Live data from Hacker News

Firefox now only available via snap on Ubuntu

old.reddit.com

101–110 of 152 posts

Re: Firefox now only available via snap on Ubuntu

#101
post #53
post #42

Another good reason to ditch a distro once honest, well done, but things change, now just a distro that push commercial crap . It's not a bold statement, snap, flatpack, appimage exists ONLY for commercial purposes. The FLOSS world works with - devs :: who write and publish code without the need to support any specific distro, packaging etc, many also package for their own favorite distro but that's a mere choice, ma…

That's a lot of text without giving any motivation for your main point. What makes an app package created by the app developer more "commercial" and anti-FOSS than an app package created by a distro-specific packager? What's the difference between an RPM package and a Flatpak package? Proprietary software and FOSS software both get distributed in both kinds of packages. In short: what are you talking about?

> What makes an app package created by the app developer more "commercial" and anti-FOSS than an app package created by a distro-specific packager?

The process: no developer can interact with a vast community, there is too much noise. No developer can prune bad bugreports, poorly formed questions etc. The multi-level community can. No developer can alone design the best software, good interactions with other people expert enough to interact well can.

With the classic FLOSS model:

- developers just concentrate on their code, there is no noisy community pushing messages to them, there is no issues about packaging, distro-specific stuff etc to care about;

- packagers just grab code and package it for a distro they know so an easier task for them than for the developer that might know just another distro/OS;

- community interact users-with-users and users-with-packagers and packagers-with-packagers that's keep the noise low enough to all parties profit and makes ideas flow from a cohort to another, processed and adjusted at any passage.

The outcome is: all users get help, at a level no other system can give, all face easier tasks than others development models, developers get the best feedback possible, all involved interacts each others creating new ideas, resolving issues, improving.

In the "direct" model: devs do not care of distros, they give something to anyone, as a result community is so noisy that they can't get good feedback, patches, bugreports, they get some, but mixed with countless other bad to a point no one can keep up the information flow. Developers do not care much about deps they use, so, as you can easily see in the wild, most "packages" are full of old vulnerabilities no one care about. Various cohort of people involved are "isolated" between each other. There is no real community just a mechanical hierarchy unable to improve itself BUT able to be steered by big players who decide founding a developer or another what ideas will grow and what will be pushed into oblivion.

It's essentially the very same thing you see in our society, from the classic internet, with usenet, minitel, mailing lists and the modern platform era. In the modern era there are flock of sheep and some shepherd, in the classic era there were peoples, peer between peers. In the classic era innovation was a thing, nowadays nothing really new born and most things fall apart.

> What's the difference between an RPM package and a Flatpak package?

The level of crappiness. An RPM can't normally work alone, so for instance it should not run an old openssl vulnerable version just because the developer of a small chat client have no time nor interest to update it. A flatpak can and normally do: see actual repos, classic packaging systems tend to have all deps up to date, flatpak, appimages, snap tend to be abandonware from the day 0.

Also an rpm can package a kernel, the modern ones can't, but still need a distro to run. So the classic systems are complete, the new one can't exists alone, can't form a system.

They have exactly NO REASON to exists from the FLOSS or the end user point of view.

> In short: what are you talking about?

About the reality, just look around and see. If you can't see there are two options: you are inexperienced enough to not notice anything, perhaps inhabited to the commercial model "go to a website, download a program, install it" single app per single app with the system pre-installed by someone else or rarely installed by hand in a day-long manual and painful process. Or you have commercial interests. I see no other options.

Try to see NixOS or Arch repo, then see Snap, Flatpak, AppImage repos and compare them: what about the real freshness of them? What about the completeness and options? What's the outcome? Do you want a containerized chat client 158Mb instead of 2.5Mb due do the gazillion of copies of multiple version of same deps that when you exchange a file demand a long process to being able to see it with another application? Or do you prefer have no files at all, all on someone else computer, like Google Drive etc and you just run a WebVM "the endpoint must be just a dumb terminal of modern cloud-mainframe"? Because that's is.

Re: Firefox now only available via snap on Ubuntu

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody I know strongly dislikes snap because of the machinery it brings and how untidy it is. Also it's forced upon the users. AppImage and Flatpak are fine, and AppImage is the first choice amongst this "everything included" bundle formats. However, Ubuntu is forcing snaps as a power move. Both the software, and the treatment from Canonical is off-putting a lot of enthusiasts right now.

