be fixed before release.
Either way, Debian is Ubuntu without all the Ubuntu. If Ubuntu works for you now, Debian will probably work for you with minimal changes to your workflow. In many cases it packages more recent versions of software because it's "LTS" cycles are faster than Ubuntu's.
If you want rolling release updates completely under your control, consider Arch or one of its derivatives (Endeavour/Manjaro/etc.) instead. All three of them come with the warning that a standard system update can make your OS unbootable if you don't read the change logs, but that's just a consequence of always using the latest and greatest.
Ubuntu runs boost 1.74 just like Debian. Upgrading to a new version is likely to break stuff and neither Ubuntu not Debian are rolling release distros, so it wouldn't make sense for them to update already. The upcoming 23.04 not containing the newer Boost version makes less sense, unless there are compatibility problems that can't be fixed before release.
Either way, Debian is Ubuntu without all the Ubuntu. If Ubuntu works for you now, Debian will probably work for you with minimal changes to your workflow. In many cases it packages more recent versions of software because it's "LTS" cycles are faster than Ubuntu's.
If you want rolling release updates completely under your control, consider Arch or one of its derivatives (Endeavour/Manjaro/etc.) instead. All three of them come with the warning that a standard system update can make your OS unbootable if you don't read the change logs, but that's just a consequence of always using the latest and greatest.
> Debian's packages can be quite far behind, for example the current version of Boost is 1.74 where the offical release 1.81
You can always run Debian testing or sid if you don't need rock solid stability.
If you don't want to do that, you can stay on Debian stable and use the backports repo: https://backports.debian.org/
You can always run Debian testing or sid if you don't need rock solid stability.
If you don't want to do that, you can stay on Debian stable and use the backports repo: https://backports.debian.org/
> Debian's package manager doesn't support zstd compression so you can't use modern Ubuntu packages on it (I _think_ they're fixing this)
Well... okay? You can't install Fedora RPMs on it either. Installing packages from another distro might sometimes work, but only more or less by coincidence; you really shouldn't be doing that.
Well... okay? You can't install Fedora RPMs on it either. Installing packages from another distro might sometimes work, but only more or less by coincidence; you really shouldn't be doing that.
>I guess anybody interested in a minimal Ubuntu install would be better off installing Debian instead.
Do debian ships with a microsoft signed bootloader ? Is that easy to install on Debian ?
Do debian ships with a microsoft signed bootloader ? Is that easy to install on Debian ?
Yes. Debian ships with shim-signed which has been signed by Microsoft UEFI CA & will in turn boot grub-efi-amd64-signed which will then boot a signed kernel. So you have a chain of trust from a standard UEFI system to the kernel.
All of this is installed by default with a normal Debian install.
All of this is installed by default with a normal Debian install.
Yes, Debian comes with a signed bootloader and kernel.
> Do debian ships with a microsoft signed bootloader ?
Yes.
Yes.
“ubuntu-advantage-tools needs to be present so users can upgrade to Ubuntu Advantage/Pro to get extended security support.”
Remind users to apt-get ubuntu-advantage-tools if they want to upgrade.
“No, `apt-get ubuntu-extended-support` isn’t an option, because users should be able to use Ubuntu without using apt-get.”
So, who exactly is using Minimal Ubuntu (“…a set of Ubuntu images designed for automated deployment at scale…”) without using apt-get? Your description of the distro as “…not intended to be comfortable to use at the command line, but you can apt-get and snap install anything as usual…” sure sounds like you expect users to use apt-get, in the rare circumstance that anyone ever does log in as a user to one of these distros.
“Sorry, but we will not budge on this ‘must have access to advantage/pro without apt-get’ technicality.”
So there’s this line, once again from the Ubuntu wiki’s own description of Ubuntu Minimal: “The `unminimize` command will install the standard Ubuntu Server packages if you want to convert a Minimal instance to a standard Server environment…”. So make a `get-advantage` or `go-pro` command. There, access to advantage/pro without apt-get.
“Look, we are a business, and advantage/pro upgrades are how we make money, we’re not taking it out.”
I’m sure you have telemetry tracking upgrade conversions - maybe in ubuntu-advantage-tools itself, maybe elsewhere. Take a good look at that data and find out how many people are upgrading to advantage/pro from minimal. Is it zero? It’s zero, isn’t it?
Remind users to apt-get ubuntu-advantage-tools if they want to upgrade.
“No, `apt-get ubuntu-extended-support` isn’t an option, because users should be able to use Ubuntu without using apt-get.”
