- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- linux@programming.dev
You must log in or # to comment.
I vote to kill snap
I can’t believe they used this as a pro for their distro…
I am currently only on Linux on my Steam Deck and I do have two RPi’s (though I don’t actively use them) so I don’t have personal current knowledge of differences between Snap, Flatpak, and App Image beyond that A: Snap always brings up lots and lots of hate in comments and B: is from Canonical.
But is it possible that they might choose to use Snap for having more program options due to Ubuntu being such a “mainstream” distro? I know lots and lots of programs do release Flatpaks, but are there more of them or does Snap have more? Real question since I am aware of how heated some threads get with folks being really “fuck Snap” or “it is fine.” Mostly just curious since I am more and more likely to move my main PC to Linux as my main OS after Windows 10 is dead.
Think of it as the Mac appstore VS the Windows App store. Mac apps (flatpak) are the same as desktop apps, but sandboxed, the store isn’t intrusive, and people found it convenient, so it was fine. Then the windows app store (snaps) launched and it did basically the same thing but slightly worse, except Microsoft (canonical) forced it down its users throats, so people hated it.
Both camps are right, from a technical perspective, snaps are fine, but philosophically, it sucks, and the Linux community cares way more about the latter than the former, otherwise they’d all be running windows.
I think that your example of the App Store and the Microsoft Store is helpful! I work on both systems at my job fixing computers for consumers. The only thing I dislike about the App Store is that it doesn’t let you install things without first signing in with an Apple ID (the spam levels of pop-up messages trying so freaking hard to make you sign in is infuriating). But the MS Store feels like all the worst parts of the Play Store and really fucks things up if it breaks. I will likely remember your reply the next time I think about Flatpaks and Snaps though. lol
Burn Snap out of there and I’m in.
Edit: looks like they’re not putting much towards snaps, it’s mostly Flatpak and systemd-sysext. I’m good with that.
I thought we all agreed that “immutable” is a confusing term and that we should call it “atomic”
edit: I was wrong
I disagree, because they are not the same thing.
Immutable means read only root.
Atomic means that updates are done in a snapshotted manner somehow. It usually means that if an update fails, your system is not in a half working state, but instead will be reverted to the last working state, and that updates are all or nothing.
I create a btrfs snapshot before updates on my Arch Linux system. This is atomic, but not immutable.*
There is also “image based” which distros like ublue (immutable, atomic) are, but Nixos (also immutable and atomic) are not.
*only really before big updates tbh, but I know some people do configure snapshits before all updates.
Not all. Red Hat started this by naming their immutable distributions with “atomic” (but then not consistently…). Some people agreed, but not everyone.
What does atomic mean in this sense? That seems more confusing than immutable.
It means a change either applied completely and successfully, or not at all (think “atomic transactions” in databases).
Who said that?
Fedora has pushed for the change by rebranding their immutable distros as Fedora Atomic Desktops, and these are likely the most popular immutable distros. Bazzite’s homepage also describes the distro as atomic, but never mentions the term immutable.
How is atomic less confusing? Immutable means that something doesn’t change, atomic means that it’s the size of an atom or has nuclear energy
EDIT: I’ve learned that some people are overly pedantic about the meaning and practical use of the word “immutable”, so much so that they decided to create a bigger confusion by giving another word a completely different and exclusive meaning
How could you install anything or change any setting if it “doesn’t change” ?
Settings live in user space. Software exist in containers like AppImage, Flatpak or Distrobox. If something need deep system integration, they can be layered on top of the system in the user layer. Immutable does NOT mean less control. Just exerting control over the system in a different, usually more systematic, automatic and deterministic way.
Ah yes, the immutable OS, except for all of the various mutable parts.
We should totally not call it anything less confusing.
It’s not confusing at all… How is this any more confusing than:
Flatpak - they’re not literally flat…
Snap - I’ve never seen or heard any evidence of something snapping by any definition of the word I’m aware of.
Dolphin - what the fuck is this, no sea life whatsoever!
Kate - this is a text editor, not a person.
Distrobox - not in an actual box.
etc.
