Ubuntu Talks Up Faster KDE Snaps, But Still Takes A While For Cold Apps To Launch

[jo-erlend]

You really cannot build you own snapstore and no snap "client" package has support for anything but ubuntu's store.
People tried and this is well documented.

So not only would you never be able to learn some basic JavaScript, but you would also never be able to figure out how to change a hostname in a text file. That reveals quite a bit about your computer skills, doesn't it?

Not that it matters.. just use flatpak and you dont have to deal with this cr*p

You are very confused. I am the one who's happy. You are the one who's suffering, desperately begging random strangers for mercy. It's like the IBM is holding your children as hostages or something. It's really quite weird.

[ssokolow]

So not only would you never be able to learn some basic JavaScript, but you would also never be able to figure out how to change a hostname in a text file. That reveals quite a bit about your computer skills, doesn't it?

You are very confused. I am the one who's happy. You are the one who's suffering, desperately begging random strangers for mercy. It's like the IBM is holding your children as hostages or something. It's really quite weird.

"You went full troll. Never go full troll."

[jo-erlend]

"You went full troll. Never go full troll."

That's funny, considering the context.

[ssokolow]

That's funny, considering the context.

What context? I'm bringing facts. You keep steering things back to unsubstantiated claims that it's easier to break out of snappy's "Is this coming from Canonical's store?" checks than it actually is (If it's as easy as you say, then their protections against supply-chain attacks and man-in-the-middle package substitution are terrifyingly lacking and even more reason no to use them) and trying to distract by attacking my character with stuff that's so off-base that I suspect it says more about you than me.

[jo-erlend]

I have no flue what that is in reference to. When did I ever Menton betaling Canonical,s store? provide quote this site impossible om phone

[ssokolow]

I have no flue what that is in reference to. When did I ever Menton betaling Canonical,s store? provide quote this site impossible om phone

The snappy client is hard-coded to only accept packages from Canonical's store unless you use --dangerous, similar to how Chrome behaves without --enable-easy-off-store-extension-install.

You keep claiming that it's comparable to Flatpak when, for Flatpak, it's as simple as flatpak remote-add while, for snappy, if you want third-party sources without disabling a layer of security, you need to maintain your own patched builds of the entire snappy stack and deploy the patched client to your downstream.

(Not to mention that part about Flatpak having detailed documentation about how to run your own remote, as well as a ready-to-run Git repo of the code that powers Flathub with detailed installation guide.)

[mppix]

So not only would you never be able to learn some basic JavaScript, but you would also never be able to figure out how to change a hostname in a text file. That reveals quite a bit about your computer skills, doesn't it?

You are very confused. I am the one who's happy. You are the one who's suffering, desperately begging random strangers for mercy. It's like the IBM is holding your children as hostages or something. It's really quite weird.

+1 for "You went full troll. Never go full troll."

[mppix]

No. I prefer the way the snap system is designed, ...

Alright, I believe we can just discard many (most?) of your statements then. Immutable OS blabla..

.. but aside from that, it is an obvious impossibility since Ubuntu requires so much more than Flatpak could ever provide, which is why Ubuntu had to abandon that approach back in 2011 or so.

This is a straight lie.

Ubuntu has always had full support for Flatpak. I don't understand why you are so desperate to enforce restrictions in the Linux world.

And another lie. I never suggested anything of the like.

I would welcome getting back to a technical discussion. Thanks.

[jo-erlend]

The snappy client is hard-coded to only accept packages from Canonical's store unless you use --dangerous, similar to how Chrome behaves without --enable-easy-off-store-extension-install.

My Linux distro would be hardcoded to verify my signature as a distributor as well.

You keep claiming that it's comparable to Flatpak when, for Flatpak, it's as simple as flatpak remote-add while, for snappy, if you want third-party sources without disabling a layer of security, you need to maintain your own patched builds of the entire snappy stack and deploy the patched client to your downstream.

I have never said that Flatpak is similar to Snapd. I have said on numerous occasions that they are entirely different things that are used in entirely different ways. How many times in this thread alone have stated explicitly that Flatpak cannot be used as a replacement for Snapd?

Of course my GNU+Linux distribution would have its own package manager installed along with my certificate so that the user could verify that the packages actually came from me. There's nothing special about that. I would not have to do anything to the packages at all, because as a user of my distro, you trust me. If I tell you that I have certified that a given package comes from Canonical, then why would that be different from you trusting that the kernel I give you was compiled from the source I say it was compiled from?

(Not to mention that part about Flatpak having detailed documentation about how to run your own remote, as well as a ready-to-run Git repo of the code that powers Flathub with detailed installation guide.)

Do you want me to repeat it over again, that Flatpak is irrelevant in this context precisely because it is a totally different thing?

[jo-erlend]

Alright, I believe we can just discard many (most?) of your statements then. Immutable OS blabla..

Immutable distros, blabla? That is what Ubuntu and Fedora are doing. If you are against that, then that's perfectly fine. You can hate Ubuntu and Fedora as much as you like, but it won't change the fact that no GNU+Linux distro will ever replace their distribution formats until Flatpak has been redesigned from scratch.