• Thyrian@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think most snap haters mostly hate, that Canonical forces snap upon them, an wouldn’t hate so much about it if they had the choice.

    • Shareni@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, who’d hate using a package manager that increasingly slows down your boot time with every package installed, or that uses a closed source store to provide you FOSS

      Maybe there’s a reason canonical has to force it on their users

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah typing “apt install firefox” and getting the Snap version does loudly and obnoxiously disqualify Ubuntu from any devices owned by me or my family.

    • lengau@midwest.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Isn’t that kinda the same with, for example, Fedora and Flatpaks? Or Debian and debs? Or Ubuntu and debs? Or Fedora and rpms?

      The packaging system that your distro provides gets you the packages you get. For a small number of packages that were a maintenance nightmare, Ubuntu provides a transitional debs to move people over to the snaps (e.g. Firefox, Thunderbird), but if you want to get it from another repo, you can do exactly what KDE Neon does by setting your preferences.

      • lime!@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        the thing people dislike about that is that you’re silently moved from an open system to a closed-source one.

        Debian’s .deb hosting is completely open and you can host your own repository from which anyone can pull packages just by adding it to the apt config. fedora, suse, arch, same thing.

        only Canonical can host snaps, and they’re not telling people how the hosting works. KDE seems to upload their packages to the snap store for Neon, judging from their page.

        also, crucially, canonical are not the ones doing the maintenance for those apt packages. the debian team does that.

        • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          the thing people dislike about that is that you’re silently moved from an open system to a closed-source one.

          Yeah. I didn’t realize I had fallen for it until I tried to automate a system rebuild, and discovered that a bunch of the snap back end seems to be closed and proprietary.

          And a lot of it for no reason. Reasonable apt and flatpak alternates existed, but Canonical steered me to their closed repackaged versions.

        • lengau@midwest.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I don’t understand how a transitional package that installs the snap (which is documented in the package description) is any different from a transitional package that replaces, say, ffmpeg with libav.

          $ apt show firefox
          Package: firefox
          Version: 1:1snap1-0ubuntu5
          Priority: optional
          Section: web
          Origin: Ubuntu
          Maintainer: Ubuntu Mozilla Team <ubuntu-mozillateam@lists.ubuntu.com>
          Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug
          Installed-Size: 124 kB
          Provides: gnome-www-browser, iceweasel, www-browser, x-www-browser
          Pre-Depends: debconf, snapd (>= 2.54)
          Depends: debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0
          Breaks: firefox-dbg (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-dev (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-geckodriver (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-mozsymbols (<< 1:1snap1)
          Replaces: firefox-dbg (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-dev (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-geckodriver (<< 1:1snap1), firefox-mozsymbols (<< 1:1snap1)
          Task: ubuntu-desktop-minimal, ubuntu-desktop, kubuntu-desktop, kubuntu-full, xubuntu-desktop, lubuntu-desktop, ubuntustudio-desktop, ubuntukylin-desktop, ubuntukylin-desktop, ubuntukylin-desktop-minimal, ubuntu-mate-core, ubuntu-mate-desktop, ubuntu-budgie-desktop-minimal, ubuntu-budgie-desktop, ubuntu-budgie-desktop-raspi, ubuntu-unity-live, edubuntu-desktop-gnome-minimal, edubuntu-desktop-gnome, edubuntu-desktop-gnome-raspi, ubuntucinnamon-desktop-minimal, ubuntucinnamon-desktop
          Download-Size: 77.3 kB
          APT-Manual-Installed: no
          APT-Sources: http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu noble/main amd64 Packages
          Description: Transitional package - firefox -> firefox snap
           This is a transitional dummy package. It can safely be removed.
           .
           firefox is now replaced by the firefox snap.
          
            • lengau@midwest.socialOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              If you don’t want to explain, you’re perfectly welcome to not explain. But saying what amounts to “if you don’t know I’m not telling you”, especially when you weren’t specifically asked, is a pretty unkind addition to the conversation.

              • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                One selects a different package, same source repo.

