Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Snapcraft 6.0 Coming To Finally Move From Ubuntu 18.04 To 20.04 LTS Base, Phase Out i386

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jo-erlend
    replied
    Originally posted by mppix View Post
    I think we can stop here. I did not see any new or relevant information in your answer.
    I do have some relevant info now though, because a couple of days ago, there was news of a new open source snap server. I haven't tried it, but as I understand it, it supports pass-through to Canonical so that if your server doesn't have your distros packages, it can just use the one from the Canonical store seemlessly. i think the guy who wrote it is 13 or something and seems to have spent a couple of days on it. I wonder what that could possibly mean. Maybe I was right and it's not such a big deal to implement the API?

    I can't find it at the moment, but it's the young and promising and productive guy behind the Ubuntu Unity project. I think he calls it lol store. For all I know, he got the inspiration from witnessing our conversation.

    Leave a comment:


  • mppix
    replied
    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    ...
    I think we can stop here. I did not see any new or relevant information in your answer.

    Leave a comment:


  • jo-erlend
    replied
    There is still no open-source snap server...
    What? I just gave you an example of one. Not for you to use it, mind you, but to show how easy it is to implement one for your specific needs.

    Please do us a favor and skip the part where "you did not mean the server". The snap system does not work without it.
    There are a ton of examples out there that have a closed-source server/open-source client but they usually don't claim to be an open-source system.
    A snap server is a simple web server implementing a simple JSON API that is Free Software. The snap system works perfectly well without any servers at all. I have my favorite snaps on my keyring. It is of no importance where snaps come from at all.

    Afaik, snap is also used mainly for app distribution like flatpak is intended mainly for app distribution.
    We don't know how many products are shipped with Ubuntu Core, but we do know that snaps are mostly popular for IoT and similar stuff with the desktop support lagging somewhat behind.

    This is soo wrong.
    There is a lot of very well written closed source software and there is poorly written open source software as well. This is also very unlikely a question of cost of generalization (usually you keep code and data separate anyway).
    Have you ever written a backup script? If so, did you add support for all database management systems you don't use? Of course you don't. You build your internal system-specific system according to your specific needs.

    - You claimed that snap is open source (and therefore everybody can do whatever they want with it, open source software style)
    i have never said anything remotely similar to that. What i did say, is that the client and server API is Free Software, so if you want to run a snap store, you are entirely free to do so.

    I am not interested in building an entire linux distribution in flatpak nor are snaps predominantly used this way.
    [/QUOTE]

    I don't know how many IoT devices are shipped with Ubuntu Core, but I do know that the Linux desktop world is fairly insignificant in comparison to ioT and servers. But considering you had never heard of Ubuntu Core before I told you about it, how come you're now an expert on its market share?

    Leave a comment:


  • mppix
    replied
    Complements, this post has the highest degree of moving the goalpost that I have seen on this forum (and there are some unliklely individuals here).

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    Because the developer hasn't maintained it, so when the API was changed, it became incompatible. How does that change anything I wrote?
    There is still no open-source snap server...

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    That is a pure lie. I have never in my life said that Canonical's snap store is open source. I have tried to explain their explanation for keeping it proprietary and why it shouldn't matter to you at all. All the parts that are relevant to you, are open source, meaning the client and the API.
    Yes, you did:
    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    What does that mean? Snap is GPLv3. Why would that cause concerns?
    Please do us a favor and skip the part where "you did not mean the server". The snap system does not work without it.
    There are a ton of examples out there that have a closed-source server/open-source client but they usually don't claim to be an open-source system.

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    Flatpak is only used for apps. It is not a centralized software distribution. The similarities between Snap and FlatPak are superficial. They are very different things.
    Afaik, snap is also used mainly for app distribution like flatpak is intended mainly for app distribution.

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    internal systems that are never supposed to be used by anyone else, are usually "poorly written", in the sense that they're not designed for public use. it is totally normal that internal systems are not generalized, because generalizing a system is expensive and why would you pay for that when you know that nobody else will ever use the system?
    This is soo wrong.
    There is a lot of very well written closed source software and there is poorly written open source software as well. This is also very unlikely a question of cost of generalization (usually you keep code and data separate anyway).

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    I don't really see how that is relevant to anything in this context.
    Fine with me.

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    Then I don't understand why you're so passionate about running a clone of Canonical's snap store. My point and pretty much my only point, is that you shouldn't. If you want to run your own Linux distribution, then you should figure out for yourself what features you want to provide and how you want to provide them.
    Let us get a few things straight:
    - You started this conversation
    - You claimed that snap is open source (and therefore everybody can do whatever they want with it, open source software style)

    I have no desire to ship my own distribution because I am really happy with my debs, rpms, and flatpaks.
    However, I am calling your BS.

