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

Why is there only one Snap Store?

merlijn.sebrechts.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 362 posts

Re: Why is there only one Snap Store?

#91

Post by AsyncAwait »

spanhandler wrote: post #48
AsyncAwait wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's so impressive about Homebrew specifically?

1) Rarely breaks. Worst I've seen is needing a permissions tweak after an OS upgrade, in many years of use. Back when I switched from Macports I switched because ordinary usage kept rendering Macports so goddamn broken that it was easier to nuke its directory and start over rather than figure out how to fix whatever my bold command of "install package" had destroyed this time. I've never seen normal or even slightly…

Homebrew is solid, and I think you make a good list.

I had it break before with weird cyclical linking issues, but mostly it works good enough.

What I was more curious about is what specifically sets it apart from a solid Linux package manager?

> Lets you manage your packages with ordinary user-level permissions. No root elevation required.

This is the one major difference I'd say is not currently common on Linux. Could be easily solved by keeping package list databases in $HOME - the only reason root is required nowdays is because these are usually kept as 1 copy per system.

Re: Why is there only one Snap Store?

#92

Post by jeroenhd »

1_person wrote: post #67

That reminds me of the stake Ubuntu Core was born with in its heart: > An Ubuntu SSO account is required to create the first user on an Ubuntu Core installation. They just keep flinging shit at nothing and hoping to hit a wall they can build a gate in. They're trying to boil the frog slowly with Snap on the Server/Desktop branches. There is no possible genuine motive for these maneuverings to be in the position of ga…

To be completely honest, if Canonical ever wants the theoretical "year of the Linux desktop" to happen, they need a way to get proper cloud accounts working.

A big part of the value of Apple's ecosystem is iCloud. Microsoft has done the same thing with the syncing and cross platform capabilities of their Microsoft Accounts.

Most Linux users today don't care much if they need to create separate email, cloud storage, backup storage, password recovery and application store accounts. That's because many Linux users have a preference for one service or even self host.

Normal people aren't like that. A desktop without a cloud account is like an Android phone without Google apps or a theoretical Apple phone without Apple apps. Technically fully functional and customisable via sideloading, but ultimately pointless because nobody wants to go through that. Just ask any regular Jane or Joe on the street if they can set up IMAP email on their phone; I bet they just use Gmail or Outlook.

It's not the Linux power users Canonical wants to attract; it's regular users. Their requirements are different from yours or mine. The Ubuntu Core website specifically says it's built for business. It's focus is on configurability and enterprise deployment, making it closer to a managed Windows 10 enterprise network than something you run on your laptop at home. Lockdowns and gatekeeping are practically what the service is intended to do.

Re: Why is there only one Snap Store?

#93

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

barrkel wrote: post #4
ISL wrote: post #2

Debian user here, who has apparently missed the memo: What do snaps do that apt doesn't?

A mounted FS per installed application so you can run different versions side by side. I like it for large standalone apps, less so for command-line utilities. It easily beats untarring some third-party thing to /opt.

> A mounted FS per installed application so you can run different versions side by side.

Does it strike anyone else as very telling that people looked at the problem of "we can't install more than one version of an application at a time because of how we structure our filesystem and hardcode paths" and decided that the solution was "let's give each application its own filesystem!"?

Re: Why is there only one Snap Store?

#94

Post by PaulBGD_ »

spanhandler wrote: post #72
boogies wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with elementary OS? (pls don't kill me HN — Edit: yup, downvoted for a simple question)

• Nothing available that's as lightweight and good as Apple's "office"-type suite. • Nothing as all-around good as Preview (yes, seriously). • Worse battery life, partly due to worse OS optimizations and partly due to not having Safari available. Solutions to this in Linux that actually yield good results usually involve hard-capping performance at a pretty low level, IME. • Little things like screen recording and sc…

I'm not understanding the English keyboard complaint, am I missing something?

Re: Why is there only one Snap Store?

#95

Post by simion314 »

solarkraft wrote: post #81
simion314 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this good? I mean if you are a distribution you compile the software yourself so you can add the distribution keys (there are some that don't compile stuff ). Probably you are thinking there should be atext file in your home where you could add new signature to be sued, but that could be a security issue so probably needs to be something more safe,did any serious patch was sent to improve this and was it reject…

No matter who you are, having to maintain a patched version of Snap just to use your own software is absolutely ridiculous. I knew things were bad around Snap, but I didn't think they were attacking their feet with such fire power.