                The other completely changes the installation, invisibly to the user, potentially introducing vulnerabilities.

                Such as what they did with Docker, which I found less than hilarious when I had to clean up after someone entirely because of this idiocy.

                The differences seem quite clear.

                • lengau@midwest.socialOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  In both cases, the packages are owned by the same people? (Fun fact: mozilla actually owns both the Firefox snap and the firefox package in the Ubuntu repos.) I’m non sure how that “potentially introduces vulnerabilities” any more than “having a package which has dependencies” does.

                  I’m not sure what you’re referring to with Docker. Canonical provides both the docker.io package in apt and the docker snap. Personally I use the snap on my machine because I need to be able to easily switch versions for my development work.

      • Laurel Raven@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Fedora with Flatpaks is open and up front about whether you’re getting a Flatpak or a system installed package, and lets you choose if both are available. And installing through dnf/yum isn’t going to do anything at all with Flatpak.

        And what about Debian with debs? That’s literally what apt was designed to work with. If it gave you Flatpaks, or the flatpak command installed debs, that would be more like what Ubuntu is doing.

        The fact that Canonical shoehorned snaps into apt is the problem. I’ve heard bad things about snap, but I wouldn’t know because I’ve never used it, and I never will because of this.

        When I tell my computer to do one thing and it does something completely different without my consent, that is a problem, and is why I left Windows. I don’t need that in Linux too, and Canonical has proven they can’t be trusted not to do that.

  • devilish666@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I never used snap, always use official repo > multilib > extra > chaotic aur > aur > flatpak > FUCK IT, I BUILD FROM SOURCE CODE FROM SHADY GITHUB REPO

  • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have NODE installed using snap lmao. Why? Installing it the normal way just gives me tons of errors that I’m too bored to deal with. I’m sure there’s a fix, but I’m too lazy to debug all that. Of course, I don’t use snap node for hosting servers and stuff. I just use it for react native. Regardless, it works n I’m happy lol

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah. I don’t mind snap at all for cases where a better package doesn’t exist.

      What made me give up Ubuntu was how it railroaded me into snap versions of packages that work better, for me, as native .deb installs.

  • Engywuck@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    People using Linux should take their heads out of their asses sometimes and just let people enjoy things they way they prefer.

      • macniel@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        yeah well, you can’t have it your way on Ubuntu when Canonical FORCES you to use snaps (heck they even hacked apt to prefer snaps instead of debs)

        • lengau@midwest.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          These are two incredibly persistent pieces of misinformation…

          1. Canonical provides snaps for Ubuntu. This is no more “forcing” you to use snaps than they force you to use debs, or than Fedora forces you to use flatpaks/rpms.
          2. Apt doesn’t “prefer snaps” by any means. Canonical provides transitional packages for certain packages that got migrated from debs to snaps, but the steps for using another apt repository to replace one of these transitional packages are the same as the steps for replacing any other package provided in your base repos with one from a different repository: You add the other repository, and you tell apt to prefer that repository for the specific packages.
          • macniel@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            If that is true, then why are deb packages provided by Canonical for Ubuntu dummied out?

            Canonical FORCES you to use snaps, there is no other way to look at this.

          • fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            If you were running a previous version of Ubuntu, where you had deb packages which worked, over the course of a few updates, they replaced half of your programs with snaps (without telling you), which were unable to see additional hard drives, USB pens, printers, scanners or cameras, couldn’t use plug-ins, couldn’t use 3rd party templates or presets, and didn’t respect any system settings for fonts/text size, icon placement and so on.

            Snaps were fine for “aisleriot solitaire” or “calculator” (assuming you didn’t mind a 5 minute loading time) or other things which didn’t need to interact with any file or system or device, but for actual programs for people trying to do work? Bag of shite.

            Now, I imagine some years later they must have fixed some of this rubbish, and I read recently they might have finally done something about permissions, but no, they didn’t ask anyone before they swapped working programs for completely broken snaps. They forced it on their existing users, and some of us bear grudges.