Linux @lemmy.ml IsoKiero @sopuli.xyz 1 yr. ago

My ubuntu installation broke completely

I think that installation was originally 18.04 and I installed it when it was released. A while ago anyways and I've been upgrading it as new versions roll out and with the latest upgrade and snapd software it has become more and more annoying to keep the operating system happy and out of my way so I can do whatever I need to do on the computer.

Snap updates have been annoying and they randomly (and temporarily) broke stuff while some update process was running on background, but as whole reinstallation is a pain in the rear I have just swallowed the annoyance and kept the thing running.

But now today, when I planned that I'd spend the day with paperwork and other "administrative" things I've been pushing off due to life being busy, I booted the computer and primary monitor was dead, secondary has resolution of something like 1024x768, nvidia drivers are absent and usability in general just isn't there.

After couple of swear words I thought that ok, I'll fix this, I'll install all the updates and make the system happy again. But no. That's not going to happen, at least not very easily.

I'm running LUKS encryption and thus I have a separate boot -partition. 700MB of it. I don't remember if installer recommended that or if I just threw some reasonable sounding amount on the installer. No matter where that originally came from, it should be enough (this other ubuntu I'm writing this with has 157MB stored on /boot). I removed older kernels, but still the installer claims that I need at least 480MB (or something like that) free space on /boot, but the single kernel image, initrd and whatever crap it includes consumes 280MB (or so). So apt just fails on upgrade as it can't generate new initrd or whatever it tries to do.

So I grabbed my ventoy-drive, downloaded latest mint ISO on it and instead of doing something productive I planned to do I'll spend couple of hours at reinstalling the whole system. It'll be quite a while before I install ubuntu on anything.

And it's not just this one broken update, like I mentioned I've had a lot of issues with the setup and at least majority of them is caused by ubuntu and it's package management. This was just a tipping point to finally leave that abusive relationship with my tool and set it up so that I can actually use it instead of figuring out what's broken now and next.

47 comments

In general, consider setting up any kind of rollback functionality; this will enable you to get right back to action without any downtime when you're time-restricted. This can be achieved by configuring your system with (GRUB-)Btrfs+TImeshift/Snapper. Please bear in mind that it's likely that you have to come back to solve it eventually, though*. (Perhaps it's worth thinking about what can be done to ensure that you don't end up with a broken system in the first place. *cough* _'immutable' _distro *cough*)

If this seems too troublesome to setup, then consider using distros that have this properly setup from the get-go by default; like (in alphabetical order) Garuda Linux, Manjaro, Nobara, openSUSE Aeon/Kalpa/Leap/Slowroll/Tumbleweed, siduction and SpiralLinux. Furthermore, so-called 'immutable' distros also have rollback functionality while not relying on aforementioned (GRUB-)Btrfs+TImeshift/Snapper; this applies to e.g. blendOS, Fedora Kinoite/Sericea/Silverblue, Guix, NixOS and Vanilla OS.

If you feel absolutely overwhelmed by the amount of choice, then you should probably consider the bold ones; not because I think they're necessarily better but:

openSUSE's offerings are generally speaking very polished, therefore being highly suitable to replace Linux Mint or Ubuntu. It's its own thing though, therefore you might not be able to access packages that are exclusively found in Debian's/Ubuntu's repos (though Distrobox solves that trivially). Tumbleweed if you like rolling release, Slowroll if you prefer updates only once every 1-2 months and finally Leap if you lean more towards Stable/LTS releases.

siduction for being based on Debian; but it's strictly on the Unstable(/Sid) branch.

SpiralLinux for being based on Debian; this one -however- has proper support for switching branches.

Vanilla OS for being based on Debian; this one is very ambitious. But, because it's an 'immutable' distro, it might require the biggest changes to your workflow.

nvidia drivers are absent

While any of the aforementioned distros do a decent job at 'supporting' Nvidia, perhaps you might be best off with uBlue's Nvidia images. As these are images relying on the same technology that Fedora's immutable distros do, rollback functionality and all the other good stuff we've come to love -like automatic upgrades in the background- are present as well. In case you're interested to know how these actually provide improved Nvidia support:

"We've slipstreamed the Nvidia drivers right onto the operating system image. Steps that once took place on your local laptop are now done in a continuous integration system in GitHub. Once they are complete, the system stamps out an image which then makes its way to your PC.

No more building drivers on your laptop, dealing with signing, akmods, third party repo conflicts, or any of that. We've fully automated it so that if there's an issue, we fix it in GitHub, for everyone.

