
Ubuntu 17.04 Released - AJAlabs
https://insights.ubuntu.com/2017/04/13/ubuntu-17-04-supports-widest-range-of-container-capabilities/?_ga=1.156580155.1890963078.1492100196
======
ausjke
“Ubuntu switches from swap partitions to using swap files by default. This
means a simpler partition layouts during installation, disk space savings and
easier adjustment of swap size” -- interesting, was always unclear about the
performance difference between a partition and a swap file.

the LXD and Snap are fun to watch, Canonical always does things a bit
different here and there.

~~~
hashhar
There's no performance difference as long as the swap file doesn't have
"holes" (meaning that the file is contiguous on-disk).

There's the convenience of being able to re purpose the storage as long as
swap isn't being used.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Does this have to hold for SSDs as well, or is performance _unconditionally_
the same?

~~~
hashhar
Performance is unconditionally the same (last time I checked on an 840 EVO)
given that the swap file DOESN'T HAVE HOLES.

[http://www.faqs.org/docs/linux_admin/x1762.html](http://www.faqs.org/docs/linux_admin/x1762.html)

~~~
loup-vaillant
It's unconditionally the same _if_ it satisfy the very condition I was asking
about.

Riiight.

------
michel-slm
The new Budgie flavor looks really tempting:
[https://ubuntubudgie.org/features](https://ubuntubudgie.org/features)

~~~
philliphaydon
Is there anything that takes the flat look of Windows 10? I really prefer the
flat simple look of Windows 10.

~~~
_arvin
Try out Antergos 17.4 in a VM. I think you'll really like it. I personally use
Ubuntu 16.04/Unity 7, but I'm very impressed with the flat look and sleekness
overall. Antergos is based off of Arch Linux.
[https://antergos.com](https://antergos.com)

Took a screenshot for you also:
[http://i.imgur.com/bPyvCsN.png](http://i.imgur.com/bPyvCsN.png)

~~~
vinay427
In my opinion, Arch currently has the nicest package management system with
the straightforward if excessively terse pacman syntax and the wealth of
packages in the AUR. Considering this is one of the most noticeable
differences between distros, it has made me stick with Arch with no plans of
switching to something else. I've heard great things about Antergos as well,
as configuring an Arch install clearly doesn't make sense for many users.

~~~
kahnpro
The thing I hate about the AUR is that you (usually) have to compile
everything on your machine. Sometimes I hit a package that takes an hour to
build and then dies because I'm missing a dependency that isn't installed by
the script. And then that dependency has missing dependencies.

~~~
Shikadi
aurget --noedit --deps might speed things up for you, I have it aliased. It
pulls in missing dependencies and skips editing the build scripts (I also use
--noconfirm, but that's probably not the best practice)

------
moomin
I'm sure this is a good release, but Ubuntu itself is going through some
serious turmoil at the moment. Seems to me like there's a good chance it's
going to wither on the vine in the next five years. What's worse, there don't
seem to be many alternatives if you're looking for a "just works" desktop
experience.

~~~
rantanplan
> if you're looking for a "just works" desktop experience.

Pretty much every popular distro has this experience nowadays. Fedora(as a
sibling poster mentioned) is indeed one of them and may I add, at least, twice
as stable.

~~~
pekk
Fedora's strong point is that packages are pretty new (not quite Arch). This
is also its weak point. The idea that it's stable is just funny. It also
doesn't even pretend to support upgrades. If you want stable, try CentOS or
Debian Stable.

~~~
nbaksalyar

        > It also doesn't even pretend to support upgrades
    

How so? I installed Fedora 21 a couple of years ago and I've been continuously
upgrading it up to 25. I've never encountered a single problem with the
operating system itself (only with the NVidia driver, which is a major source
of pain for all Linux systems, I guess.)

~~~
merb
yep since 21 it's also really table, had some problems on 17, 18, 19, 20, but
after that it was rock solid. (even with rpmfusion enabled)

------
cr0sh
The mention of containers and Snaps in this release makes me wonder if Ubuntu
isn't moving in the direction of general containerization of the system -
server or desktop. It's certainly possible to run containers on the desktop,
as this experiment shows:

[https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/docker-containers-on-the-
desk...](https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/docker-containers-on-the-desktop/)

Her system was an early experiment, though, and seems like it had a more than
a bit of admin needs - in other words, it was meant for general users. But she
made some good points on why containers on the desktop could be useful, and
from what I understand, Snaps is a part of this kind of idea.

