5 ms·

You’re a company and your software actually runs on Linux. You want to reach as many people as possible. So you make a .deb for Ubuntu. Or you go with a package

by sshine 3y ago

You’re a company and your software actually runs on Linux. You want to reach as many people as possible. So you make a .deb for Ubuntu. Or you go with a package manager that is cross-distro. That’s why.

tryauuum 3y ago
ehhhh.... If I want to reach as many people as possible I would build rpm, deb, docker images, provide source code. I would not use snaps because it would imply more effort from the end user -- they first need to install snapd and only then my app.
- loxias 3y ago
  Yup. This is what's true in my experience (working for companies that sell software that runs on linux distributions). I don't have any gross snaps or unpackaged stuff on my laptop, how could I expect paying customers, with an operations department, to accept anything less.
- sshine 3y ago
  > they first need to install snapd and only then my app This is a reductive argument. It's not more effort if Snap is already included in the Linux distribution. This argument only applies if Snap is your only distribution channel. Otherwise, you could say that distributing a Linux version of the software implies more effort from the user, because they'd need to install Linux first. We're talking alternatives here.
HunOL 3y ago
> Or you go with a package manager that is cross-distro. > That’s why. So flatpak?
- Alupis 3y ago
  Well, flatpack still doesn't address the non-gui app/utility part of the equation.
  - stonogo 3y ago
    And snap doesn't address the fact that the server components that talk to the snap 'store' software is closed-source and only available from Canonical.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      Never claimed it did. Snaps are yet another half baked Canonical tech... Those of us using immutable distros would love a "flatpack for cli utils". OS-tree layering defeats many of the points of immutability, and pet containers are a bigger pita than they should be. There has to be a better way.
snovv_crash 3y ago
Just make an appimage and be done with it.
- sshine 3y ago
  I would prefer AppImages over Snap if I were a company. But just to strongman package managers: With an AppImage you don't get security updates, and it isn't a distribution mechanism.
  - snovv_crash 3y ago
    Frankly I see this as a bonus. I don't want my CAD software or 3D printer slicer auto-updating. Not everything is network connected and security critical. Auto-updates are a huge pain for a lot of workflows.

by sshine 3y ago

tryauuum 3y ago

ehhhh.... If I want to reach as many people as possible I would build rpm, deb, docker images, provide source code. I would not use snaps because it would imply more effort from the end user -- they first need to install snapd and only then my app.

loxias 3y ago
Yup. This is what's true in my experience (working for companies that sell software that runs on linux distributions). I don't have any gross snaps or unpackaged stuff on my laptop, how could I expect paying customers, with an operations department, to accept anything less.
sshine 3y ago
> they first need to install snapd and only then my app This is a reductive argument. It's not more effort if Snap is already included in the Linux distribution. This argument only applies if Snap is your only distribution channel. Otherwise, you could say that distributing a Linux version of the software implies more effort from the user, because they'd need to install Linux first. We're talking alternatives here.

HunOL 3y ago

> Or you go with a package manager that is cross-distro. > That’s why. So flatpak?

Alupis 3y ago
Well, flatpack still doesn't address the non-gui app/utility part of the equation.
- stonogo 3y ago
  And snap doesn't address the fact that the server components that talk to the snap 'store' software is closed-source and only available from Canonical.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    Never claimed it did. Snaps are yet another half baked Canonical tech... Those of us using immutable distros would love a "flatpack for cli utils". OS-tree layering defeats many of the points of immutability, and pet containers are a bigger pita than they should be. There has to be a better way.

snovv_crash 3y ago

Just make an appimage and be done with it.

sshine 3y ago
I would prefer AppImages over Snap if I were a company. But just to strongman package managers: With an AppImage you don't get security updates, and it isn't a distribution mechanism.
- snovv_crash 3y ago
  Frankly I see this as a bonus. I don't want my CAD software or 3D printer slicer auto-updating. Not everything is network connected and security critical. Auto-updates are a huge pain for a lot of workflows.