Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clear Linux Developers Weigh Supporting Snaps

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

  • Clear Linux Developers Weigh Supporting Snaps

    Phoronix: Clear Linux Developers Weigh Supporting Snaps

    While Clear Linux augments their package/bundle archive with Flatpak support on the desktop, they are currently deciding whether to also support Snaps that are commonly associated with Ubuntu Linux...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...x-Weighs-Snaps

  • #2
    Are there really many proprietary snap-only apps? Oo

    Comment


    • #3
      In vain, it would be better if all to switch to a Flatpack. Flatpack is much better than Snap.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mv.gavrilov View Post
        In vain, it would be better if all to switch to a Flatpack. Flatpack is much better than Snap.
        Totally agree but lets not forget the existing alignment = Microsoft-Intel-ubuntu How are you going to fight that?
        Last edited by Ronshere; 11-07-2018, 10:07 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by oleid View Post
          Are there really many proprietary snap-only apps? Oo
          The jetbrains tools I think are all in snap packages, but also have deb's and RPMs

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by boxie View Post

            The jetbrains tools I think are all in snap packages, but also have deb's and RPMs
            I merely installed their toolbox (via their installer) and let it manage my Clion installation. Flatpak has it's drawbacks for an IDE like Clion & friends, as it only works with compiler and libs, which live in the sandbox -- no access to the host's libs and compilers.

            That _can_ be an advantage, but in most cases is not.

            While snap is also sanboxed, AFAIR it has an unsandboxed mode, which is probably, what they are using for their jetbrains snap. So I don't really see any advantage over RPM or DEB.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by oleid View Post

              I merely installed their toolbox (via their installer) and let it manage my Clion installation. Flatpak has it's drawbacks for an IDE like Clion & friends, as it only works with compiler and libs, which live in the sandbox -- no access to the host's libs and compilers.

              That _can_ be an advantage, but in most cases is not.

              While snap is also sanboxed, AFAIR it has an unsandboxed mode, which is probably, what they are using for their jetbrains snap. So I don't really see any advantage over RPM or DEB.
              I do the same and let the toolbox manage the IDEs I use.

              I think Discord also uses a snap package (but again has a deb available).

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mv.gavrilov View Post
                In vain, it would be better if all to switch to a Flatpack. Flatpack is much better than Snap.
                Why is flatpak much better than snap? The only "advantage" that i hear often, is that flatpak has "runtimes" to build an app on. The intention is to save space, when multiple apps build on the same runtime and so share their dependencies. But that's stupid. When an app builds on a runtime, it won't need all of the stuff this runtime provides, which means I'm getting stuff that I don't need. Additionally, devs will just lazily build their apps on a runtime that provides much more than the app really needs instead of carefully picking the real dependencies. In the end, it results in a higher storage usage.

                Instead, they should do deduplication of files of applications and require apps to bring every single dependency by themselves. If two applications contain files with the same contents, they could be linked to just one file. Apps would also be more stable, because they're using the libs they're tested against, rather than the ones from the runtime, wich could change at any given time.

                I think snap does exactly that, which makes it way better in that regard.

                What I don't like about snap, though, is the centralized hosting of applications. While it's easier for the end user, it makes us dependent of Canonical, which is a bad thing. Self-hosting an application should definitely be supported, and auto-updating should still work.

                What I miss in both systems, is that I cannot install any version of an app that ever existed or that I cannot install multiple versions at the same time, or that I cannot define the name of an application at setup time, like for example give the node.js executable the name "mynode" and then run node programs with "mynode ./app.js. Whoever implements these features first will be the winner for me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ronshere View Post

                  Totally agree but lets not forget the existing alignment = Microsoft-Intel-ubuntu How are you going to fight that?
                  Microsoft Intel Canonical? Seems to me random companies.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by VanCoding View Post

                    Why is flatpak much better than snap? The only "advantage" that i hear often, is that flatpak has "runtimes" to build an app on. The intention is to save space, when multiple apps build on the same runtime and so share their dependencies. But that's stupid. When an app builds on a runtime, it won't need all of the stuff this runtime provides, which means I'm getting stuff that I don't need. Additionally, devs will just lazily build their apps on a runtime that provides much more than the app really needs instead of carefully picking the real dependencies. In the end, it results in a higher storage usage.

                    Instead, they should do deduplication of files of applications and require apps to bring every single dependency by themselves. If two applications contain files with the same contents, they could be linked to just one file. Apps would also be more stable, because they're using the libs they're tested against, rather than the ones from the runtime, wich could change at any given time.

                    I think snap does exactly that, which makes it way better in that regard.

                    What I don't like about snap, though, is the centralized hosting of applications. While it's easier for the end user, it makes us dependent of Canonical, which is a bad thing. Self-hosting an application should definitely be supported, and auto-updating should still work.

                    What I miss in both systems, is that I cannot install any version of an app that ever existed or that I cannot install multiple versions at the same time, or that I cannot define the name of an application at setup time, like for example give the node.js executable the name "mynode" and then run node programs with "mynode ./app.js. Whoever implements these features first will be the winner for me.
                    Why not use AppImage instead? You can have as many versions as you want, and there is no runtime either. No repository though.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X