But it's not just installation and configuration: We provide Nvidia driver versions 525, 520, and 470 for each of these. You can atomically switch between any of these, so if your driver worked perfectly on a certain day and you find a regression you just rebase to that image.

Or switch to another desktop entirely.

No other desktop Linux does this, and we're just getting started."

Source
- ‘immutable’ distro
  
  Are there even immutable distros old enough to have compatibility issues between a 5 year old installation and the latest version?
  
  NixOS has been around since 2003, thus making it older than Ubuntu (2004). Even Silverblue has been out since more than 5 years (October 2018). Finally, we can't forget about Guix that had its first release over 10 years ago (January 2013).
  
  What is an immutable distro? I'm just now learning this is a thing
- Great piece of information. I personally don't see the benefits with immutable distribution, or at least it (without any experience) feels like that I'll spend more time setting it up and tinkering with it than actually recovering from a rare cases where things just break. Or at least that's the way it's used to be for a very long time and even if something would break it atleast used to be pretty much as fast as reverting a snapshot to fix the problem. Sure, you need to be able to work on a bare console and browse trough log files, but I'm old enough that it was the only option back in the day if you wanted to get X running.
  
  However the case today was something that I just couldn't easily fix as the boot partition just didn't have enough space (since when 700MB isn't enough...) even a rollback wouldn't have helped to actually fix the installation. Potentially I might had an option to move LVM partition on the disk to grow boot partition, but that would've required shrinking filesystem first (which isn't trivial on a LVM PV) and the experience ubuntu has lately provided I just took the longer route and installed mint with zfs. It should be pretty stable as there's no snap packages which update at random intervals and it's a familiar environment for me (dpkg > rpm).
  
  Even if immutable distros might not be for my use case, your comment has spawned a good thread of discussion and that's absolutely a good thing.
  
  Ah, I had misunderstood your /boot situation previously. There's an easy way to fix it by backing up current content of boot, unmounting it, creating some dir somewhere where there's space (/tempboot was my choice last time), bind mounting it to /boot and going through the apt process. Then unmount the bind, mount the real boot, delete everything except currently booted kernel stuff, copy all the things from /tempboot update the initrd and grub. Et voila!
  
  Great piece of information.
  
  Thank you for your kind words 😊!
  
  at least it (without any experience) feels like that I’ll spend more time setting it up and tinkering with it than actually recovering from a rare cases where things just break
  
  That might be the case depending on your proficiency and to what degree the 'immutable' distro allows you to configure your distro declarative. On e.g. NixOS you can define (most of) your system declarative. As such, reinstalling your entire setup is done through some config files. You can even push this further with the (in)famous Impermanence module that has been popularized by the popular Erase your darlings blog-post, in which your system is wiped every time you shut off the machine and rebuild (basically from scratch) every time you boot into it.
  
  Potentially I might had an option to move LVM partition on the disk to grow boot partition, but that would’ve required shrinking filesystem first (which isn’t trivial on a LVM PV)
  
  I haven't worked with LVM yet. Defaulting to Btrfs (as Fedora -amongst others- does) has so far provided me a reliable experience, even though I'm aware that I'm missing out on performance. Hopefully, Bcachefs will prove to be a vast improvement over Btrfs in a relatively short time-span. You've pointed out to have installed Linux Mint with ZFS. Would I be correct to assume that you've been hurt by Btrfs in its infancy and choose to not rely on it since? Or is it related to lacking proper support for RAID 5/6? Or perhaps something else? Please feel free to inform me as I don't feel confident on this topic!
  
  and the experience ubuntu has lately provided I just took the longer route and installed mint with zfs.
  
  Understandable. Though, I can't stop myself from being very interested in their upcoming Ubuntu Core Desktop. But I imagine you couldn't care less 😜.
- Great post. However, I will add my opinion about Debian Sid and its lineage: just don't use them for production. Sid is an unstable distribution that looks like a rolling release distribution and most of the time it's fine, but it is fundamentally different since it's okay if it gets broken.
  
  I'm guessing the idea behind Siduction is to use this rollback functionality to counter its innate instability, but with solid alternatives like openSUSE or the already installed Linux Mint + Timeshift, I wouldn't recommend Siduction. Also, Manjaro is unstable by design, wouldn't recommend that one either.
  
