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snap allows me to run it with the latest stable versions of Firefox 108.0 and LibreOffice 7.3.4.2 instead of with the outdated deb versions of both.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!

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)