8 ms·

Snap should be an extreme measure when there are no other means to use some obscure package that can't be run using the stock kernel or libraries. Resorting to

Snap should be an extreme measure when there are no other means to use some obscure package that can't be run using the stock kernel or libraries. Resorting to it for common popular software is such a bad decision. I'm not a Ubuntu user as I rather prefer Debian and Manjaro; hopefully they'll never do the same.

anothernewdude 5y ago
Canonical love making bizarre decisions like this. Just look at Unity and Mir.
- Darmody 5y ago
  Unity made sense, snap doesn't.
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    Yes unity wasn't bad and it wasn't shoved down your throat.
    - rstat1 5y ago
      I mean it was the default environment on Ubuntu distros for years...I would say it was more forced than Snaps are.
      - iiix 5y ago
        I don't know if I'd agree; with Unity you could just install a new DE & switch environments without fuss. My biggest problem with Snap is that trying to install something like Chromium via apt, will, most likely unbeknownst to the user, just install the Snap version instead.
        2143 5y ago
        This. I recently installed Chromium via apt, and it actually installed the snap! I mean, if I wanted the snap I'll use the snap command. If it's not available via apt just say so and quit. I don't want it to install the snap version when I asked for the apt (.deb) thing. In this particular case the means to the end matters.
        rstat1 5y ago
        Well ok, maybe "forced" was the wrong word choice, but I would still say Unity was a more in-your-face change than Snaps are, since the vast majority of software on Ubuntu is still distribute via proper .deb packages
  - 2ion 5y ago
    Snap makes sense, because it deals with desktop application confinement. Any Firefox process launched as $user is able to use all the RAM, read and write all the files, access all the networks and basically do everything as that user. You don't want that, it's stupid and so Windows 95. There are alternative solutions: QubesOS uses VMs as the isolation layer, desktop application confinement using firejail with its good selection of profiles tweaked to my liking, systemd-run confinement configured through the vast resource control options made configurable through systemd. There is no reason ~ or even / shouldn't appear completely empty to Firefox the process except for the resources you pass to it (open file, grant download permissions...) or which it needs to run (of course, those would be immutable as far as possible). SELinux and AppArmor are child's play; you don't have a lot of problems of those tools if there are no objects a process could acceess in its namespace to begin with. macOS I believe is already there in terms of desktop app confinement. Windows is not but at least it has the controlled folder access layer available after they gave up on making store apps meaningfully secure as its own app category (too many escapes/config tweaks possible now). Desktop Linux though has not had squat in that field in the mass market for 2 decades. Basically, you guys run all applications unconfined. Snap is a way to work on changing that. Not saying though that the current implementation is exceptionally good. It's too slow, and they should have reused systemd or whatever for a thin, tweakable resource control and container layer, not invent a container format from scratch.
nu11ptr 5y ago
Agreed - I think it is weird a distro would do this. To me, these sorts of tools are reserved for app owners who want to make the trade off to hit more distros more easily with known trade offs. Distro owners have a full pkg management system and this should be integrated into that, like it was previously.
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  The distro (canonical/Ubuntu) didn’t do it: Mozilla did.
  - ghostly_s 5y ago
    Source? Why would they do so only on Ubuntu?
    - rubyist5eva 5y ago
      My guess is that Ubuntu (and derivatives) is the only major distribution that installs snapd by default. > Source? https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/feature-freeze-exception-seeding-the-official-firefox-snap-in-ubuntu-desktop/24210?u=d0od https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/feature-freeze-exception-seed...
    - kd913 5y ago
      https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/09/ubuntu-makes-firefox-snap-default https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/09/ubuntu-makes-firefox-sna... The reason probably being that for Canonical and Mozilla, it is a pain to support/backport multiple ubuntu versions, so why not just support 1 build. It makes it simpler for them to release as it's directly integrated in their build system. Considering how small a percentage linux users are, it isn't an illogical decision.
      - GekkePrutser 5y ago
        That's a highly commercial story they're telling there. It's all PR. I'd bet that it was canonical who approached Mozilla and offered compensation. After all Mozilla is always looking for money. If offering a Deb is such a major issue for Mozilla, why are they still offering a distro-agnostic one that works just fine? This whole story just doesn't make sense but fits in perfectly with Canonical's obsession with making snap a success.
colordrops 5y ago
Nix has been perfect in this respect, giving full control over how you want things installed. The line between distro maintainers and users is completely blurred - you can take as little or as much control over the installation and configuration of any particular package or service that you want.
- umvi 5y ago
  Nix as in the Linux distro or package manager?
  - opan 5y ago
    Nix and Guix are package managers, NixOS and Guix System are distros. It is possible someone is using ambiguous shorthand anyway, though.
