
Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages - jonquark
https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/825005/6440c82feb745bbe/
======
psanford
From the linked announcement:
[https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3906](https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3906)

> Applications in this store cannot be patched, or pinned. You can’t audit
> them, hold them, modify them or even point snap to a different store. You’ve
> as much empowerment with this as if you were using proprietary software,
> i.e. none. This is in effect similar to a commercial proprietary solution,
> but with two major differences: It runs as root, and it installs itself
> without asking you.

This is a great summary of why people rightfully feel nervous about Snap.
People run linux because they want visibility and control into what is
happening on their systems. Canonical seems to want to take away that
visibility and control from their users.

~~~
ncr100
Is there no way to sandbox these packages - "have you cake and eat it too?"
I'm a noob to modern Linux.

Edit: Are snaps images? ...like containers?

Edit 2: answer:

> mounted dynamically by the host operating system, together with declarative
> metadata that is interpreted by the snap system to set up an appropriately
> shaped secure sandbox or container for that application

~~~
solarkraft
The main (and better supported) competitor is Flatpak, which at least doesn't
have the terrible marketing.

~~~
superkuh
All containerization is just the fever to the sickness that is the futureshock
from extremely fast rate of development of major libs like c++$year, glibc (no
matter what they say about having stable endpoints), and the like. You can't
run a program written today on the system repo libraries from 5 years ago.

Containers try to mitigate this problem but like a fever they often end up
making things worse.

~~~
zentiggr
I don't run any APT based distribution right now but I understand the
issues... I think the biggest problem I see is Canonical developing what looks
like a very useful tool but holding it proprietary.

If Canonical provided the snap creation and hosting tools to the community I
imagine it would be judged on its technical merits.

As it is, I see more and more reports that Canonical is trying to gain more
and more control and that's exactly what I don't like to see.

Would have tried Ubuntu but they've poisoned that well. I'll have to
recalculate.

~~~
xav0989
As far as I can tell, snapcraft[0], the tool that allows the creation of snaps
is open-source and on github. However the hosting server-side code is closed
source.

[0]:
[https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft](https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft)

------
emerongi
Snaps are super laggy. GNOME calculator on Ubuntu runs in a snap and it is
baffling that whoever made the decision to package it in a snap by default was
OK with the fact that it takes 2 seconds to launch a basic calculator on a
2017 laptop (edit: re-tested, it took 5 seconds).

To top it off, a couple months ago my calculator disappeared. For some reason
I have been having problems with snap applications disappearing for a while
now, even though I have made no configuration changes. How fun it is to
discover that such a basic tool just no longer exists on your machine, way to
fuck up a morning.

I get that snaps make application distribution easier, but please don't do it
at the expense of the user. I've had more success with Flatpak and AppImages,
but not enough experience with any of them to judge which is best.

~~~
CSDude
I think it's because they extract compressed rootfs tar each time to be
mounted in LXC container. Even with a beefy computer, it takes considerable
time.

~~~
emerongi
What is weird to me is that apparently there has not been someone in a
position of power in this project that would go "Wait guys, this is not good.
Any other ideas? How can we improve?"

No, just roll on with it.

There was a period of time, around 2010-2015 when I really felt that computers
were fast. SSDs were getting more affordable and that was a huge improvement,
every action was immediately responsive. In 2020, that has somehow been
undone. It takes 5 seconds to launch a calculator. Software guys really like
to undo all the advances that the hardware guys are doing.

~~~
randomdude402
Somebody somewhere is probably running a calculator as an electron app that
takes 10 seconds to open.

~~~
Narishma
You don't even need Electron. The "modern" Windows 10 calculator takes a dozen
seconds to start on my laptop.

------
mixmastamyk
It's interesting in that I quite like the idea of snap packages, just not
their implementation. I recently purged snaps from my Ubuntu Mate machines
after a few years of use because of the realization of only using two:

1\. The micro terminal editor.

2\. Chromium, because it was forced.

Well, #1 was packaged for 20.04 so I didn't need it any longer. That left
Chromium. For that single package, I had to tolerate my system being spammed
all over:

\- Multiple irrelevant loopbacks cluttering my mounts list

\- Dedicated folders in filesystem: /snap ~/snap

\- Very slow startup, for chromium.

\- Lots of disk space taken

\- An always running daemon! (Wasn't it root too? Can't remember). apt doesn't
need a daemon.

Sheesh! That's not even mentioning the store issues which others have
described already.

Sorry, but a few newer packages here and there are not worth all that. I'll
handle it myself, thanks. What snap does isn't actually that hard. I'd keep it
around if it wasn't so obnoxious at putting itself in front and center of
everything.

