4 ms·

> Just so we're clear, it's not that the apps auto-update, it's that there's no way to stop them auto-updating. Actually you can. https://snapcraft.io/docs/ke

by rlpb 6y ago

> Just so we're clear, it's not that the apps auto-update, it's that there's no way to stop them auto-updating. Actually you can. https://snapcraft.io/docs/keeping-snaps-up-to-date#heading--controlling-updates https://snapcraft.io/docs/keeping-snaps-up-to-date#heading--... for instructions on how to defer updates. If you want to install a snap such that it never updates, see https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/disabling-automatic-refresh-for-snap-from-store/707/269 https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/disabling-automatic-refresh-for...

nebulous1 6y ago
Good, good. I'm still of the opinion that this should be a front-and-centre feature. Install from the snap store, disable updates for that app specifically, still have to tied to its store instance for manual future updates. Is this a practical issue for me? Actually, no. However, the fact that they didn't just include it from the beginning is a clear indication that Canonical and I are starting to differ in our thinking when it comes to the autonomy of the user. Also the fact that they didn't allow you disable updating, but merely postpone it for a maximum of two months.
morganvachon 6y ago
Deferring isn't a solution, it's a band-aid. Just as you can only defer Windows updates but not completely opt out, you can only defer snap updates; there is no global opt-out. Having to do a convoluted procedure for every app as outlined in your second link shouldn't be necessary and definitely shouldn't be hidden behind an obscure source that only snap gurus even know about. This issue, combined with the snap server being closed source and controlled by a for-profit company that seems to care less about FOSS with every Ubuntu release, makes snaps a very hard sell to anyone with common sense. With the direction Linux is heading between snaps and systemd, and old-school holdouts like Void and Slackware suffering from a lack of developers and long-delayed releases respectively, I'm leaning more and more towards adopting OpenBSD for daily driver use. Performance has improved, quality of life has immensely improved, and the team behind it actually cares about putting out correct, working, secure software. Sorry, rant over and I really went out on a tangent there, but my original point is that snaps are definitely no good for the future of Linux and I believe will be a detriment to the platform going forward.
Iolaum 6y ago
The ask is not really to have a snap never update. The ask is that you have the option to update only after a user allows it. This has the side effect that if the user never says yes, the app never updates. However the true goal is that you are in control of when your apps update. This has many benefits, I 'll only list two. If something breaks, you can immediately deduce that it is because of that specific update, instead of having to investigate your whole system on what's happening. Also you can always say no to updates on the day you have a presentation so you have no surprises.

by rlpb 6y ago

nebulous1 6y ago

Good, good. I'm still of the opinion that this should be a front-and-centre feature. Install from the snap store, disable updates for that app specifically, still have to tied to its store instance for manual future updates. Is this a practical issue for me? Actually, no. However, the fact that they didn't just include it from the beginning is a clear indication that Canonical and I are starting to differ in our thinking when it comes to the autonomy of the user. Also the fact that they didn't allow you disable updating, but merely postpone it for a maximum of two months.

morganvachon 6y ago

Deferring isn't a solution, it's a band-aid. Just as you can only defer Windows updates but not completely opt out, you can only defer snap updates; there is no global opt-out. Having to do a convoluted procedure for every app as outlined in your second link shouldn't be necessary and definitely shouldn't be hidden behind an obscure source that only snap gurus even know about. This issue, combined with the snap server being closed source and controlled by a for-profit company that seems to care less about FOSS with every Ubuntu release, makes snaps a very hard sell to anyone with common sense. With the direction Linux is heading between snaps and systemd, and old-school holdouts like Void and Slackware suffering from a lack of developers and long-delayed releases respectively, I'm leaning more and more towards adopting OpenBSD for daily driver use. Performance has improved, quality of life has immensely improved, and the team behind it actually cares about putting out correct, working, secure software. Sorry, rant over and I really went out on a tangent there, but my original point is that snaps are definitely no good for the future of Linux and I believe will be a detriment to the platform going forward.

Iolaum 6y ago

The ask is not really to have a snap never update. The ask is that you have the option to update only after a user allows it. This has the side effect that if the user never says yes, the app never updates. However the true goal is that you are in control of when your apps update. This has many benefits, I 'll only list two. If something breaks, you can immediately deduce that it is because of that specific update, instead of having to investigate your whole system on what's happening. Also you can always say no to updates on the day you have a presentation so you have no surprises.