4 ms·

Official Ubuntu flavors must stop including Flatpak by default

44 points by LorenDB 4y ago

brnt 4y ago
Apparently there is no took for the Flatpak community in the community of communities. While I see uptake of Flatpaks, I rarely see anyone pointing at a snap. Is anyone using Snap (out of free will)? Why do you prefer it?
- wkat4242 4y ago
  Personally I don't like either unless it's absolutely necessary for third-party software. The dynamic loader can't do its things when lots of different library versions exist and it wastes other resources and space. And it's very much harder to update everything when a vulnerable library exists. This is also the main issue I have with snap. In their attempt to make it ubiquitous, Ubuntu are using it even for the smallest console apps with almost no dependencies.. I've even seen it used for go apps which are statically linked so they really have none. It's just a lot of overhead for no reason then.
- lproven 4y ago
  > no took for the Flatpak community in the community of communities. I can't parse that sentence. Are there typos in it? > Is anyone using Snap (out of free will)? Ubuntu representatives told me at the Ubuntu Summit in Prague last year that their numbers suggest that Snap usage in the real world by Ubuntu users is around 10x more than all Flatpak usage. They tun the only public Snap store. (There are others but they are not public.) Flathub does publish stats, e.g. https://klausenbusk.github.io/flathub-stats/#ref=ca._0ldsk00l.Nestopia&interval=infinity&downloadType=installs%2Bupdates https://klausenbusk.github.io/flathub-stats/#ref=ca._0ldsk00... I have no proof of this, but they seemed confident. I linked to my article about Ubuntu firmly backing Snap in the story at the top of this page, which I wrote.
  - brnt 4y ago
    > I can't parse that sentence. Are there typos in it? Yes, couldnt edit anymore. took->room
smackeyacky 4y ago
How are any of the Ubuntu moves with Snap in the spirit of open source? I notice that Pop!OS installs flatpak but I didn't realise they weren't considered an "official" variant of Ubuntu, so perhaps it will continue doing that. The Register article is overly kind about this, I appreciate the "news not editorial" flavour but the real story is that Ubuntu apparently consider themselves apart from the community that makes their software and they should now be consigned to history by that community. Off to uninstall it in my network now.
- twosdai 4y ago
  My 2 cents fwiw. Pop os is probably the best consumer linux desktop experience. Flatpack installs, company customer support, and a well configured Ubuntu base make it ideal. I'm glad they're not an official flavor, canonical hasn't been doing a great job on their consumer desktop sector because their money is made via the server installs and distributions.
  - brnt 4y ago
    After using Ubuntu for a decade, I switched to Debian with Bullseye and I couldn't be happier. Or can I? Why use PopOS, and does it do KDE?
    - LorenDB 4y ago
      Why use Pop!_OS? I guess because the name makes you look like a 1337 h4xx0r. Joking aside, Pop is generally liked for its easy-to-use interface. System76 has made a well-polished suite of software, and they are in the process of replacing GNOME with their own DE to make it an even smoother experience. Of course, if you use something else (I prefer openSUSE Tumbleweed), you can just stick to Flatpaks entirely without having to get concerned about snaps.
    - isthisfoss 4y ago
      Why use it? Probably no reason if you’re happy on debian. It’s just a solid distro and as other have said the best out-of-the-box desktop experience out there IMO. Definitely not going to win over any KDE fans but their tuned GNOME DE is really slick, and it’s only gonna get better when they release their own DE “COSMIC”. I’ve been dailying Pop on all my main machines for years now without any problems. Think of it as Uncononical’d Ubuntu in a way but they’re really committed to making a unique footprint
mesebrec 4y ago
This is a joint decision from all Ubuntu flavors. It frustrates me so much that every Ubuntu-wide decision gets framed as "Canonical does x". It ignores the thousands of volunteers who pour their heart and soul into this project. The fact is that we, as a project full of volunteers, have decided that Ubuntu is built on debs and snaps. One of the core features of Ubuntu is that you get 5 years of support for your software after release. We go through great lengths to ensure that whatever you install the first day after release will continue working for 5 years. We simply can't ensure that with a third-party repositories like FlatHub. This is why the Ubuntu Technical Board decided a long time ago to not ship third party repositories by default. It doesn't matter if these are ppa's or Flatpak remotes. Any flavor that was previously shipping Flatpak, shipped it without any remote, even before the decision just posted. As Aaron said it so well on the discourse: "Most of the Ubuntu flavors provide free technical support via forums and IRC channels. Most of our users are using software from the Ubuntu repos or Snap