[Software] What's up with more and more software not having a PPA?

[tengu]

Hey,

I used Ubuntu a few years ago and remember that for installing almost any software, my go to was to just put

Code: Select all

sudo apt-get install *software*

in the CLI. Very rarely did i have to unpack any tarballs or download something that ended in .deb. But now a lot of stuff like Steam, Telegram, Thunderbird is not available through a PPA and things like FreeCAD are massively out of date - but almost anyone is offering a flatpak and/or snap. Did something happen that made PPAs uncool or something? I distinctly remember being underwhelmed by the Software Store on Ubuntu and the snaps it offered and how it worked in general.

What advantage do flatpak and snap bring to the table compared to a PPA?

[wizard10000]

PPAs have never been cool in Debian - they're an Ubuntu thing

Debian specifically recommends against using Ubuntu PPAs in https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian

[Shamak]

I suspect that tengu is confusing ppa's with the official Ubuntu repositories (deb packages). For example, Thunderbird is no longer available through the Ubuntu repositories on 24.04. It's now a snap package. In fact, Thunderbird is available through a ppa on Ubuntu. Not to be used on Debian.

https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa

Here's an Ubuntu page where they talk a bit about debs versus snaps.

https://ubuntu.com/about/packages

Here's a page on ppa's.

https://help.ubuntu.com/lts/ubuntu-help ... pa.html.en

Mind you, these are Ubuntu viewpoints. Not everyone agrees with them but it might help explain why Ubuntu is promoting snaps.

[tengu]

I suspect that tengu is confusing ppa's with the official Ubuntu repositories (deb packages). For example, Thunderbird is no longer available through the Ubuntu repositories on 24.04. It's now a snap package. In fact, Thunderbird is available through a ppa on Ubuntu. Not to be used on Debian.

https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa

Here's an Ubuntu page where they talk a bit about debs versus snaps.

https://ubuntu.com/about/packages

Here's a page on ppa's.

https://help.ubuntu.com/lts/ubuntu-help ... pa.html.en

Mind you, these are Ubuntu viewpoints. Not everyone agrees with them but it might help explain why Ubuntu is promoting snaps.

I might be confusing them. I just associated installing things with apt from a repository with PPAs, the correct term probably would have been repository that apt can use to install software.
Don'tBreakDebian refers to this as the preferred method for installing software too, I see. I remember leaving Ubuntu behind specifically because the entire management of snaps felt clunky and I felt like I wasn't in control of what the software manager was doing at all, unlike what I was experiencing with apt ( or even windows for that matter). Hence my discomfort with flatpaks or snaps, although I might be doing flatpak a disservice here.

I assume installing deb packages from the internet is considered "Less safe ways to install software not available in Debian Stable", based on the article about packages. I really should make the time to read more of the documentation than how to get the system running, but unfortunately, time doesn't grow on trees

[Uptorn]

I assume installing deb packages from the internet is considered "Less safe ways to install software not available in Debian Stable", based on the article about packages. I really should make the time to read more of the documentation than how to get the system running, but unfortunately, time doesn't grow on trees

I would much rather install a .deb package than bloat up my system with foreign package managers.

An additional problem that bloatpacks introduce is that while software acquired from the Debian repositories through apt can reliably supply software compiled for whichever CPU architecture you use, these new Windows-style foreign package managers by and large only ever have builds for x86[_64] and maybe aarch[64]. Those who decide to distribute their software through snaps/flats often just give a big middle finger to anyone not using the dominant CPU architectures, even if unintentionally.

[kent_dorfman766]

I suspect that tengu is confusing ppa's with the official Ubuntu repositories (deb packages).

Or the post itself is a well concealed troll to garner support for snaps.

[tengu]

I suspect that tengu is confusing ppa's with the official Ubuntu repositories (deb packages).

Or the post itself is a well concealed troll to garner support for snaps.

I fail to see how that would work, as I do criticize snaps in my next post.

[jmgibson1981]

What advantage do flatpak and snap bring to the table compared to a PPA?

The advantage of these, despite the other problems they bring is the ability to run anything on any distro. They are not required to match the distro's libraries. Current package managers require everything to built to system libraries. This is a great thing but snaps and flatpaks make it so rather than having everyone package their own version you have one package that everyone can use that will perform exactly the same everywhere.

The downside is that you get a ton of duplication (See Edit). Each flatpak / snap is a self contained thing much like windows executables. While an apt install of a given package my average 25-50mb the same package via flatpak or snap can easily be over a gig depending on how many dependencies it brings with it. These days storage is cheap (relatively) that this is a minimal concern. But it leads to system creep along with security issues in that patching a single library fixes everything using that library. For flatpaks and snaps they would all need to be rebuilt with the fixed library.

*EDIT* To be fair flatpaks do have some type of external dependency system so not everything is duplicated but it's not nearly as efficient as normal shared libraries.

Up and downsides. Which one outweighs the other is entirely a subjective choice. There is no right or wrong. Just what you feel is acceptable and or you require to get your task done regardless of your feelings on the subject.

[Silent Observer]

And the third of these is AppImage. To me the big difference is that Snap puts everything inside / and makes the folder had to manage (though it might be possible to superuser cp the folder and its contents to another partition and then mount that partition as /snap -- I didn't get around to trying that before jumping off Kubuntu). Flatpak puts things in ~ and they're somewhat user manageable, but there's a separate command line interface and the apps don't auto-update, so you have to learn the CLI at least enough to update the software, and remind yourself to manually do so periodically -- and I'm still not sure it frees the space from an uninstalled Flatpak app.

AppImage is a single-file executable (though you often have to mark the executable permission after downloading). It's a normal file as far as the filesystem and OS are concerned, it's fully integrated like Snap and Flatpack, and you update by downloading a new version to replace the old. IMO, AppImage has significant advantages -- easier to install than either Snap or Flatpak apps, with no support framework needing to be installed first and no separate CLI (Snap has one of those, too, you just aren't forced to use it for routine stuff like version updates). Lump size is similar to the others, but you can move the AppImage download to wherever you want it (I put mine in folders in ~ with the name of the app, so I can find them easily) -- even after using it for a while (I presume application data is stored in hidden folders like most other applications). They're every bit as universal as Snap and Flatpak, too -- even to the point of the same lump working the same way on .rpm or .deb based systems.