    - colordrops 5y ago
      I use the OS, but I guess my statement applies either way.
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  Ubuntu also gives you full control over how you want things installed also, right? You're not forced into one method?
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    You can install Nix on Ubuntu just fine.
    - colordrops 5y ago
      Might as well just use NixOS then.
  - jckahn 5y ago
    Correct! Removing Snap Firefox and installing Flatpak Firefox was the first thing I did on my 22.04 install.
berkut 5y ago
Wasn't it Mozilla who wanted this general change, so they could provide more up-to-date versions more easily, and more directly?
- kyrofa 5y ago
  That's Canonical's PR line. As someone working at Canonical during the discussions, I can tell you that's not true.
  - jcastro 5y ago
    Someone's going to pay for snap's tech debt, and it sure isn't going to be Canonical!
  - CoastalCoder 5y ago
    Can you tell us what the real reason is? I'm very curious.
resoluteteeth 5y ago
> Snap should be an extreme measure when there are no other means to use some obscure package that can't be run using the stock kernel or libraries. It's a container not a vm so I don't think it would help if a package can't be run using the stock kernel.
Seattle3503 5y ago
My experience with Snap pqckages hasn't been great. For example the Snap version of 1password couldn't find my Yubikey, but the deb worked just fine.
walrus01 5y ago
snaps are one of a number of reasons why I'm moving away from an xubuntu based desktop to simply a base debian amd64 CLI-only install, then manually installing xorg+xfce4+misc things for a desktop environment that I really control. there is simply too much extra crap launched from systemd (I don't have a problem with systemd, just all the extra ubuntu-specific stuff they've added as new daemons) and too many kinda-ubuntu-proprietary things shipped in xubuntu now.
- usrn 5y ago
  Debian is still Systemd based. If you want to get away from that you need something pretty bizarre like Alpine or Gentoo.
  - walrus01 5y ago
    edited post, didn't mean that I have a problem with systemd, just all the extra stuff that canonical has created as "launch on boot" daemons/services which are unique to ubuntu only and no other linux.
    - tomc1985 5y ago
      Very frustrating just how much CPU/memory a blank Ubuntu install uses while idle vs Debian. For largely the same resulting system. I always prefer Debian because of crap like that.
  - imiric 5y ago
    Devuan is an option too. It's Debian without systemd and gives the choice of SysVinit, OpenRC or runit.
  - webmobdev 5y ago
    There's also Devuan - https://www.devuan.org/ https://www.devuan.org/ - A debian Frok without systemd. Don't know how well maintained it is though.
  - chartreusek 5y ago
andrepd 5y ago
Linux Mint is my go-to distro. Polished and extremely stable.
- stormbrew 5y ago
  Mint is based on ubuntu though isn't it? Looking around it looks like they balked at the Chromium snapification, but that's going to get more untenable as time goes on.
  - gs17 5y ago
    By default you can't even install Snap on Mint. It's a simple change to allow it, but they seem pretty dedicated to avoiding it.
- behnamoh 5y ago
  More stable than Fedora?
  - dralley 5y ago
    It's based on Ubuntu LTS so it changes less than Fedora does. Also it's not exactly cutting edge, for instance there's no support for Wayland because Cinnamon is based on a forked extremely old version of GNOME. Which is fine, it does what people need it to do for now. Arguably it may fall further and further behind over time though.
panick21_ 5y ago
Pop OS is removing some Snap stuff while still giving you everything Ubuntu does, plus more.
- trissylegs 5y ago
  Now we need something called crackle to complete the cereal
sorry_outta_gas 5y ago
I don't find them all that bad expect for the insanely slow startup times. it's nuts to wait 20 seconds for a program to start up in 2022
ComradePhil 5y ago
I completely do not understand snap hate. Imo, snap is one of the best things Canonical have done. I'm trying to read comments here to find what everyone who hates it is talking about but I can't seem to find anything except for generic nothing. I searched for a previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23439326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23439326. The linked article is nonsense... and most of the comments are either just as nonsensical or they actually like snap. The one criticism I find is that it is slow. The other seems to be around the idea that Canonical controls it too much for some people to feel comfortable... but other than that, I don't get it.
- Darmody 5y ago
  The other seems to be around the idea that Canonical controls it too much for some people to feel comfortable... but other than that, I don't get it. Why would we have to accept something semi-privative being shoved down our throats? I'm not going to accept Canonical behaving like Microsoft.
- sorry_outta_gas 5y ago
  Being slow is a massive issue, it's not something be dismissed
- sliken 5y ago
  It's closed source on the server side, proprietary, and has various issues. I was pretty shocked when they forced it into a LTS release, and the implementation was not optional and was terrible. They handles upgrades poorly, polluted the mount space, required manually cleanup, and destroyed boottimes. If you want containers, why would you go with a proprietary canonical technology instead of one of the better open source solutions? After all isn't one of the main promises of containers increased compatibility? Even the ubuntu derivatives are switching away from snap.

anothernewdude 5y ago

Canonical love making bizarre decisions like this. Just look at Unity and Mir.

