Live data from Hacker News

Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

lwn.net

221–230 of 538 posts

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#221
It's very funny that this article is two places above the article about how Canonical is bringing Flutter to Linux via the Snap Store. Some choice quotes from that article:

> Flutter’s native cross-platform story is growing rapidly and Canonical wanted to be at the vanguard.

> By making Linux a first class Flutter platform, Canonical is inviting application developers to publish their apps to millions of Linux users and broaden the availability of high quality applications available to them.

> Canonical will continue to collaborate with Google to further improve Linux support and maintain feature parity with the other supported platforms.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#222
post #33
post #12

The reason for why the backend for the snap store hasn't been opensourced has been explained multiple times. Namely that it would be expensive to open source it with little benefit in return. Canonical already spent a large amount of investment opensourcing launchpad and nobody other than them operate it. Mainly because the majority of the costs are for operating an instance which most other distros aren't willing to…

None of these arguments are convincing. > Namely that it would be expensive to open source it with little benefit in return. I don't think that's the real reason; I think it's that Canonical wants to maintain control. Their dream of being the App Store of linux isn't working out. > Canonical already spent a large amount of investment opensourcing launchpad If their development practices make open-source development e…

> Users pretty clearly do not want this. Many people use Ubuntu expressly because of the PPA system

Agreed. This is one feature of Ubuntu I miss sorely after leaving it behind for other distros.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#223
From the July 2 Mint blog post: https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3766

> When Flatpak came out it immediately allowed anyone to create stores. The Flatpak client can talk to multiple stores. Spotify is on Flathub and they can push towards it. If tomorrow they have an argument with Flathub they can create their own store and the very same Flatpak client will still work with it. When Snap came out, it was only a client. The server was behind closed doors and the client couldn’t talk to multiple servers.

and

> Ubuntu is planning to replace the Chromium repository package with an empty package which installs the Chromium snap. In other words, as you install APT updates, Snap becomes a requirement for you to continue to use Chromium and installs itself behind your back.

Yea that seems to me to be a problem.

From the June 1st Mint blog post: https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3906

> ...in the Ubuntu 20.04 package base, the Chromium package is indeed empty and acting, without your consent, as a backdoor by connecting your computer to the Ubuntu Store. 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 installs itself without asking you.

If I'm reading this right, Snap is basically trying to fix the problem of software dependencies on older packages by bundling things together (a la flatpack)... but it ALSO replaces the various repositories in different distributions of linux with a closed-source, centralized repository that points towards cannonical, and advertises ubuntu to people using other distros and potentially gives cannonical control over the distribution of sotfware in the linux ecosystem. AND it can do this behind the scenes without the knowledge of the users, who may think they're still using their normal repo system.

The whole scheme seems completely antithetical to the principles of FOSS. You don't have to go full Stallman to see this as a bad thing IMO. From that perspective, Mint's decision to drop support for Snap makes a LOT of sense.

Also, one of the reasons I enjoy running linux (I dual-boot with windows) is that it does what I tell it to do, and ONLY what I tell it to do. There's no BS like Cortana auto-installing or onedrive automatically uploading a bunch of my pictures to the cloud (yes that actually happened). I already have a linux distro that takes that benefit away, but I accept that (for now), because it's a phone. I'm not ok with losing that on my desktop.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#225
post #85
post #11

Installed ubuntu 18.04, purged snapd. It was back after `do-release-upgrade` to 20.04

I installed 18.04 a couple of weeks ago, after software I needed didn't work for 16.04. I don't need snaps and want to continue using .debs (which so far I'm doing, but some snap apps come preinstaled). What is the cleanest way of ditch the snap system and its preinstalled apps? I'm assuming this won't break anything important. PS: I'm not planning on installing 20.04 any time soon. At least not until the dust really…

sudo rm -rf /var/cache/snapd/

sudo apt autoremove --purge snapd gnome-software-plugin-snap

rm -fr ~/snap

From: https://askubuntu.com/questions/1035915/how-to-remove-snap-s...

---

..Or..

sudo apt purge snapd

rm -vrf ~/snap

# following may not be required as apt purge already removes them

sudo rm -vrf /snap /var/snap /var/lib/snapd /var/cache/snapd /usr/lib/snapd

# trying to install some package like chromium-browser will bring back snapd

# make sure snapd is not installed as a dependency anymore

# downside is that some package installation might fail because of dependecy on snapd

sudo apt-mark hold snapd

From: https://www.kevin-custer.com/blog/disabling-snaps-in-ubuntu-...

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#226
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You give multiple repository support and suddenly users have to one find a way to add another repo, and second there is no way of removing software from those repositories if they do end up malicious. > Ubuntu is the version of Linux designed to be used by your grandmother. They want to make it as easy as possible for users to install trusted/safe software from both proprietary/free vendors. By default, GNOME Softw…

None of those 3 links are provided by Microsoft, Spotify or Jetbrains. Yes they are there, but they are published from 3rd parties. Why exactly do you think that is? The microsoft, spotify and Jetbrains software comes directly from their respective publishers. Problems are supported and debugged directly. That is a major difference.

> Why exactly do you think that is?

Canonical very publicly collaborated with these companies to get their software on the Snap store while Flathub has been handled in a more free-for-all manner. If you build it, they will come, and all that. Moreover, I'm not so sure Red Hat is as explicitly interested in monopolizing the Linux application ecosystem as Canonical, especially since their acquisition by IBM. Maybe IBM has other ideas, but we likely won't see similar marketing efforts on that front in the near future.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#227
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…

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

I believe that the Canonical Snap server is hardcoded into snapd, so even if someone did implement their own you would need to recompile snapd to even use it.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#228

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…

Appimage has its own issues though: - no update mechanism - no sandboxing and only basic app isolation - no deduplication (Flatpak automatically deduplicates everything it installs on a machine)

AppImages do have an update mechanism:

https://docs.appimage.org/packaging-guide/optional/updates.h...

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#229
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…

From an IT perspective: I can set up an internal APT mirror for my users, servers, test systems, etc., but I can't set up an internal snap mirror as far as I can tell. This means that despite having an internal repo that I can whitelist, some package installations will now arbitrarily require internet access. I can no longer install chromium on a system without access to the internet, and package installation will fa…

Snap can't seem to access my mounts. They're not very special mounts, but it happens in linux that you mount something, but snap just won't access. That made "no-go" a no-brainer.

Re: Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages

#230
post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 backl…

>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. You keep…

> Guess what, Ubuntu uses apt rather than yum. That isn't vendor lock in either.

Apt and yum both support configuring multiple repos, their protocols are well-documented, there are an abundance of repo implementations, etc. If apt only supported a single upstream repo and Debian kept the source proprietary, do you think Ubuntu would exist?

Post reply on HN