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

181–190 of 538 posts

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#181

Post by sgillen »

driverdan wrote: post #170
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" Why? Desktop computers worked just fine for 35 or so years before app stores showed up. It's completely unnecessary.

Yes but I believe that most causal non techy users just wont put up with it or at least would much prefer a GUI.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#183

Post by donmcronald »

chimen wrote: post #133

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.

This is exactly the issue I have with it. It feels like an attempt to control app distribution on Linux. No thanks.

I'm so sick of the app store model. The app stores usurp control of distribution from developers which adds risk which reduces willingness to invest and the result is that app stores attract low effort, low value apps unless they're coming from a huge company. Everyone loses except the app store owners, big platforms like Facebook and Spotify, and spammers / scammers.

The app store model is one of the worst things to happen to tech in my lifetime.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#184

Post by mad182 »

throwaway8941 wrote: post #158
kelnos wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>For the most part, the only people who really care about "the year of the Linux desktop" are people trying to build a business around desktop Linux As another long time Linux guy, I have a feeling most of those obsessed with Linux becoming a mainstream desktop platform are Mac or Windows users.

Same. I'm running Linux as my primary desktop and server operating system for ~16 years, and I don't really care if it's becoming more mainstream on desktops anymore. It's already working perfectly fine for my needs, so I don't even want it to change much.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#185

Post by the_af »

kd913 wrote: post #169
dilandau wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>snapd not open-source. Red herring. The Linux Mint teams' main complaints have to do with issues around the way snap wrests control from the user. >I will remind people that the most popular PPA to this day is a Java PPA being run by some 3rd party that doesn't offer Java. That PPA has root access to thousands of machines. Imagine strawman-ing this hard.

>Red herring. The Linux Mint teams' main complaints have to do with issues around the way snap wrests control from the user. Like Linux Mint is doing the same? There is no control being lost by using Ubuntu versus Mint. I could remove snapd there without people making that decision for me. Worse would be Mint's decision of removing the only FOSS built version of chromium without offering an alternative in place. Cano…

> Like Linux Mint is doing the same? There is no control being lost by using Ubuntu versus Mint.

If I understood the issue correctly (and I may very well be mistaken!) the problem Mint has with Canonical is that Ubuntu has "hijacked" (for lack of a better term) some apt packages so that they now actually install snapd and the snap. So you think you're opting out of snap, but when you use apt to install Chromium you end up using snap anyway.

If I understand correctly, this is Mint's main complaint: that Ubuntu seems to be hijacking apt packages with snap.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#186

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

kemayo wrote: post #88
tyree731 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you describe exactly what will be expensive in releasing the source code to software that was developed in house? Does it have lots of dependencies on proprietary software? If so, why? If all you're doing is taking an internal repository and hosting it externally, then it takes no time. But if you make sure licenses are being used correctly throughout the code, audit to make sure no internal secrets accidenta…

Isn't it a bad look for Canonical, a major open source company, to not have developed core software for their major open source product in an open source friendly manner?

Why should they do everything open source? To keep happy a few bored FOSS maximalists, who have neither real interest, nor use for the code?

We develop open source applications ourselves, and the amount of jerks who drop in from time to time and teach us how to do what (without contributing any code or donations, of course) is overwhelming. They don't care how you pay your bills and how much effort it takes to make things happen.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#187

Post by berkes »

jwlake wrote: post #93
berkes wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On latest LTS (Ubuntu 20.04 LTS) the apt version is simply a transitional package. It installs the snap for you. It says so on the description directly next to the name: "Transitional package - chromium-browser -> chromium snap" There only for people upgrading, so they are not suddenly surprised seeing their browser gone.

Just seems like an unintended consequences confusing situation. I think a pretty rational policy would to _never_ have an apt package install a snap package. Moving to snap is a breaking change, effectively, so you have to bite the bullet at some point. Mixing your distribution systems with references to each other seems like a recipe for confusion and anger. And it looks like they got the expected outcome.

> seems like a recipe for confusion and anger.

People where "suddenly Chrome is gone" will be angry too.

Just imagine the outrage of a title like "The update to Catalina wiped all mac users' browsers with all their bookmarks and history. Forever".

And those are the people that cannot easily solve it. The person being able to know what a "Transitional package" or the difference between snap and apt is, is also the person who knows how (to google for) to move the old ~/.config/chrome/ directory into the snap.

This is also the person being enraged that Ubuntu offers a mechanism for all the people who cannot do that themselves. That sounds quite selfish to me.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#188

Post by petre »

still_grokking wrote: post #161
lawl wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's easy. It should be officially in Debian. ;-) Stuff like AppImage, static binaries, Docker & Co are for me at least a kind of "last resort". Even I'm using Docker a lot[1] to try things out I first look for an AppImage in those cases. But when I decide that some app should become part of my system I will look for a proper package. One source to rule them all… [1] Docker is a big problem on it's own. But as I ca…

Debian has a lot of rules, some of which prevent statically linked binaries, like Go programs, from being packaged and shipped with it. A notable example is lxd.

