• Laser@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I don’t like snaps because it’s just another Canonical NIH thing. Everyone else agreed on flatpak which seems to have a good design with portals and all and being fully open.

    On the other hand, you have snaps, which is being controlled by Canonical as the server component is l non-public. The packages sometimes work worse than normal debs and the flatpak version (steam being a notable example IIRC).

    There is 0 motivation for me as a user to look into that. They have solved the problem in one of the worst ways possible. Even Mint, which is Ubuntu’s biggest downstream, has opted against including it by default.

    In addition to all of that, Canonical also installs applications as snap when using the apt\£* command line tools.

    So you have a system that is

    • proprietary
    • worse than the alternatives
    • pushed on users even through unexpected channels

    Ubuntu’s mission was always to build bridges between the user and tech and businesses that the gnu side of Linux wouldn’t.

    Which bridge did they build with snaps?

    It’s a good just works distro that has spawned a ton of just works distros

    Which in turn have removed snaps by default and replaced the affected packages with native ones because it often didn’t “just work”

    • tsugu@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      I like Snaps. They can do more than Flatpak and when packaged well they just work. Sadly some apps on Snapcraft are abandoned or they just don’t work, but the same can be said about Flathub.

      Which bridge did they build with snaps?

      Proprietary companies are compelled to release on Snapcraft because it gives them advantages over other packaging methods. I’m just a user but I heard Snaps are easy to work with thanks to the documentation.

      In addition to all of that, Canonical also installs applications as snap when using the apt\£* command line tools.

      Firefox for example isn’t even in their apt repos. So instead of throwing an error, the Firefox meta package installs the snap, and tells you it’s doing that.

      But I understand that Ubuntu isn’t for you if you want to avoid snaps.

      • Laser@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Everyone should use what suits them best. My negative opinion on snaps doesn’t mean Ubuntu shouldn’t ship it or that users shouldn’t use it. It’s Canonical’s distribution, they can put into it whatever they want for all I care, and if users are happy with it, good for them. But I can still criticize it for perceived issues. (Edit: kind of a straw man since nobody said I couldn’t, I just wanted to stress that I’m not authoritative on the matter)

        But I understand that Ubuntu isn’t for you if you want to avoid snaps.

        I used Ubuntu in the past, from I think 2004 or maybe 2005 to 2008, but switched away because of other issues that I don’t remember anymore, but I do remember upgrades between major versions were always pain with an Nvidia card (this was before AMD or in the beginning even ATI cards were well-usable under Linux) and I honestly just prefer rolling release nowadays. But snaps are just not at all compelling anyways.