Store and we are equipped to help them. We know what to expect from the software our users run and can give targeted and efficient advice on how to resolve issues. Some of us can even kick things into shape in the archives if there’s a legitimate problem with our packages, or we know who to talk to. With Flatpaks, the situation is much more dismal from a technical support perspective. We have little-to-no clue what quirks the software vendor(s) will have introduced since we don’t work closely with them. We have no way to reach in and fix legitimate bugs aside from filing bug reports and hoping that they will be answered. We’re going to end up with frustrated support staff and even more frustrated users. And all because they didn’t know that if they clicked a particular button in their flavor’s app store, they would be downloading unsupported software."
- its-summertime 4y ago
  > This is a joint decision from all Ubuntu flavors. https://fosstodon.org/@wimpy/109908489437633387 https://fosstodon.org/@wimpy/109908489437633387 ? > [...] and even more frustrated users. Speaking of being a frustrated user, can we use snap yet without the weird hardcoded $HOME stuff? la https://nelsonaloysio.medium.com/installing-ubuntus-snap-on-fedora-silverblue-e82ca6fd6108 https://nelsonaloysio.medium.com/installing-ubuntus-snap-on-... > unsupported software Gnome Software already labels this fine, same for Apple's App Store, Google Play, Microsoft's Store, etc.
voakbasda 4y ago
I am curious about how this decision meshes with the concurrent announcement that the KDE/GNOME folks are looking at using Flathub as a Linux Store: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34916644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34916644
- wkat4242 4y ago
  Yeah this article is very pro-snap and disregards the movement in favor of flatpak which has stepped up in kind.
  - lproven 4y ago
    I wrote the article. I am not particularly pro-Snap. I am not particularly pro or anti anything in this space. I repeatedly said that Flatpak has strong popular support. It does. I see it often. What I tried to point out was the ways Canonical feels that Snap is superior to Flatpak. There is a lot of FUD in this debate. More than usual. Personally, once I discovered Martin Wimpress' `deb-get` tool, I removed both snap and flatpak from my own main Ubuntu boxes. But then I joined the freebie Ubuntu Pro deal and then snapd gets reinstalled, so it didn't seem worth fighting it. But Pro has nothing I personally need, so I may yet purge them both again. If nothing else, I enjoyed the faster startups, the cleaner `mount` output, and the simpler update routine.
lockhouse 4y ago
If history is any indicator there is a good chance that Canonical will eventually give up on Snap and assimilate like they did with systemd (upstart), Wayland (mir), and Gnome (Unity).
- wkat4242 4y ago
  Yeah and in the period before giving up they often had a last-ditch all-in effort. Hopefully this one is it and they'll come to their senses.
scheeseman486 4y ago
Ah yes, a sure sign of a healthy, successful product is when those behind it attempt to kneecap it's competitor in broad daylight when everyone is watching.
alyandon 4y ago
Snap remains the more capable tool: it supports server apps on machines with no GUI Ah, yes - who wouldn't mind their web server, rdbms, hypervisors, etc going down while they are upgraded and restarted automatically whenever snapd decides it is time to do so? gag
- jacooper 4y ago
  And I don't why Snap exists when everyone already uses docker and OCI containers.
  - kramerger 4y ago
    Those are completely different things.
  - jacooper 4y ago
    I don't get*
- lproven 4y ago
  I wrote the line you're quoting. You are imputing meaning to it that I did not put there. Ubuntu is a very popular and successful server Linux, used on millions of VMs. I strongly suspect that those VMs are not built with Snap and don't use it for much. I think they're build from .deb packages, probably deployed with Puppet or Chef or Juju or something. But Snaps work on servers, and Ubuntu Core is built only from Snaps. That is all I said. I didn't make any claims of how people deploy Ubuntu on servers. Please don't put words in my mouth.
  - alyandon 4y ago
    That wasn't a dig at you - that was a dig at snaps. My primary objections to snapd are: * updates are pushed/applied and services restarted on an arbitrary schedule which means you can't test updates prior to rolling them out or otherwise control when a service is taken offline by an update * snapd doesn't log the actions it takes to standard OS logging facilities and the internal logs accessible via "snap changes" are cleared after 72 hours so you can't tell what actions it has taken * snapd pollutes home directories with a directory called "snap" that can't be moved/symlinked/hidden. snapd is a poorly conceived project written by people that are profoundly ignorant of how real services and servers are actually operated. Despite having the above flaws repeatedly pointed out, the developers have shown zero interest in taking actual concrete actions to address them.