Maybe I'm wrong - but if I'm right, this could be a big deal, though hopefully
it's so transparent as to be something you don't really notice.

~~~
stubish
Certainly. Snaps are contained and there are already a pile of desktop snaps
available. You can install the applications, see what access they have and
trust containment that they can't overstep their bounds, even if compromised.
Same of course with the server, right down to IoT style devices where the
entire system is composed of snaps and everything is running in containment.

Its all there and available right now. At some point soon I'm sure deb
packages will start wrapping snaps and an 'apt full-upgrade' transitions
people without them noticing.

------
pc2g4d
This release tells me that Ubuntu has completely given up on being a desktop
Linux distribution. There's mention of only one thing: containers. Containers,
containers, containers. No shell improvements, no application improvements,
nothing else. So... I guess I'm glad I've moved over to Fedora.

~~~
cr0sh
Who says you can't use containers on the desktop?

[https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/docker-containers-on-the-
desk...](https://blog.jessfraz.com/post/docker-containers-on-the-desktop/)

She gives some good reasons why it can be a good thing; it sounds interesting
- I've thought of trying it myself, and might with a new future system. It's
downsides (though this may have changed since I last saw this and looked into
it) would be difficulty setting it up, and that some applications might need
some tweaking to get them to play nice (?). It still seems like something fun
to play around with.

Container'd (?) apps would make for an easier system to admin overall, I
think. Oh - yeah, SNAPS are kinda a refining of the idea of running individual
apps in their own containers, from what I understand (plus making it easier to
package apps so that they will run anywhere properly - at least, that's the
way I understand it; I haven't done a lot of research on it).

Anyhow - I was a bit confused by this release, too - it does seem server
focused, but the mention of SNAPS makes me wonder if they aren't trying to
move in that direction, that is, a more unified system that isn't
differentiated between desktop or server (or whatever), and is just a
container ecosystem of apps for whatever you want to use the system for?

------
anuraaga
Didn't look much at the features because I was taken aback by the most
important point - they've reached the Z in their naming scheme already!

What comes next, three A's, or maybe something else?

------
shanemhansen
I just had a random thought. If ubuntu really wanted to push the desktop
forward they would focus on web developers and some first class tooling around
react (preloaded extensions or editor support).

~~~
npolet
Being a web developer, I would love this. Not sure how it would look in
practice, but web developers are the ones that use Ubuntu server a lot, so why
not have a web developer flavour for the desktop. I you and I can just dream a
little, as the chances of this happening are seriously slim.

------
xtracto
Unfortunately (and this is more general for the Linux world) the filesystem in
use is still ext4, which has been part of Linux since 2008 (almost 10 years
now!). ZFS is more an more usable in Linux ( apt install -y zfs ) but it would
be really good to have it by default and available for the root partition.

Just moments ago I set up fusecompress in a DigitalOcean droplet to compress
an .rbenv/versions and node_modules directory. It would be better if the
filesystem supported transparent compression by default (zfs does, and I think
brtfs)

~~~
jlgaddis
You probably know this but... you can use "ZFS-on-root" with Ubuntu although,
as you mentioned, it's not available by default (or with the installer). I did
it (w/ 16.04) on a laptop w/ a pair of SSDs a while back, mostly just being
curious about ZFS on Linux in general. Now, both my workstation and primary
laptop use ZFS (on Arch Linux) just like my FreeBSD servers do.

------
ergo14
Ubuntu Gnome - here I come!

~~~
yxhuvud
That won't be until Ubuntu 18, or are you switching prematurely?

~~~
michel-slm
you can always run the Ubuntu Gnome flavor, I think that's what the parent is
saying

~~~
ergo14
Correct.

------
trendnet
Does it mean Ubuntu can run unmodified on Allwinner H3 socs?

~~~
jandrese
I wouldn't hold my breath. Those Allwinner-based boards tend to be full of
gotchas.

