3 ms·
The negatives, of snap, at least, was that most apps became 'un-skinned,' and looked like unthemed things you'd launch directly in an X11-session so they look l
by readwind 6y ago
The negatives, of snap, at least, was that most apps became 'un-skinned,' and looked like unthemed things you'd launch directly in an X11-session so they look like their base-worst, and so on, in my experience. - The first Ubuntu LTS I tried that had snap even had problems with the [snap-packed] calculator, which for some dumb reason was a snap-app instead of a .deb, I'm talking the main included/internal calc-app, and the VLC snap-package I tried was totally unskinned, due to being snap'ped I suppose, as the ppa and etc .deb versions of VLC certainly was and looked better.
Now I am on EndeavourOS, an arch-based distro, easy to use and set up, and this is due to snap being introduced in Ubuntu directly, plus not wanting the ppa chase-game, and et cetera. It's just an/my opinion(s), and certainly not a pointer. Just being objective from my own perspectives, here. Got nothing against Ubuntu or anything, it's a free world, thankfully, still.
- petre 6y agoSnaps also create a myriad on mount points which is quite annonying. I like Appimage though.
- readwind 6y agoTell me about it df -m was like myles long. And it [meaning snap] had separate auto-update procedures and janitorial daemons, which I had a hell of a time removing and disabling etc. I guess the best thing about snap is that you can uninstall all of them, I hope, and find the alternatives of the same features either in the main repositories or through every-lovable ppa. I loved 12.04 LTS, 14.04 LTS, even, but, this is too much. I had to leave man. Had to be there to know it.
- petre 6y agoI've disabled snapd and set it on hold so it's hopefully never installed again precisely because of this.