• jlsalvador@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    21 hours ago

    On the other hand:

    • Loop-device exhaustion (slow, though Ubuntu has increased the limit via a patch).
    • A single point of failure due to Canonical’s repository imposition (a closed garden).
    • Unmaintained branches and snapped apps.
    • Implicit installation of snapped apps through the apt CLI instead of the originally supported packages 🤬 (what the hell, Canonical!? Are you doing the same crap as Microsoft?).

    The server-side closed garden is the opposite of an open ecosystem and the open-source community. You can add custom repositories to APT or Flatpak. Every new snap interaction feels like another step toward forcing the user to use it, instead of offering cool features that convince users on their own merits.

    The last change (installing snapped apps when you run apt install) was horrendous. What’s next? Installing snapped apps when the user runs flatpak install?

    • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      The only logical reason for them forcing users into their own, proprietary snap store, when a user is trying to install from another source, is they want complete control over that ecosystem. And the only reason for that is so that they can eventually sell it to a huge player like Microsoft or Google or Amazon.

      They are completely untrusted with that slimy move.

      • melfie@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        43 minutes ago

        Exactly, the way Snap is managed is very much out of a big tech playbook, and it won’t be surprising if they’re acquired by big tech. The whole point of Linux for most of us is avoiding big tech bullshit.

    • ashx64@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      17 hours ago

      All of those, apart from loop devices, are not technical limitations, but results from Canonical’s poor management and monopolistic desires.

    • caseyweederman@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Huh. I don’t know enough about Flatpak, I guess repo owners get to make that call? Do Flatpaks have a preinst equivalent? Could you theoretically have an empty Flatpak that installs snaps at a system level? I guess it would need explicit permission to write to the filesystem, which kinda seems to be the opposite of the purpose of Flatpak.
      And like, even if that is possible, the Flathub maintainers would probably reject it on principle. So I’m imagining CanHub with an extra step in the installation instructions that gets you to pipe a curl’d script into sh, at which point, what’s the point?

      • ashx64@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Flatpak recently got a method of preinstalling flatpaks.

        A flatpak cannot install a snap on your system. Apt can install a snap because when apt installs and updates packages, it can also run scripts as root. That’s insecure and potentially dangerous, so flatpak doesn’t have that ability.