44 points by LorenDB 4y ago

brnt 4y ago

Apparently there is no took for the Flatpak community in the community of communities. While I see uptake of Flatpaks, I rarely see anyone pointing at a snap. Is anyone using Snap (out of free will)? Why do you prefer it?

wkat4242 4y ago
Personally I don't like either unless it's absolutely necessary for third-party software. The dynamic loader can't do its things when lots of different library versions exist and it wastes other resources and space. And it's very much harder to update everything when a vulnerable library exists. This is also the main issue I have with snap. In their attempt to make it ubiquitous, Ubuntu are using it even for the smallest console apps with almost no dependencies.. I've even seen it used for go apps which are statically linked so they really have none. It's just a lot of overhead for no reason then.
lproven 4y ago
> no took for the Flatpak community in the community of communities. I can't parse that sentence. Are there typos in it? > Is anyone using Snap (out of free will)? Ubuntu representatives told me at the Ubuntu Summit in Prague last year that their numbers suggest that Snap usage in the real world by Ubuntu users is around 10x more than all Flatpak usage. They tun the only public Snap store. (There are others but they are not public.) Flathub does publish stats, e.g. https://klausenbusk.github.io/flathub-stats/#ref=ca._0ldsk00l.Nestopia&interval=infinity&downloadType=installs%2Bupdates https://klausenbusk.github.io/flathub-stats/#ref=ca._0ldsk00... I have no proof of this, but they seemed confident. I linked to my article about Ubuntu firmly backing Snap in the story at the top of this page, which I wrote.
- brnt 4y ago
  > I can't parse that sentence. Are there typos in it? Yes, couldnt edit anymore. took->room

smackeyacky 4y ago

How are any of the Ubuntu moves with Snap in the spirit of open source? I notice that Pop!OS installs flatpak but I didn't realise they weren't considered an "official" variant of Ubuntu, so perhaps it will continue doing that. The Register article is overly kind about this, I appreciate the "news not editorial" flavour but the real story is that Ubuntu apparently consider themselves apart from the community that makes their software and they should now be consigned to history by that community. Off to uninstall it in my network now.

twosdai 4y ago
My 2 cents fwiw. Pop os is probably the best consumer linux desktop experience. Flatpack installs, company customer support, and a well configured Ubuntu base make it ideal. I'm glad they're not an official flavor, canonical hasn't been doing a great job on their consumer desktop sector because their money is made via the server installs and distributions.
- brnt 4y ago
  After using Ubuntu for a decade, I switched to Debian with Bullseye and I couldn't be happier. Or can I? Why use PopOS, and does it do KDE?
  - LorenDB 4y ago
    Why use Pop!_OS? I guess because the name makes you look like a 1337 h4xx0r. Joking aside, Pop is generally liked for its easy-to-use interface. System76 has made a well-polished suite of software, and they are in the process of replacing GNOME with their own DE to make it an even smoother experience. Of course, if you use something else (I prefer openSUSE Tumbleweed), you can just stick to Flatpaks entirely without having to get concerned about snaps.
  - isthisfoss 4y ago
    Why use it? Probably no reason if you’re happy on debian. It’s just a solid distro and as other have said the best out-of-the-box desktop experience out there IMO. Definitely not going to win over any KDE fans but their tuned GNOME DE is really slick, and it’s only gonna get better when they release their own DE “COSMIC”. I’ve been dailying Pop on all my main machines for years now without any problems. Think of it as Uncononical’d Ubuntu in a way but they’re really committed to making a unique footprint

mesebrec 4y ago

This is a joint decision from all Ubuntu flavors. It frustrates me so much that every Ubuntu-wide decision gets framed as "Canonical does x". It ignores the thousands of volunteers who pour their heart and soul into this project. The fact is that we, as a project full of volunteers, have decided that Ubuntu is built on debs and snaps. One of the core features of Ubuntu is that you get 5 years of support for your software after release. We go through great lengths to ensure that whatever you install the first day after release will continue working for 5 years. We simply can't ensure that with a third-party repositories like FlatHub. This is why the Ubuntu Technical Board decided a long time ago to not ship third party repositories by default. It doesn't matter if these are ppa's or Flatpak remotes. Any flavor that was previously shipping Flatpak, shipped it without any remote, even before the decision just posted. As Aaron said it so well on the discourse: "Most of the Ubuntu flavors provide free technical support via forums and IRC channels. Most of our users are using software from the Ubuntu repos or Snap Store and we are equipped to help them. We know what to expect from the software our users run and can give targeted and efficient advice on how to resolve issues. Some of us can even kick things into shape in the archives if there’s a legitimate problem with our packages, or we know who to talk to. With Flatpaks, the situation is much more dismal from a technical support perspective. We have little-to-no clue what quirks the software vendor(s) will have introduced since we don’t work closely with them. We have no way to reach in and fix legitimate bugs aside from filing bug reports and hoping that they will be answered. We’re going to end up with frustrated support staff and even more frustrated users. And all because they didn’t know that if they clicked a particular button in their flavor’s app store, they would be downloading unsupported software."