So, who exactly is using Minimal Ubuntu (“…a set of Ubuntu images designed for automated deployment at scale…”) without using apt-get? Your description of the distro as “…not intended to be comfortable to use at the command line, but you can apt-get and snap install anything as usual…” sure sounds like you expect users to use apt-get, in the rare circumstance that anyone ever does log in as a user to one of these distros.
“Sorry, but we will not budge on this ‘must have access to advantage/pro without apt-get’ technicality.”
So there’s this line, once again from the Ubuntu wiki’s own description of Ubuntu Minimal: “The `unminimize` command will install the standard Ubuntu Server packages if you want to convert a Minimal instance to a standard Server environment…”. So make a `get-advantage` or `go-pro` command. There, access to advantage/pro without apt-get.
“Look, we are a business, and advantage/pro upgrades are how we make money, we’re not taking it out.”
I’m sure you have telemetry tracking upgrade conversions - maybe in ubuntu-advantage-tools itself, maybe elsewhere. Take a good look at that data and find out how many people are upgrading to advantage/pro from minimal. Is it zero? It’s zero, isn’t it?
Canonical has been taking steps to advertise their paid offerings in increasing velocity lately. Is there something that's been triggering this?
More likely is that it was mentioned in a recent front-page article about comparing specialty Linux distros:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34837219
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34837219
At this point people should let go Ubuntu. The dark patterns in this Linux distro is just baffling.
I’m a perfectly happy Ubuntu user. I stick to the happy path and things generally go smoothly for me.
I don’t expect to need to change distros for the foreseeable future.
I don’t expect to need to change distros for the foreseeable future.
Sure, enjoy the ads in logs, not receiving security updates, 10x times the install because of forced snap packages for common software like firefox and shit like these.
"Dark patterns" like what?
Forcing snap.
Not just that but forcing Firefox as a Snap version that was broken for a long time. That's ideology being pushed massively before utility. If they waited until heavy use apps were available as working Snaps then there might not have been as much push back. Though I personally hate the concept too, so ymmv.
Why is snap supposed to be bad, now?
I'm unsure what you mean by the use of 'now', it makes it sound like Snap has never been bad, when in reality it has never been good...
Several seconds to launch a calculator. With all the memory usage and CPU it implies. That's for this kind of stuff we would have laughed of Windows. And please, you don't need to sandbox such a dumb calculator (no offense to the Gnome devs, we need such simple apps).
Centralized store with no open source implementation server-side that you can self host.
We already have Flatpak for this use case that does not have the previous issue and that we could have standardized on. Didn't need another standard for this.
Stuff not ready / broken in several ways with it but still provided by default (Firefox).
When you already own your perfectly fine APT package repositories and have a total control on what dependencies you can rely on, you don't need this kind of stuff to provide software on your distro.
Centralized store with no open source implementation server-side that you can self host.
We already have Flatpak for this use case that does not have the previous issue and that we could have standardized on. Didn't need another standard for this.
Stuff not ready / broken in several ways with it but still provided by default (Firefox).
When you already own your perfectly fine APT package repositories and have a total control on what dependencies you can rely on, you don't need this kind of stuff to provide software on your distro.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-meta/+bug/1... seems to have a workaround which seems to be a .deb package with matching package metadata that is otherwise empty.
Is it really that easy? Would ubuntu-advantage-tools "benefit" from being cryptographically validated to ensure that users do not substitute the original release from Canonical with "counterfeit" replacements?
Is it really that easy? Would ubuntu-advantage-tools "benefit" from being cryptographically validated to ensure that users do not substitute the original release from Canonical with "counterfeit" replacements?
As far as I can see, this package doesn't replace the existing package, it merely contains metadata to prevent the existing package from being reinstalled.
I'd prefer a set of build files over a package like this, but if it's as empty as it claims to be then this is a great solution to this ridiculousness.
I'd prefer a set of build files over a package like this, but if it's as empty as it claims to be then this is a great solution to this ridiculousness.
In that case, is ubuntu-minimal also a metapackage? If that’s true, I assume that you could just as well replace the ubuntu-minimal package with your own package with equivalent dependencies, except the dependency on ubuntu-advantage-tools.
> In that case, is ubuntu-minimal also a metapackage?
Yes - https://packages.ubuntu.com/bionic/ubuntu-minimal shows a lot of dependencies and two actual files with documentation.
I think the main issue would be getting this ubuntu-other-minimal package into Canonical's official repositories. Otherwise, you've just made another Ubuntu remix.
