Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Has Started Work On A New Desktop Snap Store

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by betam4x View Post

    I'll counter your question with one of my own. Why would you even care if it was sandboxed or not? It's transparent to you. That's like worrying about the compression algorithm the Linux kernel is using.
    One reason: filesystem access. Please tell me if it is possible to have full filesystem access from my sandboxed app's Open File dialog.

    Flatpak has this "Portals" thing, but no, I mean, direct filesystem access.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by treba View Post

      Flatpak is not limited to flathub. Fedora Silverblue will use flatpak by default, but from official fedora repos, so that's not an argument (or lets say it only applies for ubuntu). For desktop apps I personally find flatpaks far superior to snaps atm, especially the fact that they can share libraries, which saves a ton of disk/network capacity. But competition is good, lets see what will happen
      Snaps have been able to share libraries for years now. For instance, if you want, you can use the gnome-3-28-1804 snap as the Gnome runtime for your app.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by bvbfan View Post

        Mean what it is, you bundle all depends in, since you're not involved in their development process, you just became a package of their software, i.e. you should provide critical bugs by bundling again and again or just don't care about and leave user to handle that.
        This has not been true since 2015. Snapd have supported shared dependencies for years now. The problem is that people just keeps repeating mantras as if nothing in the software world ever changes.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

          Appimage, Flatpak, Snap ... an alternative solution from the side of package managers would be to enable installation of multiple, even incompatible, packages on the same system and construct virtual per-binary filesystems with selected compatible libraries and data files to run particular binaries. This would also slightly diminish the need for Steam to have separate libraries.
          This is exactly what Snapd is. A snap is a squashfs which can either contain all its libraries or use libraries from another snap for shared dependencies. You can have several versions of Gnome, for instance and you can install several copies of the same app of the same version of different versions.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post

            Snaps have been able to share libraries for years now. For instance, if you want, you can use the gnome-3-28-1804 snap as the Gnome runtime for your app.
            Oh thanks for letting me know! So I assume updates to the calculator on ubuntu don't need to download 200mb anymore? That's nice

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
              This is exactly what Snapd is. A snap is a squashfs which can either contain all its libraries or use libraries from another snap for shared dependencies. You can have several versions of Gnome, for instance and you can install several copies of the same app of the same version of different versions.
              True. Is Snap integrated with the system's package manager?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by treba View Post

                Oh thanks for letting me know! So I assume updates to the calculator on ubuntu don't need to download 200mb anymore? That's nice
                I wouldn't have to, no. It is the packager of the app/snap who decides whether to use shared dependencies or to bundle them. Snapd is still a young system and it still has a ways to go, but unlike Flatpak and AppImage, it is designed to be a full package management system and is used as such on Ubuntu Core.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by atomsymbol View Post

                  True. Is Snap integrated with the system's package manager?
                  It _is_ the system's package manager on Ubuntu Core, where you run on a read-only filesystem and hence cannot use dpkg/apt or any other traditional Linux package manager for that matter.

                  Quick side note. The Ubuntu community now has two distinct systems called Ubuntu, which I think is confusing. If I think, as I do, that regardless of history, we should now distinguish GNU+Linux from non-GNU Linux-systems, I also think it is both fair and sensical for us to start referring to the two Ubuntu systems as Ubuntu Debian and Ubuntu Core.

                  So Ubuntu Debian now has two system package managers, apt and snapd, but they don't conflict in any way. You can have one Gnome runtime for your Debian packages and one or more Gnome runtimes for snaps. I am certain there must be bugs in the interaction between these two systems, but bugs are there to be fixed and Snapd is designed to not conflict.

                  Both PMS' are supported transparently in the software store. Personally, I feel that Snapd should immediately replace PPAs for as many things as possible, because PPAs are designed to be Personal Package Archives, meaning security is irrelevant since you are the developer of the package you're installing. PPAs are extremely horrible as an app delivery system, since all packages and hence PPA owners, have root access to your system. That's at the very least as bad as Windows XP _prior_ to SP2, which I'm sure we all agree made WinXP significantly less horrible.

                  Just because I've obviously captured your attention so far, I'd just like to add a couple of things. 1) Flatpak and Snapd is only concurrant systems in the case of desktop app delivery. Flatpak is not designed for things like delivering kernel updates. Snapd is. Hence, there is no point in talking about replacing Snapd with Flatpak. 2) Flatpak and Snapd does not conflict, hence there's no reason to pick a side. 3) There is a third point wrt AppImages and security, but I realize a lot of people would find them irrelevant, so I won't make a point of it.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X