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?
I think you're expecting Ubuntu to behave exactly like Windows. There are tasks which any Linux machine is going to be better-equipped for than Windows, and it'd be silly to say that Windows "is a terrible development experience" because it doesn't run valgrind or strace or whatever. Contrawise, there are things which will definitely be easier or more intuitive to set up on Windows as opposed to any Linux distro you find, but that doesn't mean it's a bad desktop; just that it has a different set of strengths and weaknesses. For me, adding to fstab would be more of a normal thing to do than to use the Ubuntu GUI by quite a lot.
It kind of sounds like you're not interested in a lot of the benefits of having a Linux installation, just interested in something that works exactly like Windows and is good at exactly the same things. In which case, and I'm not trying to sound sarcastic, Windows might be more what you're interested in.
(Or, actually, a Mac may be more specifically what you're looking for -- similar "it just works" ness like Windows but works better for most things, outside a handful of specific tasks Windows still does better)
(Also - if Ubuntu really is refusing to talk to an SMB v2 machine I'd be very surprised by that. Which tool were you using? The built in Ubuntu desktop SMB browser I assume? What did you do to verify that it was the lack of XMB v1 that was the problem (e.g. enabling SMB1 temporarily and seeing if the tool started working)? As you noted, SMB v1 is terrible and if it's forcing the use of it, that's a for-real problem.)
I have literally never in my life had my monitor's refresh rate switch to match the framerate of the video I'm watching. What refresh rate was it, and what's the framerate that you wanted it to match? I'm trying to wrap my head around what it is that you're watching that just letting the screen refresh at 60Hz or whatever speed it was going at won't cut it.
The HDR is a fair point. That's a legit example of something where I could easily see Windows working better than Linux, which is why I wouldn't try to use one as a drop-in replacement for the other. This exact type of thing -- some niche feature which genuinely is pretty useful but requires a bunch of different softwares to play nice with each other when Windows just sort of works out-of-the-box -- is something where Linux tends to lag behind.
This just isn't the way to do it -- installing Debian .debs on Ubuntu definitely won't work reliably, and downloading and installing random .debs from the internet is rarely the way to do it even if the distros do match (flavor and exact version). Does Rancher fit your needs? Looking over this it looks like that's the first thing I would try if I wanted "something like Dockstation that works well on Ubuntu."
I think overall -- just realize that Linux was created for very different reasons than "I want exactly the same thing as Windows, just to do all the work to create Windows over again and give it away for free." It was created for people who wanted a very specific type of development-friendly and Unix-friendly environment, and since the majority of it is still being made by those people for those people, it's gonna be constructed according to those parameters.
was also heavily wondering this. Most TVs don't change their refresh rate to their content. they just output 1080p 60hz (or whatever) and only do the updates every 24hz and will just double up frames. Expecting to change your output based on the content feels real weird.
if this person has stuttery video, its something else or they have a very niche use case.
Yeah. That's why I asked for some details. That said I think the underlying root of the complaint ("I did cool stuff on Windows, now I'm trying Linux and it can't do my cool stuff, WTF I hate this") is probably pretty valid. I think the solution is, either learn about the cool stuff Linux can do that Windows can't, and start there instead of trying to duplicate your Windows setup, or just stick with what you're already happy with.
If "cool stuff on windows" is going to your file manager and browsing to a network share, and that working, and not having the stable version of the OS suddenly lose its installer for a specific kind of files.... Then yeah, i should probably stick to windows. I can kind of get the refreshrate thingy, although it's still pretty pathetic after all these years. And reading up on HDR (which is 20 years old by now), feels equally pathetic. Yes, i'd like to be able to use my linux desktop to be able to play video files as intended: with the monitor/projector switching to the correct refresh rate (so you don't see a slight stutter whenever the camera pans), and with HDR if applicable.