The devil on my shoulder wonders if Canonical's pushing of Snap, rather than adoption of FlatPak, is another instance of the Not-Invented-Here organizational dysfunction that led it to slog on with its own Bazaar SCM rather than switch to Git (or Mercurial).

Snap server is closed-source (unless anything has changed?), so I believe this is more likely to be a nefarious intent to create a dependency on their service (which Canonical can monetize later) than a mere dysfunction

Re: Firefox now only available via snap on Ubuntu

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody I know strongly dislikes snap because of the machinery it brings and how untidy it is. Also it's forced upon the users. AppImage and Flatpak are fine, and AppImage is the first choice amongst this "everything included" bundle formats. However, Ubuntu is forcing snaps as a power move. Both the software, and the treatment from Canonical is off-putting a lot of enthusiasts right now.

The devil on my shoulder wonders if Canonical's pushing of Snap, rather than adoption of FlatPak, is another instance of the Not-Invented-Here organizational dysfunction that led it to slog on with its own Bazaar SCM rather than switch to Git (or Mercurial).

Bazaar, Upstart, Mir, Snap. Canonical really likes to do their own thing and usually it fails in the end. Competing implementations are great but competing standards only make more work for everyone else.

Re: Firefox now only available via snap on Ubuntu

#104

Conversely Linux Mint has agreed for Mozilla to provide debs directly for Mint. https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=4244

Good that I am not using Mint - I prefer to have a real packager who cares about my interests between Mozilla and my Firefox install.

Re: Firefox now only available via snap on Ubuntu

#105
post #96
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before every distro had their own package management system and repository. Then 99% went with Flatpak, except one, Ubuntu with their own proprietary solution called snap. It's not the same thing. We have a decent (yeah not perfect, I'll spare commenters the effort of posting that same old tired flatpak rebuttal) cross distro packaging solution, but Canonical always wants to play different and not collaborate with th…

You can also just install Flatpak on Ubuntu and never think about Snap ever again if you so choose. Someone putting forth effort to maintain their own bespoke repository isn't really that big a deal. In 10 years the "Ubuntu Store" will be a pretty frontend on top of Flatpak just like Gnome Software, and just like every NIH Canonical product made before it.

Unless you want Firefox or some other apps where the deb package is a thin frontend around a snap install command.

Re: Firefox now only available via snap on Ubuntu

#106
As long as LibreWolf isn't snap-only... so we should contribute to their effort by funding them, if we want them to last.

"Pay your maintainers" should become the norm to all users of FLOSS. We must lobby our bosses to make regular donations to maintainers of the FOSS software used by the company. That's a purely rational business decision, not an ideological one.

Re: Firefox now only available via snap on Ubuntu

#108
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also just install Flatpak on Ubuntu and never think about Snap ever again if you so choose. Someone putting forth effort to maintain their own bespoke repository isn't really that big a deal. In 10 years the "Ubuntu Store" will be a pretty frontend on top of Flatpak just like Gnome Software, and just like every NIH Canonical product made before it.

Unless you want Firefox or some other apps where the deb package is a thin frontend around a snap install command.

Fair criticism, but wouldn't you be installing the Flatpak versions of those apps anyway? I get the loss of the distro-provided builds but in abstract I can't find some fundamental reason distros can't drop packages from their repos.

Re: Firefox now only available via snap on Ubuntu

#109

There's a very strong reaction here from users, but overall if more software became snap-only (or FlatPak-only, or anything-only), it would solve one of Linux's biggest pain points as a software developer. MSI on Windows is completely fucked, PKG on Mac has a few footguns, but at least they're universal, decades-old standards supported by mature tooling. You release an MSI/PKG, and you're done. Works on every Windows…

Comparing Windows and macOS to Linux is moot and we should stop doing it. Linux has always been and will continue to be an ecosystem driven by various communities, and expecting everyone to agree on the same standards is silly.

The sooner we all begin treating Ubuntu and Red Hat Enterprise Linux as separate Operating Systems the sooner we can all move on from the "single standard" and "Linux on Desktop" debates. As an application vendor I always find it amusing when customers ask if we support Linux. My response is no, we don't support Linux but we do support Ubuntu 18+ and RHEL 8. Linux distros are so wildly different these days, not just in software but in ideologies, that this distinction is important, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Post reply on HN