• friend_of_satan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    20·
    1 year ago

    Snap made me switch back to Debian. Ubuntu was awesome for a long time, but having snap glommed onto everything so much that it kept showing up on my headless boxes was too much.

    • Kogasa@programming.dev
      211·
      1 year ago

      Flatpak is fine. Snap is Canonical’s proprietary version, which ties you specifically to their app store. It’s not designed to be an open standard but Canonical has made it compulsory in one of the largest distros (Ubuntu) and its derivatives. There are also problems with its sandboxing mechanism competing with AppArmor.

    • CeeBee@lemmy.world
      11·
      1 year ago

      There was an Ubuntu developer that left Canonical about a year or so ago. His reason was that he had spent a number of years (possibly over a decade, can’t remember) optimizing some code and the kernel to get the fastest boot time possible.

      Then he saw Canonical practically throw his work out the window by introducing snaps, which until recently was plagued by serious slowness on the first start of a snap.

      He said it felt like his years of work just meant nothing at that point.

      There are a number of reasons Flatpaks are a better open source option, even if they aren’t perfect.

  • sanosuke001@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    7·
    1 year ago

    I can’t even use my smart card because Ubuntu keeps trying to install the snap version of Firefox which can’t access the hardware. Why does it keep swapping out every time I update releases? Why won’t it let me be happy?! /cry

  • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    6·
    1 year ago

    Just a few days ago I wrestled with the overzealous sandboxing and security of the Chromium snap. Had to get a Flatpak and even then had to use some flags to get the proper permissions enabled. Next time I do a refresh I’m going with Debian.

      • bruhduh@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        With all respect I’d like to ask, why most people in comments avoiding Debian like plague? It’s good OG distro, stable as fuck, i know about old packages and all, but after daily driving arch BTW™ for 5 years straight all i can say is, I’m tired boss, I’m tired of nonstop updating, I’m tired of dependency hell that coming if you didn’t updated your system for half a month, I’m tired of resolving repeating dependency hell when you’ll have to reinstall half of your system to get it work another week, I’m tired of modern filesystems that locking themselves up completely when something goes wrong, so I’m just decided to give Debian a chance, and you wouldn’t believe it, it’s heaven, when you can just power up your system and it just works, without any trouble, yes, i have dated software, but it’s worth it, and yes, 8 years ago, my first distro was Linux mint, and it broke when i used OFFICIAL GUI updater tool to update version of my mint

    • RmDebArc_5@lemmy.mlOP
      342·
      1 year ago

      The issues are more being worse than flatpak in most ways: Proprietary, bigger, slower, no support for external repos

      • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
        18·
        1 year ago

        You had me at proprietary. But seriously, I use FOSS. I’ll tolerate proprietary software if I have absolutely no other choice. There’s absolutely no reason for me to put up with this bullshit. While it’s a long way from the kind of shitfuckery Microsoft is so fond of, it’s still completely unnecessary.

      • Montagge@kbin.social
        51·
        1 year ago

        Proprietary doesn’t bother me at least not how snap is currently implemented
        I don’t recall noticing a size difference between snaps and flatpaks
        I’ve found snaps as fast as flatpaks, but I know snaps has issues before I started using them

        • NateNate60@lemmy.world
          7·
          1 year ago

          Honestly, if you’re satisfied, there’s not really a compelling reason to switch. Keep using snaps if that’s what works for you. But I would like to remark that we should preferably support open solutions to proprietary ones. That’s not saying that we should never use proprietary software, but just something to keep in mind.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      222·
      1 year ago

      I haven’t had any issues with the few snaps I use so far

      My grandpa used to say something like the idea that he never had problems with the ‘few’ times he drove home drunk so far. Then he ran someone over.

      It’s better to understand something is an avoidable risk BEFORE you’re shown graphically.

        • Solar Bear@slrpnk.netEnglish
          72·
          1 year ago

          Me reacting to analogies with “Did you know these two things are not completely identical?”, completely unburdened by the knowledge that I’m supposed to explain how the differences invalidate the comparison.

            • Solar Bear@slrpnk.netEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              I’d argue it’s pretty stupid to use FOSS but then depend on a proprietary server that only one for-profit company is allowed to run to deliver all that software, trusting them to just never do wrong or leave you high and dry. I’d also argue it fits the analogy perfectly, because the analogy was about saying “I haven’t had a problem yet” in response to being shown the potential problems of the action.

