Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 538 posts

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#131

Post by rlpb »

psanford wrote: post #7

From the linked announcement: https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3906 > Applications in this store cannot be patched, or pinned. You can’t audit them, hold them, modify them or even point snap to a different store. You’ve as much empowerment with this as if you were using proprietary software, i.e. none. This is in effect similar to a commercial proprietary solution, but with two major differences: It runs as root, and it…

> Applications in this store cannot be patched, or pinned. You can’t audit them, hold them, modify them...

I think it should be noted that this generally applies to the addition of "third party apt repositories" in general, use of which is the problem that snaps fix[1]

Some snaps are built from Free Software and reproducible sources, as are some third party apt repositories.

In other words, if this criticism bothers you, then you should never install from any third party apt repositories ever. If some are acceptable to you, then so should some snaps.

If you don't want to use third party software ever, then you can still use Ubuntu without snaps.

[1] Third party apt repositories often break users' systems.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#132

Post by d1plo1d »

lawl wrote: post #94
jonquark wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see why Snap is like it is from Canonial's perspective - but from the User perspective it seems like FlatPaks[1] are much better and address the issues that this article raises [1] https://flathub.org/home (Disclaimer: I'm talking in a personal capacity but the company I work for in my day job now owns Red Hat - I don't work on Linux Operating Systems).

> but from the User perspective it seems like FlatPaks[1] are much better and address the issues that this article raises This is interesting, because the last few days I was actually working on packaging an application of mine as a snap/flatpak. From my PoV, they both have their fair share of issues. Snaps enforce a sandbox, which I think is actually a good idea, because the desktop security model is somewhat broken…

I'm in a similar boat with regards to launching a new, unknown product in the snap store. As an interim solution I'm planning to ask users to do use the beta flag: `snap install my-app --beta` which gets me around the secure sandbox requirements.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#133

Post by chimen »

The fact that you have to post on a forum and argue with people why you need permission X for your snap package was enough for me to abort publishing on this platform. I should ask permissions from the users not from the platform publishers on a forum post.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#134

Post by Endeavourist »

zentiggr wrote: post #78
DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just use an alternative solution like flatpak Saying " just use an alternative" seems overly dismissive of the complications that entails. IIUC, the only options for that are (a) abandon Ubuntu, or (b) actively circumvent Ubuntu's software distribution infrastructure, reminiscent of dealing with Windows 10 forced updates. IMHO this somewhat erodes Ubuntu's value proposition.

I have a laptop that I'm planning on rebuilding from a failed NTFS/Win10 system to Linux something. Now I know it's not going to be Ubuntu or anything else derived from Canonical.

Why not EndeavourOS? It's based on Arch Linux, with minimal numbers of external packages; quite unlike Manjaro actually. You can just treat it as a standard Arch install, and even use the ISO to boot with wi-fi drivers and all and install Arch plainly, without the non-wifi and other regrets. EndeavourOS is pretty great; I personally use it as a live-ISO (XFCE environment) and just install Arch from within the live EndeavourOS booted iso. Just throwing it out there.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#135

Post by _nodg »

I haven't been impressed with snap as a user.

The jetbrains stuff keeps several versions around by default, which eats disk space. I'm sure there's a way to change that, but I haven't cared enough to dig.

The other day I ran `apt install chromium-browser` on a brand new install; it chose to install via snap (grr) and then snapd promptly crashed ("Waiting for restart" -- https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/installing-the-chromium-snap-in...), but apt's wrapper wasn't notified. I ended up ctrl-Cing, which left dkpg (somehow involved) in an inconsistent state. Took several iterations of dkpg reconfigure and apt update to recover. I've been on linux for 20 years, so not a big deal for me, but my experience has been that snap is less newbie friendly than apt.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#136

Post by pjfin123 »

kelnos wrote: post #127
pjfin123 wrote: post #84

If desktop Linux is ever going to be mainstream there needs to be an easy to use "app store" where users can use a GUI to install apps which need to be sandboxed like on a mobile phone with defined permissions. Snapcraft is way ahead of Flatpak on this and the current Ubuntu setup works well. On Ubuntu you can go to the Ubuntu software app (gui) search for software and it blends apt results with snap results. This re…