You do not need that, you can just use a flag

snap install --dangerous /path/to/snap

Re: Why is there only one Snap Store?

#96

Post by curt15 »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #10
justaguy88 wrote: post #5

What does snap do that flatpak doesn't?

Well, if you are building an IoT Device, lots of stuff for reliability. Automatic rollbacks, self-repairing, immutable FS... For a desktop user, honestly, very little.

>Well, if you are building an IoT Device, lots of stuff for reliability. Automatic rollbacks, self-repairing, immutable FS...

For that there is ostree, which is already supported by at least one major embedded systems vendor (https://docs.windriver.com/bundle/Wind_River_Linux_Tutorial_...).

Re: Why is there only one Snap Store?

#97

Post by gjsman-1000 »

1_person wrote: post #67

That reminds me of the stake Ubuntu Core was born with in its heart: > An Ubuntu SSO account is required to create the first user on an Ubuntu Core installation. They just keep flinging shit at nothing and hoping to hit a wall they can build a gate in. They're trying to boil the frog slowly with Snap on the Server/Desktop branches. There is no possible genuine motive for these maneuverings to be in the position of ga…

Canonical doesn't seem to understand that if I wanted a gate-kept system, there are plenty of better, non-Linux options in this world.

Canonical seems to have forgotten why Linux exists to begin with.

Re: Why is there only one Snap Store?

#98

Post by AgentME »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #10
justaguy88 wrote: post #5

What does snap do that flatpak doesn't?

Well, if you are building an IoT Device, lots of stuff for reliability. Automatic rollbacks, self-repairing, immutable FS... For a desktop user, honestly, very little.

That reliability stuff sounds good on desktop too. I don't exactly enjoy re-running apt after it has mysterious failures halfway through installs.

Re: Why is there only one Snap Store?

#99

Post by setzer22 »

kd913 wrote: post #71
Animats wrote: post #57

Control. 1. Get market share with free product. 2. Start charging once monopoly is achieved. 3. Profit!

Lol as if there is oodles of money to be gained from hosting a store like that on Linux. We can see all these steam game publishers desperate to release games to a community that is rather famous fo being cheapskates. Also, snap existing doesn't hinder flatpak or appimage or debs or rpms.

Since when are linux users "famously considered cheapstakes"? I was under the impression it's quite the opposite!

Of course, all generalizations are just that. But if anything, the linux gaming community has many passionate people more than willing to pay for games on their platform.

Most game developers don't port/build for linux due to the lower market share. A way simpler explanation that obeys basic market rules.

OTOH I know more than a fair share of people who exclusive pirate all the games they play on Windows. I also don't know many people who bought a license to windows itsellf.

Re: Why is there only one Snap Store?

#100

Post by donor20 »

1_person wrote: post #67

That reminds me of the stake Ubuntu Core was born with in its heart: > An Ubuntu SSO account is required to create the first user on an Ubuntu Core installation. They just keep flinging shit at nothing and hoping to hit a wall they can build a gate in. They're trying to boil the frog slowly with Snap on the Server/Desktop branches. There is no possible genuine motive for these maneuverings to be in the position of ga…

Wow - strong language.

Can I ask - do you contribute meaningfully to any open source packages?

Do you buy software at a significant commercial level?

I've noticed this sort of total absolutest, outraged, scorched earth style sometimes comes from the free riders. At least in some businesses I've worked with - if you can eliminate customers that approach things in this way your staff are happier, your life more relaxed AND you make more money.

A customer paying $100K/year sometimes has really competent folks who have pretty reasonable perspectives - a pleasure to work with. Someone paying $20/year can just rage and rage on forums, endless support tickets for user error issues etc, no perspective in terms of what is going on. Not sure if this has been seen in broader contexts.

"the moment you even so much as assert the position of gatekeeper you're trying to create for yourselves you're dead to me."

I think Redhat did the gatekeeper to 30 billion route. If you are a customer paying for support from them might be worth giving them feedback and more importantly a suggested way forward that works to pay their staff.

What's weird is part of the value ADD for other companies in the tech space is the cloud account that you are railing against. Microsoft has basically forced it on their windows user base, but provisioning users now isn't so bad if you want to give someone office, just add their email to your admin page and entitle them. Boom, they can self solve even at home. Google has made their cloud account EXTREMELY valuable. The same "you are dead to me" ragers are often knee deep in google account / xbox account / netflix go anywhere accounts etc.

Post reply on HN