Yes - https://packages.ubuntu.com/bionic/ubuntu-minimal shows a lot of dependencies and two actual files with documentation.
I think the main issue would be getting this ubuntu-other-minimal package into Canonical's official repositories. Otherwise, you've just made another Ubuntu remix.
Storm in a teacup? It's not like this is the most wasteful package on the system, so I don't see where the drama is. If you're building a minimal image based on Ubuntu, just go ahead and apply the workaround, or remove the files. If you're rebuilding the whole distro, drop the package and fix the deps to your liking.
Yeah, but minimal should do what it says, and the whole point of a distribution is not having to do this kind of thing. You should not have to work around your distro, especially deliberate choices.
If Ubuntu needs people to have this package for support, why don't they have a ubuntu-recommended package that depends on it and that's installed by default, and let people who want something minimal to have it?
If Ubuntu needs people to have this package for support, why don't they have a ubuntu-recommended package that depends on it and that's installed by default, and let people who want something minimal to have it?
I tried to remove that the other day but stopped seeing release-update tool would be remoced too. In my experience the tool works perfectly for OS upgrades. I have not had a single problem with live updates over ssh.
This tool might even be why minimal needs it. Bad/dark packaging.
This tool might even be why minimal needs it. Bad/dark packaging.
The bug reporter is claiming there is a mass exodus from Ubuntu - is this really the case? I’m seeing more Amazon / Ubuntu/ mainstream distro stuff these days then I feel like I used to 10-15 years ago.
Is this mass exodus moving to Debian for things like Amazon AMI’s?
Is this mass exodus moving to Debian for things like Amazon AMI’s?
I expect there is a group of developers and tinkerers who used to run linux on the desktop (where Ubuntu traditionally was perhaps easier to use, especially on laptops with wifi, etc...), who switched to MacBooks and now develop and run their linux stuff in docker, ec2/cloud or even just some Raspberry Pis.
(Though I guess that in itself wouldn't be a large enough group to be seen as a "Mass Exodus")
(Though I guess that in itself wouldn't be a large enough group to be seen as a "Mass Exodus")
I read the comment as OP threatening a mass exodus rather than claiming one was already happening. Not clear, though, so it's a valid question. I don't see a mass exodus from Ubuntu but it seems that most Docker containers these days are based on either Debian or Alpine.
Nearly all of the Docker containers I build are based on Alpine. Occasionally I go "oh shit, this uses that musl thing not glibc, I need to remember to... <some minor tweak>".
The one Docker container that doesn't, in fact, is based on CentOS so I can run Davinci Resolve in CentOS when my desktop OS is really Ubuntu.
The one Docker container that doesn't, in fact, is based on CentOS so I can run Davinci Resolve in CentOS when my desktop OS is really Ubuntu.
I think what he thinks of as "mass" is probably what we would call "himself and two or three of his friends who think similarly".
The mass exodus isn't moving to Debian, but to Linux Mint, which is #3 on DistroWatch.com. Ubuntu is #7 and Debian is #8. A year ago Mine was still #d, Ubuntu was #6 and Debian was still #8, so Ubuntu is experiencing an exodus. Of course, DistroWatch's rankings aren't scientific but I don't think we have any other way to measure Linux distro use.
Ubuntu gave up on having the best desktop experience when it gave up on Unity and replaced many packages with Snaps. Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu and has its own Cinnamon desktop but also offers other desktops and a version based on Debian instead of Ubuntu.
Ubuntu gave up on having the best desktop experience when it gave up on Unity and replaced many packages with Snaps. Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu and has its own Cinnamon desktop but also offers other desktops and a version based on Debian instead of Ubuntu.
> mass exodus
I've been considering it since their apt and motd spam, and their holding back of updates (paid or otherwise). I won't make any definitive changes until the next LTS gets released though.
I've been considering it since their apt and motd spam, and their holding back of updates (paid or otherwise). I won't make any definitive changes until the next LTS gets released though.
The "mass market", such as it is, does not care about this. So, no.
Another episode of free users being entitled. Ubuntu has a different definition of what they consider minimal yet they can't accept it and throw a fit.
i r8 2/8
I guess anybody interested in a minimal Ubuntu install would be better off installing Debian instead. The value Ubuntu added "back in the day" was end-user friendliness, where end-user is somebody not necessarily technical. But that's kinda pointless anyway for a minimal install. Ubuntu was also useful vs Debian for its regular release schedule and long term support but you basically have this with Debian too nowadays and it's been like this for years now.
Can't wait to have the linux kernel installed as a Snap package.