385
Snap bad (midwest.social)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Thyrian@ttrpg.network 115 points 3 months ago

I think most snap haters mostly hate, that Canonical forces snap upon them, an wouldn't hate so much about it if they had the choice.

[-] Shareni@programming.dev 82 points 3 months ago

Yeah, who'd hate using a package manager that increasingly slows down your boot time with every package installed, or that uses a closed source store to provide you FOSS

Maybe there's a reason canonical has to force it on their users

[-] trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world 72 points 3 months ago

I also hate that it creates a loopback device for every installed snap

[-] Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 47 points 3 months ago

There's a lot I dislike about snap. This is the thing I hate.

[-] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 21 points 3 months ago

Yeah typing "apt install firefox" and getting the Snap version does loudly and obnoxiously disqualify Ubuntu from any devices owned by me or my family.

[-] Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 months ago

Thanks to snap I switched to arch. It gave a linux beginner so much drive to learn the terminal and install a harder os lol. The firefox snap was the worst shit.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Isn't that kinda the same with, for example, Fedora and Flatpaks? Or Debian and debs? Or Ubuntu and debs? Or Fedora and rpms?

The packaging system that your distro provides gets you the packages you get. For a small number of packages that were a maintenance nightmare, Ubuntu provides a transitional debs to move people over to the snaps (e.g. Firefox, Thunderbird), but if you want to get it from another repo, you can do exactly what KDE Neon does by setting your preferences.

[-] Shareni@programming.dev 60 points 3 months ago

No, Debian doesn't take your apt install ... command and install a snap behind your back...

[-] lengau@midwest.social 5 points 3 months ago

I don't understand how a transitional package that installs the snap (which is documented in the package description) is any different from a transitional package that replaces, say, ffmpeg with libav.

$ apt show firefox
Package: firefox
Version: 1:1snap1-0ubuntu5
Priority: optional
Section: web
Origin: Ubuntu
Maintainer: Ubuntu Mozilla Team <ubuntu-mozillateam@lists.ubuntu.com>
Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug
Installed-Size: 124 kB
Provides: gnome-www-browser, iceweasel, www-browser, x-www-browser
Pre-Depends: debconf, snapd (>= 2.54)
Depends: debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0
Breaks: firefox-dbg (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-dev (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-geckodriver (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-mozsymbols (<< 1:1snap1)
Replaces: firefox-dbg (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-dev (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-geckodriver (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-mozsymbols (<< 1:1snap1)
Task: ubuntu-desktop-minimal, ubuntu-desktop, kubuntu-desktop, kubuntu-full, xubuntu-desktop, lubuntu-desktop, ubuntustudio-desktop, ubuntukylin-desktop, ubuntukylin-desktop, ubuntukylin-desktop-minimal, ubuntu-mate-core, ubuntu-mate-desktop, ubuntu-budgie-desktop-minimal, ubuntu-budgie-desktop, ubuntu-budgie-desktop-raspi, ubuntu-unity-live, edubuntu-desktop-gnome-minimal, edubuntu-desktop-gnome, edubuntu-desktop-gnome-raspi, ubuntucinnamon-desktop-minimal, ubuntucinnamon-desktop
Download-Size: 77.3 kB
APT-Manual-Installed: no
APT-Sources: http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu noble/main amd64 Packages
Description: Transitional package - firefox -> firefox snap
 This is a transitional dummy package. It can safely be removed.
 .
 firefox is now replaced by the firefox snap.
[-] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 3 months ago

Well, that's your problem for not understanding the massive difference, not mine.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 17 points 3 months ago

If you don't want to explain, you're perfectly welcome to not explain. But saying what amounts to "if you don't know I'm not telling you", especially when you weren't specifically asked, is a pretty unkind addition to the conversation.

[-] curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 3 months ago

One selects a different package, same source repo.

The other completely changes the installation, invisibly to the user, potentially introducing vulnerabilities.

Such as what they did with Docker, which I found less than hilarious when I had to clean up after someone entirely because of this idiocy.

The differences seem quite clear.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] lime@feddit.nu 36 points 3 months ago

the thing people dislike about that is that you're silently moved from an open system to a closed-source one.

Debian's .deb hosting is completely open and you can host your own repository from which anyone can pull packages just by adding it to the apt config. fedora, suse, arch, same thing.

only Canonical can host snaps, and they're not telling people how the hosting works. KDE seems to upload their packages to the snap store for Neon, judging from their page.

also, crucially, canonical are not the ones doing the maintenance for those apt packages. the debian team does that.