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    Why would it be bloated? The packages are compressed and obviously, snap supports sharing dependencies. Snaps get access to whatever they need access to. That is what interfaces are for. You do not appear to know even the absolute basics of how snaps work and that puzzles me considering the enormously strong opinions you have. But this is all beside the point. I am not in any way trying make you like snaps. The only thing I'm saying, is that if you want to run a snap-based Linux distro or use snaps in your existing distro, then you should implement the API yourself.
    Cm'on man.

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    It wasn't a quote at all. The documentation tells you that FlatPak is designed for desktops. If you want to explain how you would build an entire Linux distro using FlatPak only, I'd bee interested in hearing it. Because that's what snaps are designed for.
    I am not interested in building an entire linux distribution in flatpak nor are snaps predominantly used this way.
    Last edited by mppix; 04 October 2021, 02:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post

    No. I am not making any claims about their proprietary systems at all. I have only told you what their official explanation is
    No, you absolutely never linked to anything official. From the beginning of this conversation, you are merely stating your own assumptions and it changed from insecure harcoded passwords and bank accounts in scripts to to their use of SSO and the former conflicts with the latter assumptions so before you start asking for proof about industry standard protocols, you can back up your own claims first.

    Leave a comment:


  • jo-erlend
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post

    You seem confused, the burden of proof here is entirely on you here since you are the one making positive claims about their proprietary software based on your own assumptions.
    No. I am not making any claims about their proprietary systems at all. I have only told you what their official explanation is. You, however, made the claim that the way they have implemented their internal systems mean you only need to edit a couple of configuration files to use different implementations of things like their CDN and SSO. That sounds almost magical to me, so I would like to see you prove that claim. I have never heard of such a system before.

    Leave a comment:


  • jo-erlend
    replied
    Originally posted by mppix View Post
    Did you even read the first page of the project that you linked?
    Quote: "Right now, installing snaps from this snapstore does not work."
    Because the developer hasn't maintained it, so when the API was changed, it became incompatible. How does that change anything I wrote?

    And yes, it needs your assistance because you (as opposed to everybody else) seem to know that the snapstore is open source (it is not but feel free to try again).
    That is a pure lie. I have never in my life said that Canonical's snap store is open source. I have tried to explain their explanation for keeping it proprietary and why it shouldn't matter to you at all. All the parts that are relevant to you, are open source, meaning the client and the API.

    Actually this is only true if the code is badly written.
    Flatpak is capable of providing a functional server.
    Flatpak is only used for apps. It is not a centralized software distribution. The similarities between Snap and FlatPak are superficial. They are very different things.

    I kind of find this argument ridiculous because you could say this for almost anything, for example: you don't need nextcloud, you are faster setting up your only mail/calender/filesharing server.
    internal systems that are never supposed to be used by anyone else, are usually "poorly written", in the sense that they're not designed for public use. it is totally normal that internal systems are not generalized, because generalizing a system is expensive and why would you pay for that when you know that nobody else will ever use the system?

    I don't know enough about Ubuntu Core. I do a lot of embedded Linux programming but I still have to come across Ubuntu Core. Maybe, I'm just in a different field. My first reaction is that it seems to break a lot of conventions that I happen to like even in embedded systems.
    I don't really see how that is relevant to anything in this context.

    ... you are right, I don't care enough to learn Ubuntuisms there is a chance they get wider adoption in the ecosystem.
    Then I don't understand why you're so passionate about running a clone of Canonical's snap store. My point and pretty much my only point, is that you shouldn't. If you want to run your own Linux distribution, then you should figure out for yourself what features you want to provide and how you want to provide them.

    I would really, really, like to see your distribution that runs every single repo in a sandbox.
    At best it would be bloated and less efficient. More realistically, many packages would not work in sandboxes without major rewrites.
    It is hard enough to get this to work for applications such that they don't need to rely on nasty Xorg hacks but can go through portals.
    Good luck with simple, unless you are suggesting to blow every sandbox wide open (in which case, what is wrong with deb/rpm or if you like distribution of upstream packages: arch?).
    Why would it be bloated? The packages are compressed and obviously, snap supports sharing dependencies. Snaps get access to whatever they need access to. That is what interfaces are for. You do not appear to know even the absolute basics of how snaps work and that puzzles me considering the enormously strong opinions you have. But this is all beside the point. I am not in any way trying make you like snaps. The only thing I'm saying, is that if you want to run a snap-based Linux distro or use snaps in your existing distro, then you should implement the API yourself.

    Stating that 'FlatPak cannot replace Snap' is a complete misquote from the link but if it makes you happy
    It wasn't a quote at all. The documentation tells you that FlatPak is designed for desktops. If you want to explain how you would build an entire Linux distro using FlatPak only, I'd bee interested in hearing it. Because that's what snaps are designed for.

