Canonical Continues Snap'ing Up Linux Gaming For Ubuntu

[user1]

Its pretty much evident canonical is nagging other companies to distribute their software with only snap and call it "app support for linux"

Not that I like Snap myself, but I can't think of any piece of software that is available on Linux only via Snap.

[OmniNegro]

Not that I like Snap myself, but I can't think of any piece of software that is available on Linux only via Snap.

The problem is bigger than you think. Due to these worthless container versions of apps, I cannot get a precompiled version of VLC. I can get it via a Flatpak, but in order to get 3.0.17.4 of VLC I have two choices. Flatpak or compile it myself.

So I regretfully grab the Flatpak version.

And yes, there is a reason I need the 3.0.17.4 release. It is not important here, but it is not just because I want a newer version that the 3.0.11 I can get via the Software Manager in Mint.

Anyway. The whole point of this is that apps are being packaged up in the awful containers and distributed this way. It is less work for the app makers. But it is a bad thing for the future.

[rhysperry111]

The problem is bigger than you think. Due to these worthless container versions of apps, I cannot get a precompiled version of VLC. I can get it via a Flatpak, but in order to get 3.0.17.4 of VLC I have two choices. Flatpak or compile it myself.

I see nothing wrong with this. The job of distributing binaries should be the job of the distribution, not the developer. As long as the developer provides sources and build instructions for Linux everything is okay.

Trying to get developers to distribute non-container binaries would waste a huge amount of time. They would have to create separate packages for each distribution, using each distribution's tools. They would also have to watch for library updates that might cause version issues. This is all stuff that we shouldn't expect developers to deal with.

We have distribution repository maintainers for a reason; They're familiar with the packaging tools and can watch for and sync with dependency updates.

[DanL]

The problem is bigger than you think. Due to these worthless container versions of apps, I cannot get a precompiled version of VLC. I can get it via a Flatpak, but in order to get 3.0.17.4 of VLC I have two choices. Flatpak or compile it myself.

That's a consequence of running a non rolling release distro. Before Flatpak/Snap, your only choice would be to build your own or look for a PPA like: https://launchpad.net/~savoury1/+arc...s_filter=jammy.

[ssokolow]

Its pretty much evident canonical is nagging other companies to distribute their software with only snap and call it "app support for linux"

Firefox's standalone self-updating tarball'd binary build and Flathub release are both official Mozilla release channels last I checked. Snap is "just another officially supported release channel". Mozilla went from one official release channel (their self-updating tarball'd binaries) to three.

The Eclipse website appears to still have Linux installers for x86_64 and AArch64 and, while they don't appear to be first-party maintained like Firefox, there are Flathub-hosted Flatpak packages for "Eclipse IDE for Java Developers", "Eclipse IDE for Web and JavaScript Developers", and "Eclipse 4DIAC IDE".

Doesn't look like "only with snap" to me.

[cl333r]

One of the negative side effects of packaging into snaps/flatpaks is that applications sometimes seem to not be fully aware what's my real home folder (/home/me) and thinking instead that it's like /usr/var/1000/whatever, can't replicate now but happened to me in the past.

[pracedru]

The problem is bigger than you think. Due to these worthless container versions of apps, I cannot get a precompiled version of VLC. I can get it via a Flatpak, but in order to get 3.0.17.4 of VLC I have two choices. Flatpak or compile it myself.

So I regretfully grab the Flatpak version.

And yes, there is a reason I need the 3.0.17.4 release. It is not important here, but it is not just because I want a newer version that the 3.0.11 I can get via the Software Manager in Mint.

Anyway. The whole point of this is that apps are being packaged up in the awful containers and distributed this way. It is less work for the app makers. But it is a bad thing for the future.

Huh?
Why is it a bad thing for the future?

[vegabook]

Looks like canonical is snap'ing their user base number

And also, canonical is trying to lock important apps behind snap, forcing everyone including other distro to use it.

"The dogs bark but the caravan passes"

Snaps aren't great but tbh I'd much rather have up to date software than the current situation where half of everything is stone age.

[cl333r]

The problem is bigger than you think. Due to these worthless container versions of apps, I cannot get a precompiled version of VLC. I can get it via a Flatpak, but in order to get 3.0.17.4 of VLC I have two choices. Flatpak or compile it myself.

So I regretfully grab the Flatpak version.

And yes, there is a reason I need the 3.0.17.4 release. It is not important here, but it is not just because I want a newer version that the 3.0.11 I can get via the Software Manager in Mint.

Anyway. The whole point of this is that apps are being packaged up in the awful containers and distributed this way. It is less work for the app makers. But it is a bad thing for the future.

I can confirm. I used to develop a file manager and after some long thoughts how to distribute it I realized that flatpak would be the only realistic solution because all the other options require too much learning, working and approval (Ubuntu's bazaar/ppa stack is awfully complicated, delayed, glitchy, creating .debs requires too much learning, setting up custom env/workspace and whatnot).

But since I'm an unlucky bastard it turned out that flatpaks can't host one type of apps - file managers, because flatpaks are not designed to allow the app to do as much as a file manager needs.

[Guest]

About to move to Mint, just because snap is such a drag.

You dislike Snap enough that you'd rather use an inferior distro? You're here posting about it instead of doing it?

Canonical isn't stupid, Ubuntu is still the most popular LInux distro, it's the only LInux distro shipping on laptops from Dell and Lenovo, two of the most popular OEMs. Has anyone stopped to think that maybe Snap isn't all that bad?

Native packages with dependencies aren't winning. Steam runtime isn't winning. AppImage and Flatpak aren't publicly used by anyone notable and Chrome and Firefox don't even mention they have packages on those platforms unless you knowingly search for them there. If people want something other than Snap to be a solution, maybe look to see why all of that isn't as-popular. Alternatively, contribute something to help improve Snap; people love open-source right?

People that "know" they dislike Snap aren't using it. People that are using their computer for productivity don't care about this because apps just-work.