5 ms·

Defaults matter a lot, and snaps are the default in Ubuntu. The topic is not whether snaps are avoidable or not, but the Ubuntu is going downhill. And snaps ar

Defaults matter a lot, and snaps are the default in Ubuntu. The topic is not whether snaps are avoidable or not, but the Ubuntu is going downhill. And snaps are purported to be part of that downhill, which would be Ubuntu's NIH syndrome. As far as I know, Ubuntu's only successful development is Ubuntu itself - the other projects have all failed over the years, and snap, while ongoing, is not winning any popularity contests either.

Santosh83 1y ago
Snaps per se are no better or worse than flatpak. Canonical's mistake, IMO, was to make their store the only place snaps can be hosted. That is the "proprietary" bit everyone keeps talking about. But in practice even for flatpak the only realistic place you can publish your flatpak if you want any traction at all would be flathub, so both formats have only one store right now. But flatpak allows a custom store while for some strange reason Canonical decided not to allow snap that freedom.
- bayindirh 1y ago
  Another problem is, Canonical promised to release server components and enable alternative stores, and just forgot that they made that pledge. Also, rugpulling users and migrating things to snaps without asking their users in order to "create a positive pressure on snap team to keep their quality high" didn't sit well with the users. > But in practice even for flatpak the only realistic place you can publish your flatpak if you want any traction at all would be flathub But, for any size of fleet from homelab to an enterprise client farm, I can host my local flathub and install my personal special-purpose flatpaks without paying anyone and thinking whether my packages will be there next morning. Freedom matters, esp. it that's the norm in that ecosystem. I was neutral-ish about Ubuntu, but I flat out avoid them now, and migrate any remaining Ubuntu server to Debian in shortest way possible. I'm using Debian for the last 20 years or so, BTW.
  - npteljes 1y ago
    Yes, same. I started with Ubuntu back in the day, because the server I inherited ran Ubuntu, and it was just natural after that for me to run it on the desktop as well. I grew to dislike their NIH over the years, tried distro hopping, and settled on Debian.
- npteljes 1y ago
  Yes, I agree. Snaps or Flatpak, not much of a practical, technological difference. What sets them apart is the way the distribution is handled, including the open source availability of the backend, which enabled for example Red Hat and Elementary to run their own stores.
- type0 1y ago
  If you are making your own distro, creating your own flatpak store is trivial, that's all what matters. Linux Mint doesn't use snap exactly because Canonical forces everyone to use their snap store.
  - dismalaf 1y ago
    Canonical doesn't force anyone to use anything. Snap is open source, just modify it to use a different store if you want. Mint literally forked a zombie DE, but changing a few lines of code in snap is an issue...
    - fsflover 1y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44849691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44849691
    - npteljes 1y ago
      Defaults matter a lot, snap is not open source (client is, backend isn't), you cannot "just modify it (Ubuntu)" to use a different store, because Ubuntu installs snaps even with apt. Mint is not part of the discussion.
      - dismalaf 1y ago
        > Mint is not part of the discussion. Read the parent comment I responded to
        npteljes 1y ago
        Mea culpa, I glossed over that!
sofixa 1y ago
> which would be Ubuntu's NIH syndrome Red Hat do the same. They reinvented the wheel on multiple occasions (systemd and it's whole ecosystem like systemd-resolved and timed and the whole kitchen sink; podman, buildah, dnf, etc etc.) They just have more success on getting their NIH babies accepted as the standard by everyone else. Canonical just fail at that (often for good reasons, Unity was downright crap for some time) and abandon stuff, which doesn't help their future causes.
- jeltz 1y ago
  Canonical did their own NIH init daemon called Upstart which failed due to the fundamental design and the implementation being plain bad. Redhat builds better software which is why their NIH gets more adoption.
  - curt15 1y ago
    ChromeOS still uses upstart.
    - teddyh 1y ago
      Upstart came before systemd; much of the reason for systemd’s creation was fixing what was considered fundamental design mistakes in Upstart: <http://0pointer.net/blog/projects/systemd#:~:text=On%20Upstart http://0pointer.net/blog/projects/systemd#:~:text=On%20Upsta...> (under the heading “On Upstart”).
- homebrewer 1y ago
  > systemd https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1149530#p1149530 https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1149530#p1149530 > like systemd-resolved and timed They're not forced on anybody, they're not required by systemd, and many distributions use more feature-rich alternatives (including, afaik, RHEL — last time I looked at it, they used dnsmasq and chrony). They're also often shipped as separate optional packages: $ apt search 'systemd-timesyncd|systemd-resolved' systemd-resolved/testing,now 257.7-1 amd64 systemd-timesyncd/testing 257.7-1 amd64 > podman, buildah Still not anywhere near as popular as Docker. Although technically they're far better than Docker, and if anyone is using them, it's for that reason. > dnf Only used by RHEL and its upstream Fedora? --- All of this makes very little sense.

