4 ms·

As someone whose only experience with linux is servers and Raspberry Pi, can you tell me what's wrong with snaps? I've only used them on a self-hosted NextCloud

As someone whose only experience with linux is servers and Raspberry Pi, can you tell me what's wrong with snaps? I've only used them on a self-hosted NextCloud and my experience with them has been decent, but I see a lot of dislike for them on HN.

chomp 5y ago
There's pros and cons. It helps developers because they aren't restricted to the distro's shipped library versions, they can build against what they need. It also confines the app to a sandbox. The downsides are that the packages end up larger because they ship with all of the necessary bundled libraries (which can also increase memory usage of the application because it can't share the libraries loaded in RAM by the native operating system), and there's a lack of trust that the developer can keep up with bundled library security updates.
- larntz 5y ago
  Also I think snap is an Ubuntu thing vs flatpak and appimage which are more distro agnostic. That's my issue with it/Ubuntu. They are doing good things, but at the same time I don't feel they are as "open" as other linux distros. Also, snapd is installed by default on their servers and it's not as to remove as it should be. This is one of the reason that I will always choose a different distro if I have the choice.
  - xet7 5y ago
    Snap is available for many distros https://snapcraft.io/docs/installing-snapd https://snapcraft.io/docs/installing-snapd It's great Canonical pays all the huge costs of Snap servers and bandwidth. I could not afford to host all that myself.
    - curt15 5y ago
      Does its sandbox work yet on distros that don't use apparmor? Last time I checked, snap apps were essentially unconfined on Fedora, and sandboxing is one of snap's most important selling points.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  You have skipped quite a few downsides. Anyway, the biggest one is that what was previously an app is now a separate environment that is sometimes hard to control. If I wanted to run an app in a sandbox, I would have run it in a sandbox. People have run into all possible problems with snaps in the past, it has been discussed on HN ad naueseam [0] [1]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24383341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24383341 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24129208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24129208
  - rlpb 5y ago
    > Anyway, the biggest one is that what was previously an app is now a separate environment that is sometimes hard to control. If I wanted to run an app in a sandbox, I would have run it in a sandbox. I see sandboxing as a major upside. Users expect sandboxing by default nowadays. Some game they downloaded shouldn't be able to intercept your online banking browser session. Yet, in the traditional Linux desktop model, they can. Having app sandboxing by default is long overdue. Not having it makes the environment a second class citizen for user safety and security when compared to iOS and Android, for example.
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      In theory, if snap was mature software and had no other issues, this could work well. In practice, many people have problems.
- rlpb 5y ago
  > The downsides are that the packages end up larger because they ship with all of the necessary bundled libraries (which can also increase memory usage of the application because it can't share the libraries loaded in RAM by the native operating system), and there's a lack of trust that the developer can keep up with bundled library security updates. This has basically been happening with browser debs anyway. Browser upstreams bundle their libraries, and distributions have increasingly been unable to unbundle them.
makeworld 5y ago
Background daemon that takes up CPU, proprietary store, slow startup, and automatic updates in the background. Flatpak is much better if you need some sort of sandboxing, or updates outside what your distro can provide.
- MattPalmer1086 5y ago
  Yes, snap was what made move off Ubuntu on to PopOS.
- xet7 5y ago
  Automatic updates are great, when I release security fixes like new Node.js version to Wekan https://wekan.github.io https://wekan.github.io . It has worked well for me for many years. Update install is very fast, with very small downtime, automatic database schema upgrades, etc. Sandboxing is great, code can not write outside of app's own writeable directory. Does Flatpak have any kind of automatic update ability? Or is there any automatic update ability for some other package system on Linux/Windows/Mac ? Is Snap the only one?
  - curt15 5y ago
    Automatic updates are great until they kill your running app [1]. Flatpaks can be updated automatically through gnome-software or a cron job, but the user can decide whether to enable automatic updates. Snaps will forcibly update after 60 days even on metered connections. [1] https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/disabling-automatic-refresh-for-snap-from-store/707 https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/disabling-automatic-refresh-for...
empiricus 5y ago
I had some issues with one app not reading its config file, and wanted to strace it to see if it finds the config or not. Big surprise, cannot strace snap apps..
sliken 5y ago
My complaints (not looked real recently though): Snaps are Ubuntu specific and the server side/repo is closed source. Snaps pollute the df/mount points with per snap lines. They rolled out in a LTS release with minimal testing. Caused quite a few problems like not being able to boot as multiple snaps drained /dev/random (instead of /dev/urandom) and waited on more entropy, which was god awful slow since the boot hadn't finished. There was no automatic cleanup of older snaps. Generally it just seemed like a silly proprietary setup that Canocial tried to claim had wide industry support, despite not having that support. I'm not against the ideas, but why not docker? Flatpak? AppImages?
- mike503 5y ago
  > Snaps pollute the df/mount points with per snap lines. My biggest complaint
  - sliken 5y ago
    Indeed, seems silly to list gimp, firefox, vlc, vscode, spotify, etc. Not to mention it's easy to end up with more than one of each.