[-] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

the thing people dislike about that is that you're silently moved from an open system to a closed-source one.

Yeah. I didn't realize I had fallen for it until I tried to automate a system rebuild, and discovered that a bunch of the snap back end seems to be closed and proprietary.

And a lot of it for no reason. Reasonable apt and flatpak alternates existed, but Canonical steered me to their closed repackaged versions.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] laurelraven@lemmy.zip 24 points 3 months ago

Fedora with Flatpaks is open and up front about whether you're getting a Flatpak or a system installed package, and lets you choose if both are available. And installing through dnf/yum isn't going to do anything at all with Flatpak.

And what about Debian with debs? That's literally what apt was designed to work with. If it gave you Flatpaks, or the flatpak command installed debs, that would be more like what Ubuntu is doing.

The fact that Canonical shoehorned snaps into apt is the problem. I've heard bad things about snap, but I wouldn't know because I've never used it, and I never will because of this.

When I tell my computer to do one thing and it does something completely different without my consent, that is a problem, and is why I left Windows. I don't need that in Linux too, and Canonical has proven they can't be trusted not to do that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] devilish666@lemmy.world 46 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I never used snap, always use official repo > multilib > extra > chaotic aur > aur > flatpak > FUCK IT, I BUILD FROM SOURCE CODE FROM SHADY GITHUB REPO

[-] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 29 points 3 months ago

FUCK IT, I BUILD FROM SOURCE CODE FROM SHADY GITHUB REPO_*

I feel seen.

[-] Morphit@feddit.uk 21 points 3 months ago

curl shit | sudo bash is just so convenient.

[-] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 months ago

I hope you mean https://shit.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

http://mysite.net | sudo bash

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] alper_celik@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

The safest install method \s

[-] vfye@toast.ooo 25 points 3 months ago

Thread made by canonical employee

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Engywuck@lemm.ee 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

People using Linux should take their heads out of their asses sometimes and just let people enjoy things they way they prefer.

[-] Gormadt 26 points 3 months ago

Fuckin preach it friend!

That's the joy of Linux, the "have it your way" approach to an OS

[-] DmMacniel@feddit.org 25 points 3 months ago

yeah well, you can't have it your way on Ubuntu when Canonical FORCES you to use snaps (heck they even hacked apt to prefer snaps instead of debs)

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] independantiste@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 months ago

It's a shame that snaps are forced to use Canonicals closed source backend because they are really good, and a fully snap system is a very compelling idea for immutable systems

[-] lengau@midwest.social 6 points 3 months ago

They're not forced to do so. You can install snaps locally (or provide a distribution system that treats snapd much the way apt treats dpkg), or you can point snapd at a different store. The snap store API is open and documented, and for a while there was even a separate snap store project. It seems to have died out because despite people's contention about Canonical's snap store, they didn't actually actually want to run their own snap stores.

[-] Morphit@feddit.uk 7 points 3 months ago

I don't know why you're getting downvoted. It makes perfect sense that Cannonical made it's own proprietary package ecosystem and while technically anyone can build their own snap store, ain't nobody got time for that.

[-] DmMacniel@feddit.org 5 points 3 months ago

Can you explain why it makes perfect sense?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] unrushed233@lemmings.world 13 points 3 months ago

Now also throw GNU Guix, Homebrew and some AppImages in there

[-] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

I have NODE installed using snap lmao. Why? Installing it the normal way just gives me tons of errors that I'm too bored to deal with. I'm sure there's a fix, but I'm too lazy to debug all that. Of course, I don't use snap node for hosting servers and stuff. I just use it for react native. Regardless, it works n I'm happy lol

[-] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 11 points 3 months ago

Yeah. I don't mind snap at all for cases where a better package doesn't exist.

What made me give up Ubuntu was how it railroaded me into snap versions of packages that work better, for me, as native .deb installs.

[-] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago

Oh definitely. Canonical forcing us to use snap Firefox was very shitty. I mean I still use Ubuntu because I'm lazy, but I did change the snap Firefox thing to the apt libraries or whatever.

I really don't understand why they don't just adopt flatpak.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Atlas48@ttrpg.network 5 points 3 months ago

I use nix like the AUR for debian.

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago

snap bad indeed

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
385 points (100.0% liked)

linuxmemes

21625 readers
42 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
  •  

    Please report posts and comments that break these rules!


    Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.

    founded 2 years ago
    MODERATORS