2 ms·
I second this. I understand how hard it may be to maintain software these days, and that’s the whole point of snap, but the way it is implemented seems broken.
by zekrioca 4y ago
I second this. I understand how hard it may be to maintain software these days, and that’s the whole point of snap, but the way it is implemented seems broken. It can simply break the whole system, it is like it uses one huge semaphore for all ‘transactions’ it commits in the ‘snap database’ (whatever it is) and if the transaction doesn’t complete, the whole system stalls. Only recourse is reboot.
Don’t get me wrong, snap is like a great conceptual ideal, but it seems to work only for Ubuntu/Canonical developers (or to people with access to them), no one else. It is not well programmed/thought for some reason. Pretty stupid issues, and the read-only fs thing is also weird, how can one test things On-The-Go?
- yamtaddle 4y agoLast time I poked at Desktop Linux I tried all three of the major solutions for this, and the only one I could tolerate was AppImage, but its ecosystem seemed a bit weak and its official (I think?) site & repo were... not confidence-inspiring.
- tannhaeuser 4y ago> I understand how hard it may be to maintain software these days ...* I can't see it being harder than during the forming years with ever-changing libs and tools. Haven't seen a new end-user desktop app on Linux for over a decade either.
- zekrioca 4y agoYes, I agree. However, this is the main execuse Canonical devs cite when asking why they wouldn’t provide a *.deb package. When one pushes more, they do not elaborate and roll back to the maintainability execuse.