Darmody 5y ago
Unity made sense, snap doesn't.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  Yes unity wasn't bad and it wasn't shoved down your throat.
  - rstat1 5y ago
    I mean it was the default environment on Ubuntu distros for years...I would say it was more forced than Snaps are.
    - iiix 5y ago
      I don't know if I'd agree; with Unity you could just install a new DE & switch environments without fuss. My biggest problem with Snap is that trying to install something like Chromium via apt, will, most likely unbeknownst to the user, just install the Snap version instead.
      - 2143 5y ago
        This. I recently installed Chromium via apt, and it actually installed the snap! I mean, if I wanted the snap I'll use the snap command. If it's not available via apt just say so and quit. I don't want it to install the snap version when I asked for the apt (.deb) thing. In this particular case the means to the end matters.
      - rstat1 5y ago
        Well ok, maybe "forced" was the wrong word choice, but I would still say Unity was a more in-your-face change than Snaps are, since the vast majority of software on Ubuntu is still distribute via proper .deb packages
- 2ion 5y ago
  Snap makes sense, because it deals with desktop application confinement. Any Firefox process launched as $user is able to use all the RAM, read and write all the files, access all the networks and basically do everything as that user. You don't want that, it's stupid and so Windows 95. There are alternative solutions: QubesOS uses VMs as the isolation layer, desktop application confinement using firejail with its good selection of profiles tweaked to my liking, systemd-run confinement configured through the vast resource control options made configurable through systemd. There is no reason ~ or even / shouldn't appear completely empty to Firefox the process except for the resources you pass to it (open file, grant download permissions...) or which it needs to run (of course, those would be immutable as far as possible). SELinux and AppArmor are child's play; you don't have a lot of problems of those tools if there are no objects a process could acceess in its namespace to begin with. macOS I believe is already there in terms of desktop app confinement. Windows is not but at least it has the controlled folder access layer available after they gave up on making store apps meaningfully secure as its own app category (too many escapes/config tweaks possible now). Desktop Linux though has not had squat in that field in the mass market for 2 decades. Basically, you guys run all applications unconfined. Snap is a way to work on changing that. Not saying though that the current implementation is exceptionally good. It's too slow, and they should have reused systemd or whatever for a thin, tweakable resource control and container layer, not invent a container format from scratch.

nu11ptr 5y ago

Agreed - I think it is weird a distro would do this. To me, these sorts of tools are reserved for app owners who want to make the trade off to hit more distros more easily with known trade offs. Distro owners have a full pkg management system and this should be integrated into that, like it was previously.

rubyist5eva 5y ago
The distro (canonical/Ubuntu) didn’t do it: Mozilla did.
- ghostly_s 5y ago
  Source? Why would they do so only on Ubuntu?
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    My guess is that Ubuntu (and derivatives) is the only major distribution that installs snapd by default. > Source? https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/feature-freeze-exception-seeding-the-official-firefox-snap-in-ubuntu-desktop/24210?u=d0od https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/feature-freeze-exception-seed...
  - kd913 5y ago
    https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/09/ubuntu-makes-firefox-snap-default https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/09/ubuntu-makes-firefox-sna... The reason probably being that for Canonical and Mozilla, it is a pain to support/backport multiple ubuntu versions, so why not just support 1 build. It makes it simpler for them to release as it's directly integrated in their build system. Considering how small a percentage linux users are, it isn't an illogical decision.
    - GekkePrutser 5y ago
      That's a highly commercial story they're telling there. It's all PR. I'd bet that it was canonical who approached Mozilla and offered compensation. After all Mozilla is always looking for money. If offering a Deb is such a major issue for Mozilla, why are they still offering a distro-agnostic one that works just fine? This whole story just doesn't make sense but fits in perfectly with Canonical's obsession with making snap a success.

colordrops 5y ago

Nix has been perfect in this respect, giving full control over how you want things installed. The line between distro maintainers and users is completely blurred - you can take as little or as much control over the installation and configuration of any particular package or service that you want.

umvi 5y ago
Nix as in the Linux distro or package manager?
- opan 5y ago
  Nix and Guix are package managers, NixOS and Guix System are distros. It is possible someone is using ambiguous shorthand anyway, though.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    I use the OS, but I guess my statement applies either way.
madeofpalk 5y ago
Ubuntu also gives you full control over how you want things installed also, right? You're not forced into one method?
- smoldesu 5y ago
  You can install Nix on Ubuntu just fine.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    Might as well just use NixOS then.
- jckahn 5y ago
  Correct! Removing Snap Firefox and installing Flatpak Firefox was the first thing I did on my 22.04 install.

