5 ms·

My two cents, you don't have to agree but thought I'd just add a different perspective. I prefer my own package manager (pacman) over snaps for the following r

My two cents, you don't have to agree but thought I'd just add a different perspective. I prefer my own package manager (pacman) over snaps for the following reasons: 1) I like to upgrade on my own schedule. I use my computer for work, and I cannot have things break in the middle of the day or in the morning, just as I get started with work. I usually save upgrades for when I less things to do, so that in case stuff breaks, I can spend time fixing it. This has happened twice during the last 2 years, or something like that. One time Firefox got broken (or rather, the version upgrade broke an extension I use) and second time some API in neovim changes to a couple of plugins broke. If this breakage would just happen by itself, it would break the two most common tools I use on a day-to-day basis. I've used both Windows and OSX for my professional work and while Windows is the worst offender when it comes to automatic updates, OSX is pretty horrible as well. At least with Windows you can expect some sort of backwards compatibility, while on OSX, one day you have to upgrade your entire OS, otherwise Notes or some stupid application won't launch. On the other hand, Windows eventually forces you to upgrade no matter if you like it or not. So both of them suck equally, but in different ways. 2) snap seems to create mountpoints for the applications and never removes them. When trying snap apps I always end up with bunch of pollution in my environment. Could be that I'm using snap/snapd wrong, but left a sour taste in my mouth, as I saw snap as something that wants to solve a problem that existed for a long time. Instead, they look a bit amateurish because of this.

ordinaryperson 7y ago
My position is not that certain users would prefer to update on their own schedule. Of course there are. Or that new updates sometimes break things and that's a hassle. Of course they do and it is. The problem is if you want to distribute an important security update, what do you do? Ask everyone nicely to upgrade? How? Again, what % of users will manually update their software? Not a lot. For #2, that seems like a resolvable problem that can be brought to Canonical. I'd prefer to see auto-updates fine-tuned rather than have super users immediately dismiss the idea in general. It's just my opinion but I think the greater good of the Linux community is served by auto updates, even if occasionally it means an update to an individual application has a bug here or there. Maybe this doesn't apply to you but I wonder how much of the Linux community just doesn't like change. Sometimes Canonical stuff does crazy stuff (Mir?) but auto-updates seem like a noble principle worth attempting to adopt.
- Legogris 7y ago
  I think there would be a lot less complaining about the existing unattended-upgrades functionality being enabled by default on dektop, than the new self-updating capabilities of snaps.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  > The problem is if you want to distribute an important security update, what do you do? Ask everyone nicely to upgrade? How? Again, what % of users will manually update their software? Not a lot. The thing is, I do not give a rats ass what the maintainer of the software wants. I’m sure they’d like their software to be patched quickly on all the PC’s that use it, and more power to them. But I do not want their decision to patch something to affect my system unless I explicitly tell it to, period. If I do want my software to update automatically, I’ll enable that. Just don’t force it onto me.
- zenexer 7y ago
  Auto-updating isn’t the only issue. I’m a stickler for security updates; I’m that crazy guy who always reboots his computer immediately whenever there’s an update. I like that Windows forces updates. Even I recognize that this doesn’t make sense in the Linux world, though. Ubuntu is trying to be something it’s not—they’re trying to appeal to a new demographic, and, in doing so, driving away their existing users. Even with my stance on auto-updating, snaps are a problem for me because I mostly use Linux in the context of servers. Like it or not, that’s where Linux has the largest market share; Android aside, Linux’s consumer market share is negligible. In that context, snaps have problems: - I can’t have my servers updating on their own. Security updates rarely break things, but most other updates need testing. - I use auto-scaling. That means servers need to come up quickly when load increases. If a bunch of new servers come online and all decide to update, that’s worse than no servers coming online. - I don’t want or need a sandbox. In a cloud environment, the server is the sandbox. - Environments and server states need to be reproducible for testing and auditing. If I’m doing a post-mortem, I need the software on the relevant image to be in the exact same state as when the problem occurred. - Performance is critical. I’m already paying AWS for sandboxing in the form of many small EC2 instances; I don’t need the additional overhead of snaps. I’m not working with bare metal. All of these issues could be resolved, and I wouldn’t object to this experiment running in a non-LTS or desktop-only release. But it is truly an experiment: snaps aren’t ready for prime time. My options are to pay Canonical for extended support for old software, wait it out and hope the issues are sorted before I stop receiving security updates, or switch to something like Alpine or Debian. Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who loves automatic updates, generally prefers systemd, rather liked Unity, and didn’t see what all the fuss was with Upstart and Mir: - systemd works pretty damn well and is a big improvement, although it has its hiccups - Unity was fine. It looked nice out-of-the-box and wasn’t a resource hog. - Upstart usually worked well enough, though it sometimes had reliability issues. - Mir never really saw the light of day, so it didn’t matter. Snaps are where I draw the line. They might be the future, but they’re not ready for the present. And that’s not for lack of trying on my part—I had no trouble embracing Upstart and later systemd.
rlpb 7y ago
> I like to upgrade on my own schedule. I use my computer for work, and I cannot have things break in the middle of the day or in the morning, just as I get started with work. You can arrange snapd to update on your preferred schedule. What you cannot do is defer updates forever.
- Longhanks 7y ago
  Yes, I can. This is my computer, and if snap does not obey my wishes, it‘s getting removed.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  You can just not install Ubuntu
  - Brian_K_White 7y ago
    That is pretty much the thrust of the OP itself, and most of the agreeing comments. So While true, it doesn't seem to be much of an observation. At the same time, it's also perfectly valid to instead, express what you want and don't want, and generally try to fix something that has broken or correct the aim of something that has veered off course. Approving of the new change is also valid for that matter. The only invalid thing is telling whichever camp you're not in that they can leave if they don't like it. Remember, this is a change, not just the way something has always been. How about, if you like the idea of everything packaged in the form of snaps, and all those snaps updating themselves outside of your control, you can just go find, or create, some new distro that works that way, instead of changing one that already exists and forcing all it's existing users to either accept the change or move, to accomodate a change you like? "Take it or leave it" are not the only options, and it says something unflattering about anyone who tries to suggest that they are.
    - craftinator 7y ago
      This is the most constructive comment I've seen in this thread.
- 7y ago
compuguy 7y ago
I get your points. In situations where Ubuntu 20.04 machines are on airgapped networks or corporate networks that use mirrors and the like. For personal and other situations I prefer flatpak and snaps...