Appimages are great but there's no sandboxing or updates. But hey, we used to downlad debs and install them by hand on Debian 1.3, before apt was a thing. Maybe appimages could be signed and distributed in a similar fashion.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#189

Post by kd913 »

commoner wrote: post #166
kd913 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> No you think it would be in the users' interest but it absolutely isn't. If you don't understand the value of free and open source software, you're not obligated to use it. The maintainers of Linux Mint and other Linux distributions do understand, and that is one of the reasons they have rejected Snap. > I'm willing to bet money you haven't looked at launchpad's source code at all. Nor have you or anyone else consi…

>If you don't understand the value of open source software, you're not obligated to use it. The maintainers of Linux Mint and other Linux distributions do understand, and that is one of the reasons they have rejected Snap.

I understand the value of open source software. I work for the industry building open source drivers and contributed back. But providing/producing and maintaining software isn't free and that is precisely the main motivator that you don't seem to pay attention to.

It's all good using a 100% FOSS stack, but that is irrelevant for the average user who wants to use things like Office, Steam and Spotify. The lack of usable software holds back Linux Desktop. So does your almost Stallman esque attitude to this.

>Your assumption is wrong and you've lost the bet. Additionally, Flatpak is available and Flatpak servers are already being hosted independently:

So you are hosting your own launchpad instance? Please do show me, that and all the wonderful contributions you have made to Canonical to have justified the massive resources they undertook by open sourcing it.

>Additionally, Flatpak is available and Flatpak servers are already being hosted independently:

That is a negative which I have argued multiple times. Multiple locations to have to find software which makes finding useful software harder. The user has to trust random third parties which breaks security.

Yea, Canonical had all those experiences with PPAs and how much of a nightmare that has been.

>Canonical has already transformed apt installs of Chromium into Snap installs, which motivated Linux Mint to reject Snap. Vendor lock-in is not black and white. For example, Android users can also install F-Droid or a variety of third-party app stores, but considering Google Play's default status on Android, most users are effectively locked in. The same applies to Canonical's handling of Chromium, and the Linux community is opposing this to discourage Canonical from continuing this dark pattern.

Funny you are saying this and advocating OpenSource and all this nonsense. Do you know why Canonical moved the chromium binary to snap? It's because maintenance costs were ridiculous. They had to backport their compiler and support versions from 14.04 to 19.10 at the time. They couldn't backport the compiler, and because chromium is a browser, users must be on the latest version for security reasons. It also deeply integrates with the OS via the Linux specific sandboxes which do not work the same from 14.04 to 19.10.

This they were maintaining for FREE. They didn't even have to do this because the officially supported browser is Firefox.

They didn't want to burden the cost for this nonsense and rightfully moved it to snap.

Where is Mint here providing the maintenance costs/burden for providing chromium as a deb here.

Canonical explained it clearly here.

https://ubuntu.com/blog/chromium-in-ubuntu-deb-to-snap-trans...

>For example, Android users can also install F-Droid or a variety of third-party app stores, but considering Google Play's default status on Android, most users are effectively locked in.

You are delusional if you think the situation is anywhere near the closed wall aspects of Android. Canonical doesn't operate it's own safety net or attestation that bans F-Droid or any other distribution. They don't have any controls or inhibitions in place for how users install/distrubte software unlike Android.

>Snap increases the fragmentation, and is more hostile to the FOSS community than all of the other options because its server is closed source.

You seem more hostile to the goals of the FOSS community than they are in my eyes. The person who is preventing Steam Games, WINE, Adobe software etc.. from coming to Linux is people like you.

They can reject snap all they want.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#190

Post by Daishiman »

simion314 wrote: post #160
Daishiman wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

let me clear some things up and tell me if I am wrong, link me to the correction and I will apologize. - Mint uses Ubuntu repositories - Canonical pushes the changes they want into this repos, this changes are probably done by scripts that build source code on Canonical servers. - the Ubuntu repos also contain binary blobs - when a Mint user does an update he gets the binary directly from Canonical servers, there is…

The differences are the following:

* Nonfree software is generally demarcated as such. There is nonfree software that has available source (in the case of some codecs), other that comes as blobs.

* The Chromium package is open source, and in most distros comes as binary built from the toolchain set up by the package maintainers. In all free software distros if you don't want to download the binary, you can download the source and build locally with the provided build scripts (in the case of most APT packages in Debian/ubuntu).

* Serving Chromium binaries with Snap removes the option of downloading, inspecting, and running the build chain locally

* Serving a different version of Chromium, or replacing the stock version with a different variety, cannot be done without creating a new Snap repository. Downstream distros like Mint need to replace some of the stock Ubuntu stuff, just like Ubuntu changes stock Debian packages

* Because there is no open source Snap repository software, Mint is unable to set up an alternative repo that could work around some of the objections they have with Ubuntu.

Post reply on HN