I made this thread about 5 hours after i installed ubuntu, you guys seem to be avoiding actually knowledging that these are some huge glaring issues that completely ruin the user experience, and be like "but look at the cool stuff linux can do". I know the cool stuff linux can do, i've got a dozen docker containers running on my synology doing home automation/downloading/servers of all kinds/... I just hoped the linux desktop experience would be... at least tolerable and not 5 hours of frustrated googling trying 'advanced things' like... browsing to a network share, installing a package i get when i click on ubuntu/debian on the site of a linux application (and i didn't post the whole ordeal, then installed a tool to install the package, that failed due to some dependency, then installed it via the command line, that then also gave all kinds of errors, which the instructions found perfectly normal), or playing a video file the way it's supposed to be played.
If you really think those 3 above usecases are "cool windows stuff" and "it's unrealistic to expect these from linux", can you please say that explicitly? Browsing to a network share, installing a .deb package supported on a debian based OS, and playing a HDR video file in HDR and at the correct framerate with your display are "unrealistic expectations". The last one you might be able to make a tiny bit of a case for, but the other 2... for real??
I feel like I'm sorta repeating myself here, but you didn't answer the questions from before:
Worked perfectly for me 20 years ago. What was the error message you got, again?
You said later that when you did it via the command line, it didn't work anyway. Which was more or less what I told you might well happen because downloading .debs from the internet is a bad idea.
IDK, man, I'm a little reluctant to continue this because I keep trying to tell you about how you should use Linux and you keep seeming to think that I'm trying to trick you or something. Like, hey I think Rancher might work more simply, what do you think of that? And it's like no that's a trick I want to keep failing to install this other thing!
failed to retrieve share list from server invalid argument
Are you serious? I just googled "is installing deb packages on ubuntu good", from ubuntu.com ( https://ubuntu.com/about/packages#:~:text=%27Deb%27%20packages%20are%20the%20heart,with%20rich%20and%20dynamic%20dependencies. ) :
'Deb' packages are the heart of Ubuntu The 'deb' package format comes from the Debian Linux distribution and is widely considered the best package format for system-level libraries and applications with rich and dynamic dependencies.
If i have to describe gaslighting, i would give this as an example. The websites of linux application offer deb packages mentioning explictly they are for ubuntu. The ubuntu site itself says "Deb packages are the heart of ubuntu". I try to install one, the linux community: "are you stupid? What gave you the idea that downloading a deb package that said it was for ubuntu and trying to install it was a good idea?"
I'm trying to install a package the way the developer says i should, and the distro says is the very heart of the distro. And you find it strange that your replies come across as blaming the user and a bit ridiculous?
All this then says to me is that i should find myself a linux teacher to teach me the arcane linux knowledge, since the most direct documentation of app developers & distro developers is the exact opposite of what i should do?
I'm sorry, but to me it just sounds like you're making excuses for linux since you like it. This comes more across as the infamous "you're holding it wrong" iphone issue. I'm sure there are many ways to do things in linux, but you can't blame me for being skeptical when you say this so very well documented & recommended way of doing things by both the app developer & distro creators is not the way to do things...
Oh, .debs are great. When you install them using
apt, they work great, because they're provided by your distribution and designed for it. When you download them from somewhere on the internet and stick them into your system, they may or may not match with your system and they may or may not have been well packaged. They might break your system, or they might just not work. In general, I wouldn't recommend doing that as a new user. For Google Chrome? It's probably fine, Google pays enough attention to it that it'll work. I still think it's just a bad habit to teach.I am not the Linux community. The more I learn about how Ubuntu does things, the more I don't like it. That's fine -- you're welcome to think they are right and I am wrong.
I mean -- I'm not trying to say you did anything wrong or illogical in just looking for software and downloading the .deb that said it was for Ubuntu. I'm just saying that that's not the easiest way to do it.
Ha. This is fair. But, I mean, kind of, yes, that's exactly how it works. It's not like an "end user application" you can just pick up and start clicking stuff. Some people have been lying to you and telling you that it is, and now it sounds like you're discovering it's not and you're understandably unhappy about it. When I went to school, they spent a whole semester teaching us Unix before starting to teach any kind of computer science or programming applications, so we'd understand the environment and the tools in a lot of detail. Once I was familiar with it, it was fuckin magic, and still is. But yes, I think a lot of what Ubuntu in particular wants you to do, in service of making it "easier to learn" even though in reality it isn't, is more or less the opposite of what I would do.