ordinaryperson 7y ago

My position is not that certain users would prefer to update on their own schedule. Of course there are. Or that new updates sometimes break things and that's a hassle. Of course they do and it is. The problem is if you want to distribute an important security update, what do you do? Ask everyone nicely to upgrade? How? Again, what % of users will manually update their software? Not a lot. For #2, that seems like a resolvable problem that can be brought to Canonical. I'd prefer to see auto-updates fine-tuned rather than have super users immediately dismiss the idea in general. It's just my opinion but I think the greater good of the Linux community is served by auto updates, even if occasionally it means an update to an individual application has a bug here or there. Maybe this doesn't apply to you but I wonder how much of the Linux community just doesn't like change. Sometimes Canonical stuff does crazy stuff (Mir?) but auto-updates seem like a noble principle worth attempting to adopt.

Legogris 7y ago
I think there would be a lot less complaining about the existing unattended-upgrades functionality being enabled by default on dektop, than the new self-updating capabilities of snaps.
Aeolun 7y ago
> The problem is if you want to distribute an important security update, what do you do? Ask everyone nicely to upgrade? How? Again, what % of users will manually update their software? Not a lot. The thing is, I do not give a rats ass what the maintainer of the software wants. I’m sure they’d like their software to be patched quickly on all the PC’s that use it, and more power to them. But I do not want their decision to patch something to affect my system unless I explicitly tell it to, period. If I do want my software to update automatically, I’ll enable that. Just don’t force it onto me.
zenexer 7y ago
Auto-updating isn’t the only issue. I’m a stickler for security updates; I’m that crazy guy who always reboots his computer immediately whenever there’s an update. I like that Windows forces updates. Even I recognize that this doesn’t make sense in the Linux world, though. Ubuntu is trying to be something it’s not—they’re trying to appeal to a new demographic, and, in doing so, driving away their existing users. Even with my stance on auto-updating, snaps are a problem for me because I mostly use Linux in the context of servers. Like it or not, that’s where Linux has the largest market share; Android aside, Linux’s consumer market share is negligible. In that context, snaps have problems: - I can’t have my servers updating on their own. Security updates rarely break things, but most other updates need testing. - I use auto-scaling. That means servers need to come up quickly when load increases. If a bunch of new servers come online and all decide to update, that’s worse than no servers coming online. - I don’t want or need a sandbox. In a cloud environment, the server is the sandbox. - Environments and server states need to be reproducible for testing and auditing. If I’m doing a post-mortem, I need the software on the relevant image to be in the exact same state as when the problem occurred. - Performance is critical. I’m already paying AWS for sandboxing in the form of many small EC2 instances; I don’t need the additional overhead of snaps. I’m not working with bare metal. All of these issues could be resolved, and I wouldn’t object to this experiment running in a non-LTS or desktop-only release. But it is truly an experiment: snaps aren’t ready for prime time. My options are to pay Canonical for extended support for old software, wait it out and hope the issues are sorted before I stop receiving security updates, or switch to something like Alpine or Debian. Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who loves automatic updates, generally prefers systemd, rather liked Unity, and didn’t see what all the fuss was with Upstart and Mir: - systemd works pretty damn well and is a big improvement, although it has its hiccups - Unity was fine. It looked nice out-of-the-box and wasn’t a resource hog. - Upstart usually worked well enough, though it sometimes had reliability issues. - Mir never really saw the light of day, so it didn’t matter. Snaps are where I draw the line. They might be the future, but they’re not ready for the present. And that’s not for lack of trying on my part—I had no trouble embracing Upstart and later systemd.

rlpb 7y ago

> I like to upgrade on my own schedule. I use my computer for work, and I cannot have things break in the middle of the day or in the morning, just as I get started with work. You can arrange snapd to update on your preferred schedule. What you cannot do is defer updates forever.

Longhanks 7y ago
Yes, I can. This is my computer, and if snap does not obey my wishes, it‘s getting removed.
michaelmrose 7y ago
You can just not install Ubuntu
- Brian_K_White 7y ago
  That is pretty much the thrust of the OP itself, and most of the agreeing comments. So While true, it doesn't seem to be much of an observation. At the same time, it's also perfectly valid to instead, express what you want and don't want, and generally try to fix something that has broken or correct the aim of something that has veered off course. Approving of the new change is also valid for that matter. The only invalid thing is telling whichever camp you're not in that they can leave if they don't like it. Remember, this is a change, not just the way something has always been. How about, if you like the idea of everything packaged in the form of snaps, and all those snaps updating themselves outside of your control, you can just go find, or create, some new distro that works that way, instead of changing one that already exists and forcing all it's existing users to either accept the change or move, to accomodate a change you like? "Take it or leave it" are not the only options, and it says something unflattering about anyone who tries to suggest that they are.
  - craftinator 7y ago
    This is the most constructive comment I've seen in this thread.
7y ago

compuguy 7y ago

I get your points. In situations where Ubuntu 20.04 machines are on airgapped networks or corporate networks that use mirrors and the like. For personal and other situations I prefer flatpak and snaps...