Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clear Linux Developers Weigh Supporting Snaps

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic Clear Linux Developers Weigh Supporting Snaps

    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

  • jo-erlend
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Wait, I thought "desktop session" is little more than a non-root user login made with logind or something, and does not require graphical support or even a DE. I wouldn't mind that on a server where I don't want to run things as root anyway.

    The reason they are asking for Snap is to add third party applications to Clear Linux, not because they don't like its package manager, the ability to package Clear Linux kernel and OS components is not required by anyone as whatever is the package manager they use it can do that fine.

    Being able to drop files anywhere and also not usually hosted in places enforcing sandboxing on the packages makes it pretty much crap from a security standpoint, which is one of the main reasons I'm strongly against Snap.
    My point is that Snaps are going to be there because a lot of people need them, considering there are no other viable options for many use-cases. The vast majority of these users will favor Snap in other use-cases as well, because it's more comfortable to focus on one or two systems than three or more.

    You say nobody has any use for a shared kernel and OS components between distros because all distros can manually compile and package kernels and OS components on their own? Why doesn't that argument apply to apps? Of course, kernel and OS components isn't the only thing Snap is suitable for that Flatpak is not. I don't see why you would want to package a LAMP stack as Flatpak, for instance, although I definitely see why you might want a long-term stable, cross-distro LAMP stack.

    I'm completely unable to grok that last sentence. Unless you mean a system supervisor should not be allowed to put files where he wants to put them on his own computer, hence prohibiting the use of custom kernels, for instance?

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    What I meant is that Flatpak requires a desktop session, hence making it mostly useful for desktop apps. I guess you _could_ use it for non-desktop stuff like a web server, adding desktop as a requirement to that web server, but it wouldn't make much sense.
    Wait, I thought "desktop session" is little more than a non-root user login made with logind or something, and does not require graphical support or even a DE. I wouldn't mind that on a server where I don't want to run things as root anyway.

    Snap can install files to any location, as long as you permit it. In short, any software you're allowed to manually build and install on system, can be installed using Snap. The point I was responding to, was that people should use Flatpak for everything and get rid of Snap. That's not going to be possible, as Snap is used for more things than Flatpak is capable of. Now that we have package systems that can easily coexist for most things, I think wide support is a good thing. Not everything has to be a war.

    By the way; this discussion is about a specific distro.
    The reason they are asking for Snap is to add third party applications to Clear Linux, not because they don't like its package manager, the ability to package Clear Linux kernel and OS components is not required by anyone as whatever is the package manager they use it can do that fine.

    Being able to drop files anywhere and also not usually hosted in places enforcing sandboxing on the packages makes it pretty much crap from a security standpoint, which is one of the main reasons I'm strongly against Snap.

    Leave a comment:


  • jo-erlend
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Flatpak can deploy any userspace application, not just "desktop apps".

    Snap supports kernels and display servers or core OS components only in specific distros you write code to deal with, as distros ship the kernel and bootloader and libraries and stuff in different places, with different names and standards.
    What I meant is that Flatpak requires a desktop session, hence making it mostly useful for desktop apps. I guess you _could_ use it for non-desktop stuff like a web server, adding desktop as a requirement to that web server, but it wouldn't make much sense.

    Snap can install files to any location, as long as you permit it. In short, any software you're allowed to manually build and install on system, can be installed using Snap. The point I was responding to, was that people should use Flatpak for everything and get rid of Snap. That's not going to be possible, as Snap is used for more things than Flatpak is capable of. Now that we have package systems that can easily coexist for most things, I think wide support is a good thing. Not everything has to be a war.

    By the way; this discussion is about a specific distro.

    Leave a comment:


  • Weasel
    replied
    Originally posted by NotMine999 View Post
    Windows has had this type of feature for years. It led to a famously named Windows-specific problem called "DLL he11".
    You should keep spelling it like that since clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Leave a comment:


  • Weasel
    replied
    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.
    Amen brother, everything you said is just truth.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
    It is not possible, since Flatpak can only support desktop apps, whereas Snaps are used for things like kernels, display servers, services, etc.
    Flatpak can deploy any userspace application, not just "desktop apps".

    Snap supports kernels and display servers or core OS components only in specific distros you write code to deal with, as distros ship the kernel and bootloader and libraries and stuff in different places, with different names and standards.

    Leave a comment:


  • wizard69
    replied
    OK first off I know little about Snaps or Flatpaks, but for me any ways it is absolutely asinine to try to turn Clear Linux into something it isn't. If somebody wants Snaps would it not be logical to use a distro focused on that system? Frankly Clear Linux needs tell these guys to get off the lawn and play some place else. In a nut shell is is simply childish to try to pollute somebody else's distro for an ill defined reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • cynical
    replied
    The advantages flatpack over snap in dynamic linking with runtime.
    They’re called content snaps in the snappy system.

    https://docs.snapcraft.io/the-content-interface/1074

    Leave a comment:


  • mv.gavrilov
    replied
    Originally posted by VanCoding View Post
    Why is flatpak much better than snap?
    The advantages flatpack over snap in dynamic linking with runtime. It's give gain in size of packages and security updates, because security vulnerability of runtime possible fix without application update. This is a very important advantage because manufacturers of proprietary software are very lazy and not update their runtime as soon as possible.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X