Santosh83 1y ago

Snaps per se are no better or worse than flatpak. Canonical's mistake, IMO, was to make their store the only place snaps can be hosted. That is the "proprietary" bit everyone keeps talking about. But in practice even for flatpak the only realistic place you can publish your flatpak if you want any traction at all would be flathub, so both formats have only one store right now. But flatpak allows a custom store while for some strange reason Canonical decided not to allow snap that freedom.

bayindirh 1y ago
Another problem is, Canonical promised to release server components and enable alternative stores, and just forgot that they made that pledge. Also, rugpulling users and migrating things to snaps without asking their users in order to "create a positive pressure on snap team to keep their quality high" didn't sit well with the users. > But in practice even for flatpak the only realistic place you can publish your flatpak if you want any traction at all would be flathub But, for any size of fleet from homelab to an enterprise client farm, I can host my local flathub and install my personal special-purpose flatpaks without paying anyone and thinking whether my packages will be there next morning. Freedom matters, esp. it that's the norm in that ecosystem. I was neutral-ish about Ubuntu, but I flat out avoid them now, and migrate any remaining Ubuntu server to Debian in shortest way possible. I'm using Debian for the last 20 years or so, BTW.
- npteljes 1y ago
  Yes, same. I started with Ubuntu back in the day, because the server I inherited ran Ubuntu, and it was just natural after that for me to run it on the desktop as well. I grew to dislike their NIH over the years, tried distro hopping, and settled on Debian.
npteljes 1y ago
Yes, I agree. Snaps or Flatpak, not much of a practical, technological difference. What sets them apart is the way the distribution is handled, including the open source availability of the backend, which enabled for example Red Hat and Elementary to run their own stores.
type0 1y ago
If you are making your own distro, creating your own flatpak store is trivial, that's all what matters. Linux Mint doesn't use snap exactly because Canonical forces everyone to use their snap store.
- dismalaf 1y ago
  Canonical doesn't force anyone to use anything. Snap is open source, just modify it to use a different store if you want. Mint literally forked a zombie DE, but changing a few lines of code in snap is an issue...
  - fsflover 1y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44849691 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44849691
  - npteljes 1y ago
    Defaults matter a lot, snap is not open source (client is, backend isn't), you cannot "just modify it (Ubuntu)" to use a different store, because Ubuntu installs snaps even with apt. Mint is not part of the discussion.
    - dismalaf 1y ago
      > Mint is not part of the discussion. Read the parent comment I responded to
      - npteljes 1y ago
        Mea culpa, I glossed over that!

sofixa 1y ago

> which would be Ubuntu's NIH syndrome Red Hat do the same. They reinvented the wheel on multiple occasions (systemd and it's whole ecosystem like systemd-resolved and timed and the whole kitchen sink; podman, buildah, dnf, etc etc.) They just have more success on getting their NIH babies accepted as the standard by everyone else. Canonical just fail at that (often for good reasons, Unity was downright crap for some time) and abandon stuff, which doesn't help their future causes.

jeltz 1y ago
Canonical did their own NIH init daemon called Upstart which failed due to the fundamental design and the implementation being plain bad. Redhat builds better software which is why their NIH gets more adoption.
- curt15 1y ago
  ChromeOS still uses upstart.
  - teddyh 1y ago
    Upstart came before systemd; much of the reason for systemd’s creation was fixing what was considered fundamental design mistakes in Upstart: <http://0pointer.net/blog/projects/systemd#:~:text=On%20Upstart http://0pointer.net/blog/projects/systemd#:~:text=On%20Upsta...> (under the heading “On Upstart”).
homebrewer 1y ago
> systemd https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1149530#p1149530 https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1149530#p1149530 > like systemd-resolved and timed They're not forced on anybody, they're not required by systemd, and many distributions use more feature-rich alternatives (including, afaik, RHEL — last time I looked at it, they used dnsmasq and chrony). They're also often shipped as separate optional packages: $ apt search 'systemd-timesyncd|systemd-resolved' systemd-resolved/testing,now 257.7-1 amd64 systemd-timesyncd/testing 257.7-1 amd64 > podman, buildah Still not anywhere near as popular as Docker. Although technically they're far better than Docker, and if anyone is using them, it's for that reason. > dnf Only used by RHEL and its upstream Fedora? --- All of this makes very little sense.