Live data from Hacker News

Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

lwn.net

141–150 of 538 posts

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#141
post #131
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…

> if this criticism bothers you, then you should never install from any third party apt repositories ever.

This does not follow at all. Third-party apt repositories work just like Ubuntu's apt repositories; you have just as much ability to audit, hold, pin, etc. in both cases.

If there is a difference in reliability (software from third-party repos is more likely to break your system--and, btw, software from Canonical's repos has also broken systems in the past, so "avoid third party repos" is not a guaranteed way to avoid software breaking your system), using snaps to install third-party software instead of third-party repos does not fix that problem: the third-party provider is still just as unreliable as before and their software is just as likely to do something stupid.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#142
post #6

I've been kind of disappointed by Snap. It seemed like it was a way to always have the latest version of software you care about available, but in practice, nobody updates their Snaps. I used it to get a newer version of Go, and while it is more recent than what comes with Ubuntu, it's still not the latest version. Apparently Some Guy updates it on a volunteer basis when he remembers, so it's nearly useless. Even if…

Some will argue that 32ms is negligible, but I don't believe it is.

Agreed, that’s 4 round trips to Google from my main box at home! You can round-trip ping nearly halfway across the U.S. in that kind of time.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#143
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can watch the discussions from Popey, Martin Wimpress etc... It's pretty clear from their perspective that they built the tech from users/devs first approach. Do you really think Canonical is looking for money over here? If so do please precisely explain in the short-term how exactly you think they are gonna achieve that. Do you think they are suddenly going to be able to dominate the entire 100% Linux desktop so…

The FOSS community opposes Snap because its server is closed source and forces vendor lock-in to Canonical, among other reasons. This is fairly simple to understand and not "disingenuous".

You haven't even explained how it's vendor lock-in. Canonical has no way designed their approach to ban the use of apt, rpm, deb, flatpak or appimages. They are in no way of a position to dominate the market in the way Google does with Android and it's stupid to even think that is their aim.

It should be pretty obvious to you why they aren't exactly going to claim 30% commission on nothing from users who are as cost averse as possible. It should be plainly obvious to you also how they don't have the clout to bully software vendors to publish for them.

They have already plenty of evidence that profitability of distribution of linux software isn't exactly a lucrative market like Google or Apple. The fact that you think that is their aim or that it is feasible in the FOSS Linux community with large scale players like Google/Microsoft/IBM is ludicrous. Canonical tries to attempt to get such vendor lock-in and they would lose so much marketshare apps on their store instantaneously. They aren't even in a position like Apple/Google/Microsoft here who charge money to publish apps.

I have already explained how that argument is complete nonsense.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#144
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no downside to Flatpak's support for multiple repositories and ability to self-host repositories. GNOME Software and KDE Discover both set Flathub as the default repository, which serves as the primary software source, and users can optionally add more repositories if they choose to do so. Users who don't want additional repositories can simply stay with Flathub without having to do anything. The Snap server…

>There is no downside to Flatpak's support for multiple repositories and ability to self-host repositories. There are always tradeoffs. I would argue there are advantages for having a trusted party vetting my software repos. It's why I even use Ubuntu because I trust Canonical to make some sane decisions when vetting their repositories. You give multiple repository support and suddenly users have to one find a way to…

> They want to make it as easy as possible for users to install trusted/safe software from both proprietary/free vendors.

Canonical deciding that Ubuntu won't allow third-party Snap repositories is completely orthogonal to open sourcing their Snap server and/or making it easy for people to develop alternatives. They can perfectly well do both.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#145
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same for me. ROS in particular only supports Ubuntu officially; although I know people can run it on Arch, it’s much more hacky and you have to build every package from source.

There are packages for ROS in the aur. And there are wrappers for the commands needed to install packages from AUR. To install ros on my system I just need to execute pacaur -S ros-noetic-desktop-full In this case it will indeed compile the package with cmake. But there are also many binary packages on the aur. The user experience is not like Gentoo. I have never had problems finding a package with Arch.

I wasn't aware of that, thanks!

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you can audit the source and build chain what's the problem?

>As long as you can audit the source and build chain what's the problem? As long as Linux Mint developers are not doing that how it helps you? you don't trust Canonical binaries but you trust the deb binaries, you could be honest and claim that you don't like snap but you still trust the deb binaries.

The point isn't that the devs are the ones doing the auditing, even though pretty much everything that lives in DEB and RPM repos has maintainers which do.

The point is that you can audit without having to depend on a third party. Nobody's claiming audits are free or that they're assumed. The point is that you have the option to choose to trust as much or as little of the build chain, from the compiler to the target code to the artifacts.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All containerization is just the fever to the sickness that is the futureshock from extremely fast rate of development of major libs like c++$year, glibc (no matter what they say about having stable endpoints), and the like. You can't run a program written today on the system repo libraries from 5 years ago. Containers try to mitigate this problem but like a fever they often end up making things worse.

I don't run any APT based distribution right now but I understand the issues... I think the biggest problem I see is Canonical developing what looks like a very useful tool but holding it proprietary. If Canonical provided the snap creation and hosting tools to the community I imagine it would be judged on its technical merits. As it is, I see more and more reports that Canonical is trying to gain more and more contr…

As far as I can tell, snapcraft[0], the tool that allows the creation of snaps is open-source and on github. However the hosting server-side code is closed source.

[0]: https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#148

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…

Is the best solution then (in terms of what current Linux users probably want) to introduce permissions to existing repository applications? Best of both worlds: reuse of system libraries, security updates to upstream packages without having to update the application itself, and pseudo-sandboxing for extra security.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#149

I usually go with Ubuntu on cloud platforms because it’s one of the defaults. Any suggestions on what’s a good alternative distributor go with that is widely supported and easily available on the variety of cloud platforms?

I'm very happy with Debian. I mostly like Ubuntu, but I can't have snapd restarting things whenever it feels like it.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#150
post #72

I wonder if it is finally time for me to give Arch a try. It's a shame that all my lab's machines run Ubuntu; although I find it solid, this sort of controlling behavior by Canonical seems against the spirit of FOSS.

You might like Linux Mint or Pop OS, both of which are re-spins of Ubuntu without snaps. Or for that matter, regular old Debian probably has 99% of what you need.

I'm running ubuntu, maybe it is time to try Pop OS. Hopefully system76 doesn't pull shenanigans like Canonical.
Post reply on HN