~~~
boring_twenties
~/snap is really just wholly unacceptable, how did that even become a thing?
Do the people who develop this software never use their own systems?

~~~
Avamander
I have no nice words about the person who thought that folder is acceptable to
use. Seriously, what the fuck even?

~~~
djeiasbsbo
Well ~/snap is pretty terrible but I am almost as annoyed with something like
~/.tmux.conf and no support for the XDG Base Dirs Spec or setting the config
path.

With tmux it seems like this is finally possible with version 3.1 or by
compiling it yourself but I remember being annoyed about this years ago.

I dislike a home directory cluttered with dotfiles just as much as that snap
folder choice because when do we actually ever not list the hidden files?

~~~
Avamander
There are way more offenders here. But snap is the most egregious one because
it's not hidden.

Name and shame:

* docker (~/.docker)

* Arduino IDE (~/.arduino15)

* GNURadio (~/.gnuradio)

* IPython (~/.ipython)

* FreeCAD (~/.FreeCAD)

* HPlip (~/.hplip)

* IntelliJ and others (e.g. ~/RubyMine[year])

* Cargo (~/.cargo)

* Audacity (~/.audacity-data)

* PGAdmin (~/.pgadmin)

* ELinks (~/.elinks)

* NPM (~/.npm)

* sqlmap (~/.sqlmap)

* ZAP (~/.ZAP)

* GNUPG (~/.gnupg)

* crashlytics (~/.crashlytics)

* Android Studio (~/.android)

And so so so many others just crap all over home when they could just crap in
.config if it's config and in .cache if it's cache. Lazy devs.

~~~
sergeykish
Quite a lot (npm, cargo, docker, ipython, elinks, gnupg, freecad, ...) already
support XDG or may be configured with environment variables [0]:

    
    
        export ELINKS_CONFDIR="$XDG_CONFIG_HOME"/elinks
    

[0]
[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/XDG_Base_Directory](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/XDG_Base_Directory)

~~~
Avamander
It should be the default that my home folder isn't cluttered. I have tens and
tens of pieces of software, it's very impractical to keep track what does what
and if I have to get them to behave somehow.

That export list required got me weary, plus look at how many in that list are
hardcoded :/, the situation is rather bad.

~~~
sergeykish
You can patch it all.

If world does not match your view it may be you who is outlier. I quite like
current convention - hidden files in $HOME belong to applications. There is
value in $XDG_CACHE_HOME - it can be safely removed (like /var/cache).

You force your view on open source community, _that_ is rather bad.

~~~
Avamander
> You can patch it all.

As I said, impractical, not a solution.

> If world does not match your view it may be you who is outlier.

Looking at the amount of software that does follow the base directory
specification, actually you're the outlier insisting on obsolete conventions.

You and a bunch of other developers insist on those things, in reality _that_
is the actually harmful behaviour for open-source.

Interestingly but yet non-surprisingly, that insistence very often goes in
hand with the stubborness to stay on obsolete mailing lists, ugly user
interfaces, insecurity by-default, git-email, buggy issue trackers, 80-column
commit messages, obsolete security standards and practices and so much more.

> I quite like current convention - hidden files in $HOME belong to
> applications.

The future is now, home folders aren't to be filled with trash. Move on or
stay behind, seriously.

~~~
sergeykish
Lets check. I tolerate both versions, use workarounds in my .bash_profile and
share them, actually tried to patch and have written article [0].

You shame software, half of it has workaround, see patching as impractical.