> If desktop Linux is ever going to be mainstream there needs to be an easy to use "app store" where users can use a GUI to install apps which need to be sandboxed like on a mobile phone with defined permissions. Curious... do you think that the world has moved on from the "download from website and run installer" model? Obviously that has serious drawbacks from a security perspective, but up until less than a decade…

No one is offering to build an alternate store for snaps, Flatpak is building an entirely different executable.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#137

Post by kd913 »

commoner wrote: post #122
kd913 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't really at all explained any justifiable reason for Canonical to open source it. You still haven't argued at all the resource aspects which are I think the primary motivator here. Canonical has done this experiment precisely in the past, and we see the results of nobody operating their own launchpad instance. Nobody contributing back. That experience probably trumps all of this goodwill and opinions from t…

> You haven't really at all explained any justifiable reason for Canonical to open source it. I've explained why it would be in the users' interest for Canonical to open source the Snap store: it reduces vendor lock-in and allows the users to enjoy the benefits of open source software (the ability to use, study, share, and improve the software with no restrictions). Whether open sourcing the Snap server benefits Cano…

No you think it would be in the users' interest but it absolutely isn't. I'm willing to bet money you haven't looked at launchpad's source code at all. Nor have you or anyone else considered operating their own. That is how most of the Ubuntu based distros right now are already getting their software.

If Canonical goes down, a huge part of the usable linux market goes down with it. Possibly Linux Mint too, unless im mistaken.

>vendor lock-in

You are not vendor locked in. You can install flatpak, install via apt, appimages etc... Canonical doesn't ban the removal of snapd from ubuntu distros.

In fact, from a Linux dev I would argue that half the fragmentation for pointless nonsense like packaging and distributions has harmed the community far more. Namely because it's increased the cost of development for these things to a degree that companies won't even bother developing/publishing software on Linux. That has been the primary problem for Linux so far.

Canonical is actually getting first party support from major publishers and people still lampoon them. This includes publishers in the past who never would have considered publishing for Linux before.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#138

Post by still_grokking »

lawl wrote: post #94
jonquark wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see why Snap is like it is from Canonial's perspective - but from the User perspective it seems like FlatPaks[1] are much better and address the issues that this article raises [1] https://flathub.org/home (Disclaimer: I'm talking in a personal capacity but the company I work for in my day job now owns Red Hat - I don't work on Linux Operating Systems).

> but from the User perspective it seems like FlatPaks[1] are much better and address the issues that this article raises This is interesting, because the last few days I was actually working on packaging an application of mine as a snap/flatpak. From my PoV, they both have their fair share of issues. Snaps enforce a sandbox, which I think is actually a good idea, because the desktop security model is somewhat broken…

As a user I don't like neither Snaps (that for sure as this is Cannonical only) nor FlatPaks (as they seem conceptually a "80% solution" which combines the problems of package systems with the problems of self-contianed apps, but don't improve on anything).

For me the only acceptable solution besides proper .debs are AppImages. AppImage doesn't try to "replace" the package management for desktop apps like the former two candidates. It tries to complement package systems for some special cases (like for example commercial software, or for the cases where the user "just wants to try something out" without "polluting" the whole system with a lot of dependencies).

For my desktop needs AppImage is like "Docker, the good parts". A simple self contained format that runs everywhere without any further dependencies. Compared to that Snap and FlatPak are bloated annoyances.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#140

Post by xav0989 »

curt15 wrote: post #36
psanford wrote: post #7

From the linked announcement: https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3906 > Applications in this store cannot be patched, or pinned. You can’t audit them, hold them, modify them or even point snap to a different store. You’ve as much empowerment with this as if you were using proprietary software, i.e. none. This is in effect similar to a commercial proprietary solution, but with two major differences: It runs as root, and it…

>You can’t audit them, hold them, modify them or even point snap to a different store. In particular, it's easy to inspect the sources for apt packages using "apt-get source". Snap seems to have no equivalent command.

That is, as long as the package publisher distributes the source. While it's the case for the some standard repositories, packages in "restricted" (some of "multiverse" too) and third-party apt repository can be published in binary-only mode. You have no ability to at the source in those circumstances, even if you apt-installed them.
Post reply on HN