# The Ubuntu Forum Community > Ubuntu Community Discussions > The Cafe >  Snap vs NoSnap

## VMC

This topic has come up several times in various forums.
In case you have no idea what Snap is or isn't, here's one view from Linux Mint guide:
https://linuxmint-user-guide.readthe...test/snap.html

Ubuntu uses Snap [obviously]. I've read that many have already left Ubuntu just because of Snap.
I've always been curious as to the count of those opposed or not.
Tell us your opinion.

----------


## zebra2

The farther into development snap goes the better it works and Ubuntu Software that supports it is better than it has ever been in past releases.  It now support both snap and dev installations. I am currently using 22.10 on my primary system and choose snap for app instead of dev when there is a choice. So far all works well.  Nice to have a built-in firewall that I don't have to deal with. 

I use 22.04 on my secondary system and using snap by default with no complaints there either.

----------


## lammert-nijhof

I love snaps, because:
- Snaps have been considerably sped up. 
- I still run Ubuntu 16.04 ESM (Extended Security Maintenance) and I'm very happy that the snap allows me to run it with the latest stable versions of Firefox 108.0 and LibreOffice 7.3.4.2 instead of with the outdated deb versions of both.
- In Xubuntu 22.04 LTS I run the following snaps; Firefox; Skype; Whatsie (WhatsApp); Caprine (Facebook Messenger) and I have absolutely no complaints.
- After an update of a snap, I detected a bug and I rolled back that update with "snap revert <snap-name>". Afterwards it worked again and that version with the bug has been blocked.

All fake-experts hate snaps, because they love bashing Canonical.

----------


## grahammechanical

> All fake-experts hate snaps, because they love bashing Canonical.


I agree with you entirely! I have lost interest in engaging in debates about the merits and demerits of Snap. As Mark Shuttleworth said some years ago: "Haters will hate."

A founding principle of Free and Open Source Software is the user has freedom to chose. There are other Linux distributions. I have heard that millions of people use paid for software. Extraordinary! Unbelievable!  :Smile: 

Regards

----------


## TheFu

I use NFS for user HOME directories and only have local accounts in /home, so most users are NOT using /home/.  snapd breaks completely if the user's HOME isn't in /home/, so snaps are useless.  No other distro has limitations that require using /home/, so this is a snap-only problem that never should have been allowed to exist. There is nothing magical about "/home" being used for HOME directories.  For 40+ yrs, at least, the location spelled out in the passwd DB (local or remote NIS, NIS+, LDAP, x.500) has been used to specify where user's HOMEs are located for each individual account.

I also don't like that snaps installs when they want. That's no way to run a production server, if software can be installed and restarted without the admin's expressed permission.  Pushing it off to a specific day is better than nothing, but still doesn't fit the needs of production, enterprise, systems.

Snaps are broken for production use.  I can't believe these things haven't been solved, or do people only host cat photos and other non-critical services?  If you can't call emergency services because a snap package was just installed and broke something, that's unacceptable and a legal liability.  Canonical knows better, but snaps don't show they do.

I get that home users don't care about these little issues, but enterprises do. Basically, Canonical has created a system that cannot be used for anything critical and has been ignoring the issues for years with suggested workarounds just for Ubuntu, without regard for mixed-system environments.

I remember when Linux was about flexibility, not mandates.  I'm happy that many people find value in snaps and can understand why they do, especially if they've never looked at other options.  If it works for you, great.

I'm looking forward to Debian Bullseye Stable release in 2023, which will include a non-snap version of LXD/LXC.  Currently, that is the only reason I would have snapd on a server.  Debian understands the problems with snaps and is going to provide non-snap packages so admins will actually have control over system changes.

We each have lots of distro options. Win-win is the goal.

----------


## zebra2

> I have heard that millions of people use paid for software. Extraordinary! Unbelievable! 
> 
> Regards


 Well yes!  Since the advent of internet based user verification the days of stealing the software is mostly gone. Paying for it is the only option.  When I was in business I had a personal policy of using registered software with my business without regard for what could be stolen from the various internet sources.  Today since I have retired there are still situations where a proprietary option is needed.  Buying a registered version is cheaper than having a resentment in the first place. A resentment is a high price to pay for a $45 software that is legally owned by someone else.

----------


## Tadaen_Sylvermane

> I get that home users don't care about these little issues, but enterprises do.


For home users it's not even a little issue. They don't care, totally irrelevant to them. No typical home user has any reason to have stuff outside of /home. At that point I'd argue Ubuntu is a bad choice for big business servers. I don't think snaps are mainly targeted at big business. They aren't required to use them, or Ubuntu in the first place. If it's such a big problem then they need to move instead of demanding that Ubuntu, or other companies do what they want.