berkut 5y ago

Wasn't it Mozilla who wanted this general change, so they could provide more up-to-date versions more easily, and more directly?

kyrofa 5y ago
That's Canonical's PR line. As someone working at Canonical during the discussions, I can tell you that's not true.
- jcastro 5y ago
  Someone's going to pay for snap's tech debt, and it sure isn't going to be Canonical!
- CoastalCoder 5y ago
  Can you tell us what the real reason is? I'm very curious.

resoluteteeth 5y ago

> Snap should be an extreme measure when there are no other means to use some obscure package that can't be run using the stock kernel or libraries. It's a container not a vm so I don't think it would help if a package can't be run using the stock kernel.

Seattle3503 5y ago

My experience with Snap pqckages hasn't been great. For example the Snap version of 1password couldn't find my Yubikey, but the deb worked just fine.

walrus01 5y ago

snaps are one of a number of reasons why I'm moving away from an xubuntu based desktop to simply a base debian amd64 CLI-only install, then manually installing xorg+xfce4+misc things for a desktop environment that I really control. there is simply too much extra crap launched from systemd (I don't have a problem with systemd, just all the extra ubuntu-specific stuff they've added as new daemons) and too many kinda-ubuntu-proprietary things shipped in xubuntu now.

usrn 5y ago
Debian is still Systemd based. If you want to get away from that you need something pretty bizarre like Alpine or Gentoo.
- walrus01 5y ago
  edited post, didn't mean that I have a problem with systemd, just all the extra stuff that canonical has created as "launch on boot" daemons/services which are unique to ubuntu only and no other linux.
  - tomc1985 5y ago
    Very frustrating just how much CPU/memory a blank Ubuntu install uses while idle vs Debian. For largely the same resulting system. I always prefer Debian because of crap like that.
- imiric 5y ago
  Devuan is an option too. It's Debian without systemd and gives the choice of SysVinit, OpenRC or runit.
- webmobdev 5y ago
  There's also Devuan - https://www.devuan.org/ https://www.devuan.org/ - A debian Frok without systemd. Don't know how well maintained it is though.
- chartreusek 5y ago

andrepd 5y ago

Linux Mint is my go-to distro. Polished and extremely stable.

stormbrew 5y ago
Mint is based on ubuntu though isn't it? Looking around it looks like they balked at the Chromium snapification, but that's going to get more untenable as time goes on.
- gs17 5y ago
  By default you can't even install Snap on Mint. It's a simple change to allow it, but they seem pretty dedicated to avoiding it.
behnamoh 5y ago
More stable than Fedora?
- dralley 5y ago
  It's based on Ubuntu LTS so it changes less than Fedora does. Also it's not exactly cutting edge, for instance there's no support for Wayland because Cinnamon is based on a forked extremely old version of GNOME. Which is fine, it does what people need it to do for now. Arguably it may fall further and further behind over time though.

panick21_ 5y ago

Pop OS is removing some Snap stuff while still giving you everything Ubuntu does, plus more.

trissylegs 5y ago
Now we need something called crackle to complete the cereal

sorry_outta_gas 5y ago

I don't find them all that bad expect for the insanely slow startup times. it's nuts to wait 20 seconds for a program to start up in 2022

ComradePhil 5y ago

I completely do not understand snap hate. Imo, snap is one of the best things Canonical have done. I'm trying to read comments here to find what everyone who hates it is talking about but I can't seem to find anything except for generic nothing. I searched for a previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23439326 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23439326. The linked article is nonsense... and most of the comments are either just as nonsensical or they actually like snap. The one criticism I find is that it is slow. The other seems to be around the idea that Canonical controls it too much for some people to feel comfortable... but other than that, I don't get it.

Darmody 5y ago
The other seems to be around the idea that Canonical controls it too much for some people to feel comfortable... but other than that, I don't get it. Why would we have to accept something semi-privative being shoved down our throats? I'm not going to accept Canonical behaving like Microsoft.
sorry_outta_gas 5y ago
Being slow is a massive issue, it's not something be dismissed
sliken 5y ago
It's closed source on the server side, proprietary, and has various issues. I was pretty shocked when they forced it into a LTS release, and the implementation was not optional and was terrible. They handles upgrades poorly, polluted the mount space, required manually cleanup, and destroyed boottimes. If you want containers, why would you go with a proprietary canonical technology instead of one of the better open source solutions? After all isn't one of the main promises of containers increased compatibility? Even the ubuntu derivatives are switching away from snap.