    • XEAL@lemm.ee
      2·
      1 year ago

      DBeaver it’s not on the repos, but it is on snap

      ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
      31·
      1 year ago

      I ran ubuntu for a year and most my packages were snaps. It slowed my machine and made it lag so much. I now use arch btw

  • cadekat@pawb.social
    12·
    1 year ago

    Has the meaning of this template changed? Like isn’t the pink guy supposed to be a thing supporting the white dude so they can accomplish a goal they couldn’t have done alone?

    For example, the pink guy could be “Debian”, the white person “Ubuntu”, and the yellow goal “Being an awesome distribution”.

    • Zorque@kbin.social
      51·
      1 year ago

      It’s always been a thing holding white guy from getting to yellow goal, in the memes I’ve seen.

      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        What’s your alternative? I’ve used OpenRC before and it was nice, but it didn’t take long to find a use-case that systemd handled easily but OpenRC made difficult. Also a few packages expect systemd to be present and either fail to install or partially install so I had to figure out how to implement the missing functions in OpenRC.

    • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
      9·
      1 year ago

      why? Do you mean “like” as in you’d rather have them than not, or that you think they’re a good way to package apps?

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        5·
        1 year ago

        I think they’re a good way to package apps. Superior to Flatpak for sure. I like Flatpak too and if Canonical abandoned Snap tomorrow, I’d switch my snap-packaged apps to Flatpak. The only non-bullshit downside of Snap is the proprietary server-side and the lack of multi-repo support. I don’t care much about either because I know implementing either is fairly uncomplicated and it will happen should the reason arise. If Debian wanted to start using Snap, it’d take them a month to get the basics working with their own server side. If the client side was proprietary too, I’d have had a completely opposite opinion on Snap. Finally Canonical supplies all the software on my OS. I use third party repos only when absolutely necessary. If Canonical ran a proprietary apt server side, I wouldn’t even know, apt doesn’t care. Some of the myriad HTTP mirrors could easily be running on IIS, or S3, or Nexus. The trust equation for snap is equivalent.

        • NateNate60@lemmy.world
          71·
          1 year ago

          Oh boy, what a brave opinion to post. I respect that. I’m curious though, on your reasons for why you believe Snap to be superior to Flatpak.

          • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
            41·
            1 year ago

            Because you can package and deploy OS components with it. As a result you can build an OS with it, do foolproof updates of it and …gulp, happy tear… rollback components without involving any other system like a special filesystem.

            My bravery comes from being a software guy that’s been doing OS software development for over a decade so I believe my opinion is somewhat informed. 😂 I’m currently working on a software updates implementation for an automotive OS.

            • NateNate60@lemmy.world
              4·
              1 year ago

              I think this is just a difference in the use case. Flatpaks are designed for desktop applications while Snap was initially designed for exactly the purpose you describe.

              • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
                3·
                1 year ago

                The initial use case for Snap, when it used to be called Click (circa 2012-13), was mobile apps for Ubuntu Touch. Those were the same as desktop Qt apps, just using the a mobile theme and layout. Canonical developers just had the foresight to create a design that isn’t limited to that use case. As a result Snap is a superset of Flatpak in terms of use cases. Flatpak can probably be rearchitected to match that if anyone cared. If that were the case I’d also be drumming it up.

                The funny thing is, we wouldn’t be having any of these discussions over the merits of Snap if RedHat came up with it instead of Canonical and the server side was OSS from the get go. When RedHat was cool that is. In fact likely Canonical would have been using thet too. Just like they use PulseAudio, Systemd, and Wayland.

        • grue@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          The only non-bullshit downside of Snap is the proprietary server-side and the lack of multi-repo support.

          I think most people agree on that point, but believe that it’s a big enough one to be a deal-breaker.

          In what way is Snap superior enough to Flatpak to outweigh that downside?

        • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          11·
          1 year ago

          I think they’re a good way to package apps.

          Tell us you don’t know why you need Single Source of Truth on package installation and content without using the phrase “dependency hell is self-inflicted”.

          • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
            1·
            1 year ago

            A single source of truth for software is one way to solve that. There are others with different pros and cons in active use that have shown pretty good results.