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

171–180 of 538 posts

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#171

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

lawl wrote: post #153
still_grokking wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I tend to agree with you, but I really like updating all my software with one click/command. So out of curiosity: My application is already self contained and statically linked, so no AppImage needed, but it behaves like one, you can just run download and run it everywhere. And so what you're describing will be for sure an option for those who like it (in fact currently it's the only option in alpha). How would you l…

Personally, I rarely think about updating my software unless there's a new feature I need or a fix for a bug that's been ruining my life, so just visiting the website when to check for new versions is fine by me.

However, you could also include a facility to manually check for updates and either self-update or just show the changelog. Why manually? "I know you're about to do this thing real quick that needs to get done, but a new version is available! Would you like to twiddle your thumbs for 5 minutes while watching a progress bar?".

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#172

Post by entropicdrifter »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #60
entropicdrifter wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need this kind of packaging but want to retain freedom, just use an alternative solution like flatpak, which sandboxes from the get-go and lets you control what parts of your system the application can access

> 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 agree that this erodes Ubuntu's value proposition. I run Manjaro with KDE, personally.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#174

Post by Spivak »

rlpb wrote: post #111
Spivak wrote: post #3

Canonical's decision to abuse the power of apt packages to make it some "universal installer" is kinda gross. I get the thought but I would consider is surprising that, say, installing python-* actually installed pip and ran pip install. This is totally going to break Gnome Software's UI since it has plugins for snap, flatpack, apt, dnf, pacman, etc.. and making it so that Chromium from apt is doing a run-round with…

> Canonical's decision to abuse the power of apt packages to make it some "universal installer" is kinda gross. This is a mischaracterization. "chromium-browser" is a transitional package that installs the chromium snap for one reason: it is to provide an upgrade path for users of Chromium in previous Ubuntu releases to the latest Ubuntu release without breaking Chromium. I use an example of where Debian does the sam…

Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I understand that it follows the pattern of transitional packages and that this was a practical decision to not break people's existing setups.

But I don't necessarily agree with the decision because "install Chromium via apt" now doesn't make any sense. It really should be something like "Ubuntu doesn't package Chromium anymore, but a Canonical supported package is available in the Snap store." Because Chromium via snap isn't a drop-in replacement: it automatically updates, it's not versioned with the distro, the usual file paths you would expect to exist aren't there anymore.

I use "universal installer" because Canonical has made apt do something really unexpected. Canonically has effectively made apt a frontend for snaps. I wouldn't expect that if I tried to install a package what wasn't in Ubuntu's repos that it would try to find some PPA that has that package, automatically enable and trust it, and install it from there.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#175

Post by dflock »

lawl wrote: post #153
still_grokking wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I tend to agree with you, but I really like updating all my software with one click/command. So out of curiosity: My application is already self contained and statically linked, so no AppImage needed, but it behaves like one, you can just run download and run it everywhere. And so what you're describing will be for sure an option for those who like it (in fact currently it's the only option in alpha). How would you l…

most AppImages seem to auto-update themselves when you run them, which is convenient, until it isn't.

I'd want it in an apt repo, really.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#176

Post by commoner »

kd913 wrote: post #143
commoner wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are degrees to vendor lock-in, and it's not black and white as you portray it to be. Flatpak and apt exhibit minimal lock-in, because they are decentralized and fully open source. Snap, on the other hand, has a closed source server that is controlled solely by Canonical. Since the Snap Store is the only preinstalled app store on Ubuntu, this results in a greater degree of lock-in than Flatpak and apt.

The backlash from Linux Mint and other distributions was partly caused by Canonical using Snap for Chromium when the user intended to install it through apt. This sleight of hand is not as extreme as a 30% commission, but it's a step in the wrong direction. The FOSS community is able to reject moves toward vendor lock-in even if the closed source Snap server does not mandate a 30% commission.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#177

Post by ex_amazon_sde »

ncr100 wrote: post #15
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…

Is there no way to sandbox these packages - "have you cake and eat it too?" I'm a noob to modern Linux. Edit: Are snaps images? ...like containers? Edit 2: answer: > mounted dynamically by the host operating system, together with declarative metadata that is interpreted by the snap system to set up an appropriately shaped secure sandbox or container for that application

You can easily create very strong sandboxes for daemons using unit files and packaging them as native OS packages.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#178

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

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

If this is what you're looking for out of a computer, then why not just use a phone, tablet, or something like ChromeOS?

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#179

Post by vips7L »

alyandon wrote: post #128
andrewshadura wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone use this instead of distro packages?

The short story is - developers typically need to target more than one version of Java and the long lifetime of LTS releases don't line of up very well with that. Canonical historically provided a single "system" version of Java (meaning any system packages that depends on Java depended on this package) which meant that that was the version of Java that you got with Ubuntu XX.XX - even for LTS releases which had a 5…

Most people I know seem to use sdkman, jenv, or jabba for managing multiple jdk installs rather than rely on the system one.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#180

Post by suby »

kd913 wrote: post #137
commoner wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Linux Mint maintains a Debian derivative (https://linuxmint.com/download_lmde.php) so that they can continue operating should something happen to make the Ubuntu derivative unfeasible.

Also, for what it's worth, I remain entirely unconvinced by your argument that this is fine from a users point of view. If they want to stop the push back, they need to ensure that they are not the only one with the ability to host a Snap store similar to how Flatpak does it. You can claim that this is irrelevant as it won't be used, and I suspect that you're right about that, but they will not be trusted until this happens.

Post reply on HN