XDG Base Directory Specification [1] is not about your home folder. It is
about default storage, separation of cache, user data and config, a way to
provide another config, so one can:

* remove entire config when stuck with a problem

* remove cache, think /var/cache

* `ssh -F foo` would be `XDG_CONFIG_HOME=foo ssh`

Everyone has a pain point, everyone has a workflow, there is no One True Way.
Please stop shaming authors, they quit, sometimes post it here about mob.
Patching folder structure is the simplest thing. If you can't do that who is
going to fix actual bugs?

[0] [http://sergeykish.com/openssh-config-in-xdg-
directory](http://sergeykish.com/openssh-config-in-xdg-directory)

[1] [https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-
spec/basedir-...](https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-
spec-latest.html)

~~~
Avamander
> Please stop shaming authors, they quit, sometimes post it here about mob.

If one feels that talking about a bug in their software is "shaming" them,
then maybe they should quit or alternatively, just quit pretending they want
feedback or to write FOSS. Same applies to teams writing software.

Not to mention how harmful it is to think that everyone who picks up FOSS is
actually good at it. Thinking people as infallible is actively harmful for the
end users.

> Patching folder structure is the simplest thing. If you can't do that who is
> going to fix actual bugs?

Incorrect folder structure _is_ an actual bug. It might be simple to patch for
the end user, but you're ignoring the maintenance burden, annoyance and
cumbersomeness.

> Everyone has a pain point, everyone has a workflow, there is no One True
> Way.

There are paths more correct than others, some workflows are obsolete and
stupid, and should't be catered to. It's wilful ignorance to ignore that.

[https://xkcd.com/1172/](https://xkcd.com/1172/)

> half of it has workaround

Bwahahaha, you may think that's fine, but I don't.

~~~
sergeykish
Your words

> Name and shame

> they should quit

That's why I've called it harmful - choice between your complains and people
writing code is obvious. Fork it, patch it, there is no burden - if people
care maintainers would switch, if switched enough patch would get in upstream.
Or provide own repository with patches, that's FOSS way. If not by yourself
than sponsor.

How much do you _actually_ care? How much would you pay? Is it free as speech
or free as beer?

~~~
Avamander
> Your words

Without the rest of the context and no, criticism is not harmful. If it is a
"sin" like you say, should we look at things you've said about FOSS projects?

> Fork it, patch it, there is no burden

Either you're delusional or you haven't done either of the things.

> if people care maintainers would switch, if switched enough patch would get
> in upstream or provide own repository with patches, that's FOSS way.

Yeah, and it'll take the next decade, being optimistic. GPU acceleration in
Chromium and Firefox on Linux is a _perfect_ example how absolute shit that
"way" is.

> How much do you actually care? How much would you pay? Is it free as speech
> or free as beer?

Feel free (as in freedom) to just type out your arguments instead of asking
rhetorical questions.

~~~
sergeykish
So the answer is no, you will not pay.

Question was not rhetorical - it is realization of freedom 1. You answer
implies there is a fork with GPU acceleration and no one cares (or does not
answer my post). Ah, "criticism is not harmful":

Name and same:

* Avamander

~~~
Avamander
> So the answer is no, you will not pay.

No, I won't pay to devs that ignore conventions. That's like having someone
take a s __* on my porch and me paying them for not doing so. Plus, demanding
payment is the thing not really in the spirit for FOSS.

> Ah, "criticism is not harmful":

That's just naming, without listing the reason. In addition to that, I listed
projects, not people. Shows that you've totally missed the point of the
original list.

~~~
sergeykish
This is not yours software, you are just allowed to use it, that's you who are
taking other peoples software on your porch (and naming it s*). No one
demands, ever heard of bounty, sponsorship? Do not want to support original
developers - fine, 3rd party.

Out of principle I can implement XDG Base for ssh client. Just like my work -
implementing features I am not that interested in, providing support. I hardly
believe any reasonable man expects complains to work in that case. So how much
would you pay?