The only thing that will get Canonical to change direction is if it hits them in the wallet. Thus far it hasn't. That tells me either not many enterprises are using Ubuntu or snaps, or enterprise isn't their main goal so it doesn't matter. The anti snap crowd is a very vocal minority.

I see it as the same as the Windows  / Mac on desktops, Linux on the servers. That is how many places seem to run. Same thing. Ubuntu desktop on the desktops, Debian or RedHat on the backend. Something with legendary stability, and without the problems of snaps forced on it.

----------


## TheFu

In 22.04, snap packages are installed by default on Ubuntu Server. Some are for critical infrastructure programs, like Linux Container management.

Nobody said that snaps were mandatory, but neither is using MS-Windows to file you taxes.

Ubuntu Core is a snap-only distro for IoT/IoS deployments. I can see where having snaps for non-critical things like a home thermostat or washing machine is actually a good thing.

I get that many people don't have issues with snaps working.  Even on systems with a local user in /home, about 80% of snaps don't work for me.  No idea why not.  When I look at the last updated date for some snaps, they are over 2 yrs old.  So we have the same issue with snap packages that we have with other packages - abandonware.

Hard-coding /home/ with no ability to override that location, or add others, is the real issue.  Flatpaks allow local overrides and flatpaks are specifically designed to be used for desktops only, not servers.

They've started shipping some packages only as snaps (lxd/firefox/chromium), further removing choices.  Firefox has a workaround.  I've gotten chromium to run outside the snap package, still using the snap for installs.  LXD is very different. It is a Canonical funded F/LOSS project that is only distributed as a snap package.  Some Debian devs have taken the source and it is currently in the Debian Testing branch, but had issues which have been reported "upstream" for use outside the snap constrained environment. Will be interesting to see if they fix the issues or not. 

I suspect we'll just be talking passed each other going any further.  Canonical made a choice.  That choice adds restrictions that never existed previously and doesn't have any method to locally override the issues with snap packages. Being flexible is a core Linux value and philosophy, is it not?

The tyranny of the masses/default is a concern here, just like it is in other areas of our lives.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_masses

----------


## iamjiwjr

I'm a home user. I find that, as a whole, flatpaks sill work better for my needs. And the selection is better for my app needs. But snap is getting better and better and generally works fine, as does flatpak. They both have quirks and bugs, but not many.

----------


## 1fallen

As a normal personal PC user, I have no use/want for snaps period.
TheFu brings some good points to consider for anything above normal everyday users, 
The Good: (*and FOR THE RECORD I'm not a fake expert nor am I Canonical hater*, quite the opposite in fact. been around for just under 20 years now, and Mark and the Crew have made some Very Nice additions to the World of Linux desktop's and Servers)

1st " Some are for critical infrastructure programs, like Linux Container management."

2nd  "I can see where having snaps for non-critical things like a home thermostat or washing machine is actually a good thing."

Now I'm just stuck trying to find any more good to them.
The Bad: (I can make this one longer but I won't)
Once again I feel exactly the same on this: 
"I remember when Linux was about flexibility, not mandates. I'm happy that many people find value in snaps and can understand why they do, especially if they've never looked at other options. If it works for you, great."
Just so I can keep my wits about me on Debian, I just went total Debian and snap free, that's MY choice and dose not need to be anyone but me here.

Some (and I'm being modest here) of the most talented Linux programmers and coder's prefer to be snap free. (They just remain silent)

----------


## TheFu

I don't think anyone here is a Canonical hater.  They do 1,000s of things very well.  I like that they take chances and try new things, even when I can't use those new things, provided there's a reasonable fallback position.  Most snaps have a reasonable fallback position and aren't mandatory, but a few are. It is THOSE which concern me.

Lest we forget, there are a few key goals with snap packages.
* Provide a constrained environment for higher risk problems.
* Run on any Linux system, include needed dependencies in the package.
* Automatically patch without user interaction

It is the details where I'm seeing issues.  To end-users, I can see why each of those goals seem reasonable and desirable, but there are some easy exceptions where providing local control would make snaps less of a mandate and provide flexibility for all the situations that Canonical has decided to ignore related to snaps.   After all, not everyone likes to drive a 5-door minivan, because 1-size seldom fits everyone well.

----------


## 1fallen

> I don't think anyone here is a Canonical hater.  They do 1,000s of things very well.  I like that they take chances and try new things, even when I can't use those new things, provided there's a reasonable fallback position.  Most snaps have a reasonable fallback position and aren't mandatory, but a few are. It is THOSE which concern me.


+1



> Lest we forget, there are a few key goals with snap packages.
> * Provide a constrained environment for higher risk problems.
> * Run on any Linux system, include needed dependencies in the package.
> * Automatically patch without user interaction


+1



> It is the details where I'm seeing issues.  To end-users, I can see why each of those goals seem reasonable and desirable, but there are some easy exceptions where providing local control would make snaps less of a mandate and provide flexibility for all the situations that Canonical has decided to ignore related to snaps.   After all, not everyone likes to drive a 5-door minivan, because 1-size seldom fits everyone well.


