Canonical goes full snap, Chromium is next

[Deb-fan]

Can't see this becoming the future default packaging format. Interesting and truthfully not up to speed on this topic. Personally won't be using it or highly unlikely. Still can see some benefits and won't bad mouth these types of efforts either. Snappy-snap, flatpak and appimages, cool more options for those who choose to use.

[pendrachken]

How would non-root installations work for packages that provide system files (ie, all of them)?

Do you really want to give hackers that have local access the power to install stuff without gaining root privileges?

Sounds like someone doesn't know how snaps / flatpacks work. Here's a hint; they contain all the libraries needed to run, regardless of if the versions are the same as the underlying base OS or not. This CAN lead to library duplication, but is often quite handy when the newer application needs updated libraries, as you don't have to mess with the base systems stable libraries.... potentially introducing bugs into the stable software of the base system. You also don't have to try to backport the application to use older libraries, which can also introduce subtle bugs and regressions, or just plain fail. This also means you can run OLDER software on a newer modern base without having to change library versions or worry about regressions in newer libraries.


All of this means that the flatpack / snap will be bigger than a packaged dynamically linked binary, but as said by many a people here - disk space is cheap.

[golinux]

We know what super-sizing has done to our health. It is a sloppy, unmindful and ultimately destructive habit to feed our cravings for all sorts of things that ultimately only complicate our lives. Convenience is a trap . . . beware.

[Bloom]

Debian has a rigorous testing and review system for its packages. Have you lot never wondered why in all the years that Debian exists no malware was ever introduced?
Snap is IMHO the easiest way forward to have malware introduced to Ubuntu where it was previously secure. Debian needs to stay away from that.

[CwF]

I've tried to explain elsewhere, where linux is going in terms of windows evolution only to realize my references were unknown as ancient irrelevant history. Once upon a time MS had the idea to package common code in libraries in a very unix like way. These libraries called dll's promised to consolidate and ease things. Of course you could put a customized dll in the programs directory to override the systems, if you really really had to....A decade later, a file search on the average windows system of any common and random dll results in numerous identically named dll's. The method could have been tight, and very resource efficient, but it's not.
The mentality here is simply repeating the same pattern. Linux is of course superior (maybe not) and when it is on parity with windows it will be as bloated and bad. Yes, things will work fine, if we provide the space, the extra memory, and a few extra cores to manage the slop.

Once the average distro/user can download and execute many cool programs from all over the wonderful web, Linux's will finally match windows. Maybe we should call these things exe's. Just dl and run! That's the ticket!

[Bulkley]

The only free cheese is in the mouse trap.

[vmclark]

Sounds like someone doesn't know how snaps / flatpacks work. Here's a hint; they contain all the libraries needed to run, regardless of if the versions are the same as the underlying base OS or not. This CAN lead to library duplication, but is often quite handy when the newer application needs updated libraries, as you don't have to mess with the base systems stable libraries.... potentially introducing bugs into the stable software of the base system. You also don't have to try to backport the application to use older libraries, which can also introduce subtle bugs and regressions, or just plain fail. This also means you can run OLDER software on a newer modern base without having to change library versions or worry about regressions in newer libraries.


All of this means that the flatpack / snap will be bigger than a packaged dynamically linked binary, but as said by many a people here - disk space is cheap.

This doesn't make any since at all. Because disks are cheap is no reason to load up on unneeded size, especially pack on more libraries.
As long as there is APT, I'm happy. Snap is the first item to get removed from my system.

[pendrachken]

Sounds like someone doesn't know how snaps / flatpacks work. Here's a hint; they contain all the libraries needed to run, regardless of if the versions are the same as the underlying base OS or not. This CAN lead to library duplication, but is often quite handy when the newer application needs updated libraries, as you don't have to mess with the base systems stable libraries.... potentially introducing bugs into the stable software of the base system. You also don't have to try to backport the application to use older libraries, which can also introduce subtle bugs and regressions, or just plain fail. This also means you can run OLDER software on a newer modern base without having to change library versions or worry about regressions in newer libraries.


All of this means that the flatpack / snap will be bigger than a packaged dynamically linked binary, but as said by many a people here - disk space is cheap.

This doesn't make any since at all. Because disks are cheap is no reason to load up on unneeded size, especially pack on more libraries.
As long as there is APT, I'm happy. Snap is the first item to get removed from my system.

You go ahead and worry about a few kb of disk space lost to redundant libraries (if they even are the same version number ) if you want. Meanwhile My / drive has hundreds of gigs of free space and my storage pools have multi TB space. And guess what, since storage is cheap I can just got and toss a few more 5TB drive in the pool, RAID em up, and go on with life if I ever need more space.

So yeah, I'll take ease of use / convenience over worrying about saving that couple MB space for any snaps / flatpacks I would choose to install.


P.S. All that quoting and you didn't even read what it was in reference to, just got yer panties in a bunch over disk space that you won't even notice being used.

[Wheelerof4te]

So yeah, I'll take ease of use / convenience over worrying about saving that couple MB space for any snaps / flatpacks I would choose to install.

You really can't put snaps and flatpaks in the same basket. They are very different things trying to solve the same problem. And there are other cons not related to disk space, such as trust concerns and security issues over outdated libraries. Repositories are time-proven solution, while snaps come looking like hacks.