  I personally agree with your assessments regarding Debian Sid and Manjaro. However, I didn't want to force my (potential) 'bias' in a comment that tries to be otherwise neutral. Thank you for bringing up the 'asterisks' associated with both of these!
Honestly, for a long term usage like this a rolling release distro is better. I've never not had massive issues upgrading ubuntu release to release, but I've only ever had minor ones on arch and pretty much nothing on gentoo. Arch is bleeding edge, so can't recommend it to you all that much and gentoo has some learning curve initially. But I've heard good things of whatever rolling names are from fedora and opensuse.
- Permanently Deleted
  
  I’ve upgraded several Ubuntu LTS versions to newer LTS and have been running fine. The problems come up when you wait too long and the repos don’t have the needed packages anymore. You can still fuddle your way through even that scenario and retain a fully working system.
- I just had pacman uninstall itself the other day during a routine -Syu. I was finally able to figure out how to fix it, untar the pkg to / and then tell pacman to install pacman with —overwrite.
  
  That sounds fun
- People think "updates are time consuming" therefore prefer LTS because its supported for longer. I parole for quite some time that LTS has no place for private use and rolling release is the right way.
  
  I haven't been paying attention on the rolling releases scene, but I'm pretty sure there was no mature option back when I installed that thing in 2019 or so other than Debian Sid (and daily driving that used to be an adventure in itself, but it's been years since I last had a system like that). With ubuntu since at least version 14 upgrading from stable release to another was pretty stable experience, but that's not the experience I'm having today.
  
  I can't stand rolling releases (for personal use) and I never recommend them to anyone. To me it feels like being in drift sand.
  
  I need fixed releases to test my documentation (shell scripts) against something. With a rolling release those scripts can break at any time, unless you read the changelog of every package update.
  
  But I also want and use fully automatic updates, so reading changelogs for every update would be the direct opposite of what I am looking for in an OS. I am ok with reading release notes every couple of months for a distribution upgrade though.
  
  I want my systems to be reproducible and that's impossible with ~~drift sand~~ rolling releases. In my opinion Fedora or Ubuntu have a decent release cycle, I would never consider Arch or Tumbleweed or Solus.
  
  LTS does have a place on the desktop: Learning how to daily drive linux. I started with kubuntu non-LTS and didn't know you needed to manually start a full-upgrade to not get moved to backport repos. Of course that came crashing down on me at the worst time and I took a break from linux. But I did learn enough that I can use arch now and it's been great.
- You might be correct, but I haven't found one that I'd like (not that I've really looked for one either). Maybe you know if there's any Debian derivatives which do rolling releases?
  
  I like cinnamon and I've been running mint on my laptop for quite a while and I like it, so I'm going with it right now and plan for my next distro-hopping needs more carefully when installing.
  
  But in general I'd say that Ubuntu is far from what it used to be and the TLC the latest version wants is just something I'm not willing to put up with. If something breaks on a update then it breaks, but at least give me an option to choose when it happens.
  
  Permanently Deleted
- I’ve only ever had minor ones on arch and pretty much nothing on gentoo.
  
  My biggest complaint with Arch was that downgrading wasn't officially supported.
  
  With Gentoo I don't have pretty much nothing to complain. But I get it's not for everyone.
  
  That said I've not ran many different distros as my main distro. I went with mkLinux --> Gentoo --> Arch --> Gentoo.
- There is MocaccinoOS based on gentoo, I used it when it was sabayon and was a great experience overall.
Same here. Ubuntu almost made me believe that linux is a pain in the ass to use and you need to fix some shit after every update.

Now I use arch and it's great. Nvidia is very annoying because they constantly publish drivers that break things, but you can just roll those back and wait until they fix it again. And that gets worse as GPUs age. Apart from nvidia, I've had exactly one update issue (telepathy-kde being removed and causing the pacman dependency resolver to get confused) that was fixed in about 2 minutes of googling.
- My biggest complains with Ubuntu lately are Firefox is a snap package and when it updates it yells at me to close Firefox so it can update it and if I wait too long it forces the it closed, and it gives me countdown notifications. Annoying and something out of Windows 10 forced reboot type shit. The other is the automatic apr upgrades break cuda/nvidia drivers forcing me to reboot the whole system. Pain in the ass.
  
  Automatic updates that need reboots but run at any time other than when shutting down?
  
  Sounds like something microsoft would do, but even they get that part right.
Permanently Deleted
- Yes, I know. Existing drive layout however says that I need to repartition the whole thing and that says that I need to copy couple of hundred GB's over to something else before reinstallation and so on, so it's not a half hour job. And while I'm at it it's better to do it right than half-ass it over a long, long period of time.

You've viewed 47 comments.