its-summertime 4y ago
> This is a joint decision from all Ubuntu flavors. https://fosstodon.org/@wimpy/109908489437633387 https://fosstodon.org/@wimpy/109908489437633387 ? > [...] and even more frustrated users. Speaking of being a frustrated user, can we use snap yet without the weird hardcoded $HOME stuff? la https://nelsonaloysio.medium.com/installing-ubuntus-snap-on-fedora-silverblue-e82ca6fd6108 https://nelsonaloysio.medium.com/installing-ubuntus-snap-on-... > unsupported software Gnome Software already labels this fine, same for Apple's App Store, Google Play, Microsoft's Store, etc.

voakbasda 4y ago

I am curious about how this decision meshes with the concurrent announcement that the KDE/GNOME folks are looking at using Flathub as a Linux Store: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34916644 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34916644

wkat4242 4y ago
Yeah this article is very pro-snap and disregards the movement in favor of flatpak which has stepped up in kind.
- lproven 4y ago
  I wrote the article. I am not particularly pro-Snap. I am not particularly pro or anti anything in this space. I repeatedly said that Flatpak has strong popular support. It does. I see it often. What I tried to point out was the ways Canonical feels that Snap is superior to Flatpak. There is a lot of FUD in this debate. More than usual. Personally, once I discovered Martin Wimpress' `deb-get` tool, I removed both snap and flatpak from my own main Ubuntu boxes. But then I joined the freebie Ubuntu Pro deal and then snapd gets reinstalled, so it didn't seem worth fighting it. But Pro has nothing I personally need, so I may yet purge them both again. If nothing else, I enjoyed the faster startups, the cleaner `mount` output, and the simpler update routine.

lockhouse 4y ago

If history is any indicator there is a good chance that Canonical will eventually give up on Snap and assimilate like they did with systemd (upstart), Wayland (mir), and Gnome (Unity).

wkat4242 4y ago
Yeah and in the period before giving up they often had a last-ditch all-in effort. Hopefully this one is it and they'll come to their senses.

scheeseman486 4y ago

Ah yes, a sure sign of a healthy, successful product is when those behind it attempt to kneecap it's competitor in broad daylight when everyone is watching.

alyandon 4y ago

Snap remains the more capable tool: it supports server apps on machines with no GUI Ah, yes - who wouldn't mind their web server, rdbms, hypervisors, etc going down while they are upgraded and restarted automatically whenever snapd decides it is time to do so? gag

jacooper 4y ago
And I don't why Snap exists when everyone already uses docker and OCI containers.
- kramerger 4y ago
  Those are completely different things.
- jacooper 4y ago
  I don't get*
lproven 4y ago
I wrote the line you're quoting. You are imputing meaning to it that I did not put there. Ubuntu is a very popular and successful server Linux, used on millions of VMs. I strongly suspect that those VMs are not built with Snap and don't use it for much. I think they're build from .deb packages, probably deployed with Puppet or Chef or Juju or something. But Snaps work on servers, and Ubuntu Core is built only from Snaps. That is all I said. I didn't make any claims of how people deploy Ubuntu on servers. Please don't put words in my mouth.
- alyandon 4y ago
  That wasn't a dig at you - that was a dig at snaps. My primary objections to snapd are: * updates are pushed/applied and services restarted on an arbitrary schedule which means you can't test updates prior to rolling them out or otherwise control when a service is taken offline by an update * snapd doesn't log the actions it takes to standard OS logging facilities and the internal logs accessible via "snap changes" are cleared after 72 hours so you can't tell what actions it has taken * snapd pollutes home directories with a directory called "snap" that can't be moved/symlinked/hidden. snapd is a poorly conceived project written by people that are profoundly ignorant of how real services and servers are actually operated. Despite having the above flaws repeatedly pointed out, the developers have shown zero interest in taking actual concrete actions to address them.