Your account may be group of people (and may be not). Project may be group of
people (and may be not). Shows that you've totally missed the point.

~~~
Avamander
> This is not yours software, you are just allowed to use it,

Oh but keep in mind in some cases I'm not given a choice. If I could not use
snap for example, I would not. But it was forced upon me. So I have every
right to be annoyed at someone figuratively taking a shit on my porch.

Anyways this discussion has depleted itself, you have no good arguments
protecting that nonstandard behaviour.

------
red_admiral
Snap sounds to me like the latest of many decisions by Canonical that are more
like what you'd expect from a commercial vendor than a FOSS one. This is
Microsoft-level coercing people into your own ecosystem.

I don't doubt for a moment that it makes business sense for Canonical, but I
really wonder whether there's a market for this - the huge majority of people
who don't care about this kind of thing are on Windows or Mac, or even just
working happily away on their phones and tablets.

Linux' selling point for me was always that I was in control and could make
the system work the way I wanted to; people more ideologically pure than me
have slogans like "free as in freedom" or "binary blobs are bad".

I really don't see the market for "linux, but with commercial vendor
practices". I switched from ubuntu to mint a while ago and I'm really happy
about that right now.

~~~
Miraste
I'm not sure I see how it even makes business sense. Trying to compete with
with Apple and Microsoft by eliminating your strengths to focus on your
weaknesses isn't a good play. Gnome and Ubuntu are not and will never be as
smooth and integrated as MacOS, and that's okay because that's not why people
use them. Take away the openness and you have a slower, uglier Mac with a
worse app store.

------
pjfin123
If desktop Linux is ever going to be mainstream there needs to be an easy to
use "app store" where users can use a GUI to install apps which need to be
sandboxed like on a mobile phone with defined permissions. Snapcraft is way
ahead of Flatpak on this and the current Ubuntu setup works well. On Ubuntu
you can go to the Ubuntu software app (gui) search for software and it blends
apt results with snap results. This really seems like the best way to do
things, common packages can be installed through a traditional package manager
while more niche ones can be installed with snap. A lot of people are mad at
Canonical for not open sourcing the backend but no one seems to be offering to
build one. Anyways the really important part of snap is having a unified
executable for Linux (which Canonical has made open source).Snap makes it
really easy for developers to target Linux with a unified executable which
they won't do otherwise due to Desktop Linux's small market share.

~~~
kelnos
> _If desktop Linux is ever going to be mainstream there needs to be an easy
> to use "app store" where users can use a GUI to install apps which need to
> be sandboxed like on a mobile phone with defined permissions._

Curious... do you think that the world has moved on from the "download from
website and run installer" model? Obviously that has serious drawbacks from a
security perspective, but up until less than a decade ago, that was the only
way to get software on Windows and macOS, and they were perfectly mainstream.

I think the majority of users out there don't understand sandboxing or
permissions models or why they are useful. While I think those are the users
that probably benefit from them the most, it doesn't follow that we need these
things before average users will embrace a particular platform.

> _A lot of people are mad at Canonical for not open sourcing the backend but
> no one seems to be offering to build one._

You mention Flatpak and then two sentences later claim this?

I think maybe you're just missing the point. I have been using Linux as my
daily driver for a good two decades now. I don't care one bit about Linux
being a mainstream desktop distro. Sure, if it was, new (and even not-so-new)
hardware would get better support, and that would be a win. But getting that
is not a fair trade off if what we have to accept in return is a closed-
source, walled-garden software delivery model. Hard pass, no thanks.

For the most part, the only people who _really_ care about "the year of the
Linux desktop" are people trying to build a business around desktop Linux.
Those aren't the sorts of people I want making decisions like this, but,
unfortunately, they're often the kinds of people who have the ability to force
these things on the community.

~~~
throwaway8941
>For the most part, the only people who really care about "the year of the
Linux desktop" are people trying to build a business around desktop Linux

As another long time Linux guy, I have a feeling most of those obsessed with
Linux becoming a mainstream desktop platform are Mac or Windows users.

~~~
mad182
Same. I'm running Linux as my primary desktop and server operating system for
~16 years, and I don't really care if it's becoming more mainstream on
desktops anymore. It's already working perfectly fine for my needs, so I don't
even want it to change much.