+1 (I've kind of worn the "Testify" out now  :Wink: )

----------


## guiverc

> I use NFS for user HOME directories and only have local accounts in /home, so most users are NOT using /home/.  snapd breaks completely if the user's HOME isn't in /home/, so snaps are useless.  No other distro has limitations that require using /home/, so this is a snap-only problem that never should have been allowed to exist.
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm looking forward to Debian Bullseye Stable release in 2023, which will include a non-snap version of LXD/LXC.  Currently, that is the only reason I would have snapd on a server.  Debian understands the problems with snaps and is going to provide non-snap packages so admins will actually have control over system changes.


I'm using Debian _bookworm_ (ie. _testing_ or 12) currently, which is what I think you meant for release in 2023 (a quick `ssh` query to my servers on _stable_ show them running bullseye (11) now.

FYI: I use NFS for most of my file-storage (_so I can use different boxes_), and yes I came up against problems with the introduction of _snap_ browses in 2019 (chromium first)  & my usage of directories off / which the_ confined snap_ packages could no longer access; I resolved that by just adding a second mount in /media/ which is accessible to _confined snap_ packages (_two mounts so I could still existing scripts & not need to type the extra 6 characters when it was me as a user, and actually decided I liked that I could use different permissions for the /media mount as I really used it only with browsers or online apps_).  Most snaps can read /mnt & /media as well as inside $HOME.

----------


## Frogs Hair

I have had no functional or security problems with snaps, but I'm not sure if they are here to stay either. I would like to have consistency when it comes to package management and right now I use .deb , snap, and flatpak just to install the applications I like to use.

----------


## VMC

> I don't think anyone here is a Canonical hater.  They do 1,000s of things very well.  I like that they take chances and try new things, even when I can't use those new things, provided there's a reasonable fallback position.  Most snaps have a reasonable fallback position and aren't mandatory, but a few are. It is THOSE which concern me.


 and that, I think is where the hate comes in. I read negative comments all the time when Canonical tries something new. I didn't like Unity at the time, but it had a big following.

If it weren't from Canonical Linux would still be in the dark ages. I remember Best Buy had free Ubuntu disk available years ago. Ubuntu introduced the world to Linux on a large scale. I know its history, but Ubuntu brought it to mainstream. On a side note, I read all the time people using Distrowatch as the rating of most popular Linux distros. That in fact it just a popularity site. Google among other show real world listings, such as:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comme...google_trends/
Even though its 2 years old, you can still get current models, and Ubuntu leads the way. So there can't be THAT much haters in the Linux world of Ubuntu.

----------


## mIk3_08

Actually, I like snap. The application packages itself is cool and it will give effortless access to applications of Ubuntu to the new users of the Linux Ubuntu Operating System. It will not give them hard-time to find an applications in the world of Linux if they where new to the Operating System. And it never comes to my mind or planning to remove snap in my system. My snap in my Linux Ubuntu System is up-to-date right now. I never missed to update this snap application when its necessary. Regards and cheers.

----------


## mIk3_08

> I read negative comments all the time when Canonical tries something new. I didn't like Unity at the time, but it had a big following.
> If it weren't from Canonical Linux would still be in the dark ages. I remember Best Buy had free Ubuntu disk available years ago. Ubuntu introduced the world to Linux on a large scale. I know its history, but Ubuntu brought it to mainstream.


 I still remember those days and the sticker is still on the front on my door. Still alive. (see image below.) A free Ubuntu CD and a sticker sent to the users of Linux Ubuntu Operating System. That was the Linux Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx released. 
https://i.imgur.com/RRUD2j4.jpg

----------


## TenPlus1

Any app that's as important as the web browser should be a native .deb package since so many users and services rely on it's usage.  Snaps may have a place but not to replace important stuff.

----------


## grahammechanical

> Any app that's as important as the web browser should be a native .deb  package since so many users and services rely on it's usage.


I  have the complete opposite opinion. Any application that accesses the  internet should be rigidly confined and limited as to the areas of the  OS that it can access. This is especially true of web browsers and email  clients. Over the years those two applications have been a major source  of malicious code. The Debian Package Management method (deb) and the  Redhat Package Management method (RPM) do not confine the application.

As  regards Firefox being distributed as a snap on Ubuntu 22.04 and later,  that was the decision of the Mozilla Foundation and not the Ubuntu  developers. It gives the Firefox developers control of the updating of  their application. It reduces the number of people running unpatched  versions of Firefox. We do not have to wait until Ubuntu developers  merge the upgraded Firefox into the Ubuntu repositories and then for the  user to update/upgrade the OS.