chomp 5y ago

There's pros and cons. It helps developers because they aren't restricted to the distro's shipped library versions, they can build against what they need. It also confines the app to a sandbox. The downsides are that the packages end up larger because they ship with all of the necessary bundled libraries (which can also increase memory usage of the application because it can't share the libraries loaded in RAM by the native operating system), and there's a lack of trust that the developer can keep up with bundled library security updates.

larntz 5y ago
Also I think snap is an Ubuntu thing vs flatpak and appimage which are more distro agnostic. That's my issue with it/Ubuntu. They are doing good things, but at the same time I don't feel they are as "open" as other linux distros. Also, snapd is installed by default on their servers and it's not as to remove as it should be. This is one of the reason that I will always choose a different distro if I have the choice.
- xet7 5y ago
  Snap is available for many distros https://snapcraft.io/docs/installing-snapd https://snapcraft.io/docs/installing-snapd It's great Canonical pays all the huge costs of Snap servers and bandwidth. I could not afford to host all that myself.
  - curt15 5y ago
    Does its sandbox work yet on distros that don't use apparmor? Last time I checked, snap apps were essentially unconfined on Fedora, and sandboxing is one of snap's most important selling points.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
You have skipped quite a few downsides. Anyway, the biggest one is that what was previously an app is now a separate environment that is sometimes hard to control. If I wanted to run an app in a sandbox, I would have run it in a sandbox. People have run into all possible problems with snaps in the past, it has been discussed on HN ad naueseam [0] [1]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24383341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24383341 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24129208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24129208
- rlpb 5y ago
  > Anyway, the biggest one is that what was previously an app is now a separate environment that is sometimes hard to control. If I wanted to run an app in a sandbox, I would have run it in a sandbox. I see sandboxing as a major upside. Users expect sandboxing by default nowadays. Some game they downloaded shouldn't be able to intercept your online banking browser session. Yet, in the traditional Linux desktop model, they can. Having app sandboxing by default is long overdue. Not having it makes the environment a second class citizen for user safety and security when compared to iOS and Android, for example.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    In theory, if snap was mature software and had no other issues, this could work well. In practice, many people have problems.
rlpb 5y ago
> The downsides are that the packages end up larger because they ship with all of the necessary bundled libraries (which can also increase memory usage of the application because it can't share the libraries loaded in RAM by the native operating system), and there's a lack of trust that the developer can keep up with bundled library security updates. This has basically been happening with browser debs anyway. Browser upstreams bundle their libraries, and distributions have increasingly been unable to unbundle them.

makeworld 5y ago

Background daemon that takes up CPU, proprietary store, slow startup, and automatic updates in the background. Flatpak is much better if you need some sort of sandboxing, or updates outside what your distro can provide.

MattPalmer1086 5y ago
Yes, snap was what made move off Ubuntu on to PopOS.
xet7 5y ago
Automatic updates are great, when I release security fixes like new Node.js version to Wekan https://wekan.github.io https://wekan.github.io . It has worked well for me for many years. Update install is very fast, with very small downtime, automatic database schema upgrades, etc. Sandboxing is great, code can not write outside of app's own writeable directory. Does Flatpak have any kind of automatic update ability? Or is there any automatic update ability for some other package system on Linux/Windows/Mac ? Is Snap the only one?
- curt15 5y ago
  Automatic updates are great until they kill your running app [1]. Flatpaks can be updated automatically through gnome-software or a cron job, but the user can decide whether to enable automatic updates. Snaps will forcibly update after 60 days even on metered connections. [1] https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/disabling-automatic-refresh-for-snap-from-store/707 https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/disabling-automatic-refresh-for...

empiricus 5y ago

I had some issues with one app not reading its config file, and wanted to strace it to see if it finds the config or not. Big surprise, cannot strace snap apps..

sliken 5y ago

My complaints (not looked real recently though): Snaps are Ubuntu specific and the server side/repo is closed source. Snaps pollute the df/mount points with per snap lines. They rolled out in a LTS release with minimal testing. Caused quite a few problems like not being able to boot as multiple snaps drained /dev/random (instead of /dev/urandom) and waited on more entropy, which was god awful slow since the boot hadn't finished. There was no automatic cleanup of older snaps. Generally it just seemed like a silly proprietary setup that Canocial tried to claim had wide industry support, despite not having that support. I'm not against the ideas, but why not docker? Flatpak? AppImages?

mike503 5y ago
> Snaps pollute the df/mount points with per snap lines. My biggest complaint
- sliken 5y ago
  Indeed, seems silly to list gimp, firefox, vlc, vscode, spotify, etc. Not to mention it's easy to end up with more than one of each.