The main difference to your examples is that an “immutable OS” is in fact mutable, while none of your examples describe themselves with an adjective that is contradicting with their function/inner workings.
Flatpak is a pretty good name, because it makes software flat in the sense that it avoids having a (tall) dependency tree.
I installed Bottles, but was disappointed when it didn’t actually have anything to do with bottles.
If you think every name of every product, etc., is going to be literal… you’re gonna have a tough time in life.
This article is far too hypey. One dude has started this initiative and needs people to work on his concept to get it off the ground. I’m not opposed to a red-hat free immutable system, but this one is so far from maturity this article is selling a first drawing like an almost finished product. Remind me in two years how this went.
Harald, the main architect behind it is already running it as his daily driver. Many others (myself included) are already testing it in VMs and on spare hardware with only very minor papercut issues to be resolved.
Sounds great! I’ll have a look once the user infrastructure is in place.
deleted by creator
Why? What’s the issue with Snap? Is Flatpak any better?
Yeah, Flatpak is far better. The most glaring issue: Canonical hosts the only Snap backend, you can’t host it yourself. Flatpak on the other hand is fully open.
Don’t introduce proprietary crap just so companies can profit off of it.
Don’t introduce proprietary crap just so companies can profit off of it.
I agree but I think it’s the user who should be able to make the informed choice (ie. during installation)
deleted by creator
This is a stupid argument. In FSF’s eyes even having nonfree repository (ie. for drivers) is bad so this is completely irrelevant for anyone considering flatpak or snap. Both have nonfree stuff in there.
deleted by creator
I’m not arguing whether snap or flatpak is better. Flatpak is better.
But your arguments are going against each other. You disagree that FSF should tell you what software you can use but then you want to tell other users what software they can use. If you use flatpak despite of FSF’s opinions, you should let people use snap despite of your opinion.
Honestly, why enable this kind of behavior in any way? Any user is free to make an informed choice by installing it themselves.
We all know how this goes. Once a critical mass is reached, enshittification begins to milk everything dry. By making it an installer option, you’re legitimizing it and supporting a worse future for the Linux desktop.
Ok but KDE has official Snap packages so they already are “legitimizing it”. Also snap won’t be able to entshittify anything. Snapd is still open source, so you can just repackage the software for different package system.
My guy. There is no open backend for Snap. If Ubuntu enshittifies Snap, nobody can host an alternate backend for them. How does the client being open source help you?
You simply use a different packaging format as I said in the previous comment.
Just curious because Distrowatch can be easily gamed; does anyone know how this might affect the linux consumer market? I’m using Mint and see no reason to switch to this. I used to nerd out about different distros but aside from the enterprise distros or Debian or Arch preferences I don’t see why people are using smaller distros anymore. Hobbyist i guess?
mainly hobbyists or some very specific feature. For example antiX for old hardware or Spiral Linux for the better installer, gaming specific distros for gaming etc. Also there are protest distros which advertise not having something - usually SystemD.
Thanks for de-influencing me out of switching to KDE plasma, mint and ubuntu are the only distros I’ve tried and I’ve been thinking about trying something new
New users (like me) that aren’t necessarily passionate about linux and just looking for a windows alternative can be easily persuaded early on
My switch to Linux started 1,5 years ago with Manjaro KDE - and since then, I am still a fan of KDE, which is kind of “Windows UI done right” for me. Ergonomic, configurable, consistent. I also find Pantheon, Enlightenment, and Budgie to be cool concepts, but from a practical side, KDE is a no-brainer for me.
Mint comes with Cinnamon by default, and I guess that’s what you’re using. For me, Cinnamon is too old-fashioned, it’s like you’re back to at least Windows 7 timing. Some people like it, but for me it’s just old and out of touch with the progress of UI’s.
GNOME used in Ubuntu is good with app theming (yay for adwaita!), it is unique and minimalistic, but its overall design is just…not for everyone, and customization is heavily tied to unsafe practice of plugins which has been exploited many, many times.
With all that said, try everything out in a VM or something and see what’s good for you. There are really no wrong choices!
