I’ve gathered that a lot of people in the nix space seem to dislike snaps but otherwise like Flatpaks, what seems to be the difference here?

Are Snaps just a lot slower than flatpaks or something? They’re both a bit bloaty as far as I know but makes Canonicals attempt worse?

Personally I think for home users or niche there should be a snap less variant of this distribution with all the bells and whistles.

Sure it might be pointless, but you could argue that for dozens of other distros that take Debian, Fedora or Arch stuff and make it as their own variant, I.e MX Linux or Manjaro.

What are your thoughts?

  • MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    In addition to what’s already been said, Canonical have a history of starting grandiose projects and then abandoning them a few years later. See Mir, Unity, and Ubuntu Touch for examples.

  • wiki_me@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Calling it hate is an exaggeration , people are entitled to their opinion and informing other people by criticizing snap.

    Another advantage not mentioned is that snap is a product of canonical (a for profit company talking about an IPO for years), flathub is managed by the gnome foundation (a US registered non profit, which should provide some legal protection).

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I could care less about legal status. In fact, I think it would be cool to have a profitable software center that was able to allow for projects to get more funding.

      • wiki_me@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        paradoxically just because an organisation is a non profit does not mean it does not sell anything, it means that the people who “own” it are not doing it for a profit (e.g. voting members, board members , that is what is suppose to be legally guaranteed ), for example the wikimedia foundation (the creator of wikipedias ) sells access to data, MIT university for example is also a non profit.

        and i feel like the profit incentive might cause problems for the snap store, flathub warns when an app is closed source so it might be risky to use it, snap does not do that and maybe that is because that could hurt profits.

    • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think hate is the right word. Snap sucks for a long list of reasons, a few years ago it was pushed down everyone’s throats whilst still being broken (it would even break OS upgrades due to being broken, even if you didn’t even use it, fun times) and then canonical started redirecting apt to snap… Yeah, hate is the right word, same with systemd

  • refalo@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    The server is proprietary and last I checked you can’t even turn off auto-updating or verify the binaries they push to you.

    https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-mint-dumps-ubuntu-snap/

    In the Ubuntu 20.04 package base, the Chromium package is indeed empty and acting, without your consent, as a backdoor by connecting your computer to the Ubuntu Store. Applications in this store cannot be patched, or pinned. You can’t audit them, hold them, modify them, or even point Snap to a different store. You’ve as much empowerment with this as if you were using proprietary software, i.e. none. This is in effect similar to a commercial proprietary solution, but with two major differences: It runs as root, and it installs itself without asking you.

    • the_weez@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is why I don’t love snaps, proprietary backend. I think snaps actually work great for the most part, and flatpaks don’t support cli apps, only GUI.

      • ZephrC@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I don’t know why people keep saying that flatpaks don’t support cli apps. They do. I know it’s awkward to type out flatpak run io.github.zyedidia.micro or whatever every time you want to use a text editor, but aliases fix that pretty neatly, and that example wasn’t hypothetical.

        • d_k_bo@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          You don’t even need to create aliases yourself. Flatpak creates wrapper scripts for every app that you install. Just symlink them into your PATH.

          ln -s /var/lib/flatpak/exports/bin/org.example.CliTool ~/.local/bin/cli-tool
          

          or if you are using a user remote

          ln -s ~/.local/share/flatpak/exports/bin/org.example.CliTool ~/.local/bin/cli-tool
          

          (Note: some lemmy clients render the the tilde in code blocks incorrectly)

          • the_weez@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            This is news to me! I’m honestly just paroting others with the no CLI support, I never did the homework. Shame on me I guess!

  • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    As you can probably tell by all the lovely comments about Snaps, that’s the reason. Snaps is crap, by design.

  • DumbAceDragon@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Lost a couple hours of work on the snap version of krita since it couldn’t save the file for some reason. Switched away from Ubuntu as a whole after that experience.

  • Presi300@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    The problem with snap isn’t that it’s useless, it’s that it’s garbage. Snaps are just plain worse in every way, compared to other packaging formats. They impact boot time A LOT… like A LOT A LOT on a hard drive, use a ton of space, are slow to launch unless you use like tricks or what not to speed up consequent launches after the 1st one, the store backend is proprietary and poorly moderated, the store is slow and unresponsive, and cannonnical is pulling some real micro$oft-esk shit to try and force them on users… Stuff like aliasing apt commands to snap, disallowing ubuntu spins to ship flatpak by default, etc…

    The only redeeming quality that snaps have is that you can run CLI/server programs as a snap, and even then, just use docker lmao.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      If it was a cool optional thing they were experimenting with it might be different. The problem is that it was forced onto the desktop

  • nfsu2@feddit.cl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think most people hate Snaps because Ubuntu is replacing .deb packages with snaps with no user prompt and that is a cardinal sin in Linux against the freedom and power of the user. Being “bloated” can’t help either when package maintainers do all what they can to ship programs light and simple. So it goes against at least two Linux principles.