    Leave a comment:


  • mppix
    replied
    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    This is the Google search I used to find this link: "open source snap store github". For me, the first hit is the correct one. Did that really require my assistance? https://github.com/gjsman/snapstore. Look at the source and tell me you couldn't write that yourself.
    Did you even read the first page of the project that you linked?
    Quote: "Right now, installing snaps from this snapstore does not work."

    And yes, it needs your assistance because you (as opposed to everybody else) seem to know that the snapstore is open source (it is not but feel free to try again).

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    Also keep in mind that when Launchpad was criticized for not being released as an Open Source product, Canonical invested heavily in making it suitable as a general product for other organizations and then released it as an Open Source product. But the Open Source world doesn't use it, because they prefer the proprietary Microsoft GitHub service. Why should they repeat that mistake and waste a lot of money on something nobody really cares about, but only uses as an excuse to rage on about something?
    Most self respecting open-source projects moved to gitlab or are in transition. I don't know enough about launchpad to comment.

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    I just don't understand why. They've spent twenty years building their network and it would be an enormous mess of dependencies, many of which you cannot obtain and would have to rebuild in order to be compatible. It would be easier for you to start from scratch and only implement the ties you need. It simply wasn't built to be a general product. It relies on their UbuntuSSO, their Launchpad, Landscape, internal CRM/ERP systems, databases, storage systems, CDNs, etc, etc.

    You would spend a great deal more time installing Canonical's snap store than you would creating your own.
    Actually this is only true if the code is badly written.
    Flatpak is capable of providing a functional server.
    I kind of find this argument ridiculous because you could say this for almost anything, for example: you don't need nextcloud, you are faster setting up your only mail/calender/filesharing server.

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    Yes, Ubuntu Core is an atomic system with a read-only root filesystem, so debs or rpms cannot be used. Ubuntu Core would've formed the basic platform for the convergence platform, with Ubuntu Personal being provided as a platform snap providing a display server, etc, as a foundation for environments like Unity 8 or others. This is also the reason why Mir was designed for server-side buffer allocation, since it would be used on phones, where you rarely have more than one window visible and the importance of saving RAM and power is much greater than it is on a powerful desktop or laptop. Also, having a server-based DS allows for throttling so that for instance, a media player cannot paint video while the output is invisible to reality, like if your phones screen is shut off.
    I don't know enough about Ubuntu Core. I do a lot of embedded Linux programming but I still have to come across Ubuntu Core. Maybe, I'm just in a different field. My first reaction is that it seems to break a lot of conventions that I happen to like even in embedded systems.

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    My personal opinion is that the Ubuntu convergence story was very well designed and if we could've had Gadget Snaps for all modern Android phones, I think that the world of Linux phones would've been greatly advanced. Canonical could've released Ubuntu Core images for Samsung phones, for instance, signing all the necessary NDAs to be allowed to provide the proprietary drivers for those phones, and then they could've supported Linux on those phones long after they were EOLed by manufacturers.
    I have no idea partially because ...

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    I sometimes get the impression that people who most love to hate snaps, haven't really paid any attention to the reasoning behind the system.
    ... you are right, I don't care enough to learn Ubuntuisms there is a chance they get wider adoption in the ecosystem.

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    I linked specifically to the official documentation of why Flatpaks are not suitable for servers, which was asked in this thread. If you're reacting to it, I'm guessing it was you.
    Thanks for explaining. However, no, sorry, was not me.

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    No they wouldn't. The way snap is designed, is for whole-system distribution, so if you were going to use it as-is, then it would be because you're currently running a distro and wanted to add snap to it. You could simply ship a fork of the client. If you wanted to use it more like FlatPak is used, then you could simply ship a fork that uses a different namespace. You could call it crackled and mount your Crackles in /crackle instead of /snap, for instance. That's really simple stuff.
    Is it now?
    I would really, really, like to see your distribution that runs every single repo in a sandbox.
    At best it would be bloated and less efficient. More realistically, many packages would not work in sandboxes without major rewrites.
    It is hard enough to get this to work for applications such that they don't need to rely on nasty Xorg hacks but can go through portals.
    Good luck with simple, unless you are suggesting to blow every sandbox wide open (in which case, what is wrong with deb/rpm or if you like distribution of upstream packages: arch?).

    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    Again; FlatPak cannot replace Snap. I linked to the FlatPak documentation so you would hear it from FlatPak developers instead of me.
    Stating that 'FlatPak cannot replace Snap' is a complete misquote from the link but if it makes you happy
    Last edited by mppix; 03 October 2021, 07:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post

    Show me the source code to prove that claim.
    You seem confused, the burden of proof here is entirely on you here since you are the one making positive claims about their proprietary software based on your own assumptions.

    Leave a comment:


  • jo-erlend
    replied
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post

    Yes, it is clear you don't know their internal setup but it seems you are also unaware that things like SSO and CDN etc you cite use standardized protocols and you can switch providers with a few lines of configuration. I would recommend reading up on them.
    Show me the source code to prove that claim.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X