Regards

----------


## TheFu

> As  regards Firefox being distributed as a snap on Ubuntu 22.04 and later,  that was the decision of the Mozilla Foundation and not the Ubuntu  developers. It gives the Firefox developers control of the updating of  their application. It reduces the number of people running unpatched  versions of Firefox. We do not have to wait until Ubuntu developers  merge the upgraded Firefox into the Ubuntu repositories and then for the  user to update/upgrade the OS.


I agree about certain programs being high risk and needing to run confined.  I disagree about not having local control over exactly when updates happen.  Here's a guy that had to watch the world cup final on his phone because the firefox snap decided to update and in his efforts to stop that (which can't be done), he ended up with a non-bootable system.
https://www.circusscientist.com/2022...the-world-cup/
Sure, the non-booting system was mostly self-inflicted, but running the default system should allow end-users to choose to delay snap updates for 2, 4, 8, 12, hours.  

Don't get me started about not having local control over where applications have file system access and which other programs can be integrated.

I can't believe linux programmers would forget that end-users should have power over their programs.  Something is wrong when that happens.  They've lost the Unix philosophy and need remedial education.

----------


## yetimon_64

On my new laptop (from Framework) I have the Ubuntu 22.04 (Gnome) release installed for if I run into any hardware compatibility problems. This is the only reason why snapd exists on my new laptop, I would have normally "nuked it" off of my installation except for this one need.

Ubuntu is installed with just the basic requirements for running the Gnome desktop; Firefox is run from the Mozilla "tarball" download version in /opt/yetiman/firefox with integration into the desktop environment via update-alternatives and my Chromium browser is from the saiarcot895 PPA. I have my Ubuntu 22.04 install with the xubuntu-desktop package and lightdm packages added so I can use a less restricted Desktop experience. Gnome is good for setting everything up but I find Xfce to be a more usable environment; basically Xfce is much more stable and does not "freeze" all the time like Gnome does. I only keep snapd for use with the Gnome desktop. I prefer ".deb" packages over snaps.

I have voted for "No" to snaps, even though I am currently running an install with snapd in. My usual preference is to uninstall it completely. Making snaps the default has created much more work for me when installing Ubuntu though it hasn't turned me off using Ubuntu, yet. If it ever were made mandatory (impossible to uninstall) I'd probably revisit using Debian or start looking for a new distro; I hope that never happens.

----------


## VMC

Not sure how hardware compatibility would have anything to do with Snap. "/lib/firmware" is where I look for hardware issues.

----------


## yetimon_64

> Not sure how hardware compatibility would have anything to do with Snap. "/lib/firmware" is where I look for hardware issues.


Just for dealing with hardware issues it helps if you use a recommended installation with the framework laptop. Both Fedora (36 or 37) and Ubuntu releases 22.04 and 22.10 are recommended if hardware issues are needed to be checked out.

Snap likely isn't needed as much as a close to default install of Ubuntu 22.04 or 22.10 is suggested (hence snap is included by default).

----------


## Perfect Storm

I voted, no. I use flatpak instead for the few pieces I need (3 to be exactly).
In my opinion snap nor flat should be default. New users can't understand the why snap/flat are eating up their space on the HDD.

----------


## zebra2

> New users can't understand the why snap/flat are eating up their space on the HDD.


+1 I agree with this.  New users should't have to be concerned with how much hd space is used by snaps.  They need to get back to the business of why their Windows partition won't boot any more.

----------


## TheFu

> +1 I agree with this.  New users should't have to be concerned with how much hd space is used by snaps.  They need to get back to the business of why their Windows partition won't boot any more.


I have a chromebook running Linux with a 16GB SSD.  Ubuntu has been long deleted due to bloat. It ran Ubuntu with a stripped down install and just openbox for a few years.  20.04 doesn't fit in 16GB.  That's when snaps started being pushed by Canonical.  Not a coincidence.  I find it funny that IoT devices running Ubuntu Core can only support snap packages. An IoT device shouldn't need more than 4GB of storage ... really 1GB, but we'll give some bloat for being "new".

----------


## zebra2

@TheFu
yep!  My first Ubuntu ISO download was on a CD.  The latest ISO for 22.10 is 5Gig.  Glad I have a terebyte HD. But I feel your pain. I actually started my linux journey with Puppy Linux running on a 512Meg Thumb Drive.  However now that we are where we are Snap isn't exactly the biggest space eater.  If secure boot is being used it takes circa 256M of ESP partition just to get Ubuntu installed. Hold it! I'm using legacy boot and I still needed the ESP to boot.  What's that all about.

I value your feed back but I think we are just kicking the can down the street.

Edit: If you are planning to run 23.10 you may want to get your Blue Ray on order.

----------


## joanne-exists

snap comes in handy on raspberry pi

----------