  • aaravchen@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    When I install this snap am I getting a kernel driver, a native raw binary, or a containerized user application that conforms to a communication interface? Who knows! They’re all mostly undifferentiated in the store.

    What about a third party store? Only if you fork the snap daemon and change the hard coded URL. And good luck with that mandatory Canonical contributer agreement you have to sign.

    Want to pick when your apps update? Nope. That’s the official stance. They will never support that. But here’s a way to manually block network access to the daemon if you really really need to. But then everything will update at once when you give it access again.

    Want a specific version of a snap? See above. Explicitly will never be an option.

    “I guess there’s a fee to pay to get access to quality apps.” Incorrect. There is no real vetting process for what’s added to the store, there’s barely even minimal checking that you’re not overwriting someone else’s snap. You do have to sign the Canonical contributor agreement, and setup an identity to submit as, but even if your snap is proven to be malware there a good chance it will stay in the store, or can be immediately re-uploaded.

  • Liforra@endlesstalk.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I hate snap, because their store is proprietary and i think forcing something with a proprietary store on you is microsoft level shit which is why i left in the first place.

    Also i dont like being “forced”, theyre doing that a little with the apt install sometimes going to snap install

  • Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Imma be honest. I never used Snap. I had left ubuntu long before they started rolling it out.

    That said, hearing they redirect apt calls to snap instead feels – A bit too microsofty for my tastes

    Like, when you use a flatpak (or even a snap!) in a non-ubuntu distro, you’re not forced to use it. And if the same package exists on both the repo and on flatpak/snap, you CAN choose to get it from any of the three sources. Forcing people into snap is weird and scummy.

    I have heard that snap is slower than flatpak, but also that it can do some stuff flatpak cannot, but again, didn’t test enough to know it.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      That said, hearing they redirect apt calls to snap instead feels – A bit too microsofty for my tastes

      I also haven’t been with an Ubuntu based distro for awhile, but I’ve got a lot of affection for Canonical generally. I even accepted the idea of the amazon-in the-dash-thing (which had a lot of folks sharpening pitchforks some years back) as being kind of an honest mistake - so excited that they could that they didn’t consider if they should, sort of.

      But yeah, that’s exactly what it feels like with snaps, and for that specific reason.

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I remember back in 2018 when they forced snaps on everyone despite them being broken.

    I had recently updated to the new 18 or 19 release and I was installing a command line tool. I did apt install and then it called snap which then didn’t work. Snaps are broken by design as they way the handle software is problematic. They put everything into mounted volumes and the sandboxing isn’t terribly robust. It really doesn’t help that they force you to use it.

  • Ananace@lemmy.ananace.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Well, things like the fact that snap is supposed to be a distro-agnostic packaging method despite being only truly supported on Ubuntu is annoying. The fact that its locked to the Canonical store is annoying. The fact that it requires a system daemon to function is annoying.

    My main gripes with it stem from my job though, since at the university where I work snap has been an absolute travesty;
    It overflows the mount table on multi-user systems.
    It slows down startup a ridiculous amount even if barely any snaps are installed.
    It can’t run user applications if your home drive is mounted over NFS with safe mount options.
    It has no way to disable automatic updates during change critical times - like exams.

    There’s plenty more issues we’ve had with it, but those are the main ones that keep causing us issues.
    Notably Flatpak doesn’t have any of the listed issues, and it also supports both shared installations as well as internal repos, where we can put licensed or bulky software for courses - something which snap can’t support due to the centralized store design.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Flatpak also isn’t built on custom designs. It actually is portable and can even run on bare systems as long as there is glibc

      • Tobias Hunger@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        When I last checked (and that is a long time ago!) it ran everywhere, but did only sandbox the application on ubuntu – while the website claimed cross distribution and secure.

        That burned all the trust I had into snaps, I have not looked at them again. Flatpaks work great for me, there is no need to switch to a wannabe walled garden which may or may not work as advertised.