~~~
MarcellusDrum
But it should at least continue to grow on the same rate as Windows and Mac.
Losing market share is gonna be disastrous, as it would mean less software
supported, and companies give less time to ensure quality of software
supported.

------
jrockway
I've been kind of disappointed by Snap. It seemed like it was a way to always
have the latest version of software you care about available, but in practice,
nobody updates their Snaps. I used it to get a newer version of Go, and while
it is more recent than what comes with Ubuntu, it's still not the latest
version. Apparently Some Guy updates it on a volunteer basis when he
remembers, so it's nearly useless.

Even if people do update the Snap, it's clear that it provides too many
features. It has some sort of isolation model... that every Snap I've ever
installed requires you to disable.

It's also surprisingly expensive to run something in a snap. For example,
getting the name of my current k8s context with "kubectl config current-
context":

    
    
        $ sudo execsnoop.bt
        Attaching 2 probes...
        TIME(ms)   PID   ARGS
        7603       29266 kubectl config current-context
        7612       29272 /usr/sbin/apparmor_parser --preprocess
        7614       29266 kubectl config current-context
        7626       29280 /snap/core/9436/usr/lib/snapd/snap-seccomp version-info
        7630       29266 /snap/core/9436/usr/lib/snapd/snap-confine --classic snap.kubectl.kubectl /snap/core/9436/usr/lib/snapd/snap-exec kubectl config current-context
        7632       29266 /snap/core/9436/usr/lib/snapd/snap-exec kubectl config current-context
        7634       29266 /snap/kubectl/1561/command-kubectl.wrapper config current-context
        7635       29266 /snap/kubectl/1561/kubectl config current-context
    

This adds 32ms of latency before the app runs for absolutely no good reason.

~~~
fractal618
Some will argue that 32ms is negligible, but I don't believe it is.

~~~
skykooler
And that's just for command line programs. GUI programs packages as snaps have
much greater startup costs. It takes the Ubuntu calculator 4-5 seconds to
launch. It takes Mumble 12 seconds to launch. The latter launches in 2 seconds
as a native package, and the former, well, is a calculator app - I don't have
access to a non-snap version of the Ubuntu calculator anymore but is should
launch virtually instantly.

------
kd913
The reason for why the backend for the snap store hasn't been opensourced has
been explained multiple times. Namely that it would be expensive to open
source it with little benefit in return.

Canonical already spent a large amount of investment opensourcing launchpad
and nobody other than them operate it. Mainly because the majority of the
costs are for operating an instance which most other distros aren't willing to
spend. Not even Mint operate run or operate their own launchpad
infrastructure. They experienced large backlash back then, open sourced it and
nobody contributed.

The same problem applies here. Snap store specifically from what I gather is a
bunch of operational machinery that doesn't make sense without also operating
launchpad. Such a cost operating would benefit nobody but Canonical because
nobody else is bothering footing the bill to run an instance.

Second aspect that they wanted to avoid was the same pitfalls that they
experienced previously with ppas and now being experienced with flatpak.
Namely they want one location to find software, and one location to serve
software. If users have to use the command line to add a external repo that
has unfetted access, then that defeats any usability gains. That and the whole
aspects of malware/trust goes out the window.

I will remind people that the most popular PPA to this day is a Java PPA being
run by some 3rd party that doesn't offer Java. That PPA has root access to
thousands of machines.

~~~
blendergeek
> Namely that it would be expensive to open source it with little benefit in
> return.

Would you describe exactly what will be expensive in releasing the source code
to software that was developed in house? Does it have lots of dependencies on
proprietary software? If so, why?

> Namely they want one location to find software, and one location to serve
> software.

And this, is the killer. This is exactly what the people at Linux Mint do
_not_ want. This is why F-Droid exists on Android. Yes, free software can be
distributed on the snap store or on Google Play, but ultimately these are
proprietary platforms controlled by one corporate entity whose interests may
not be aligned with those of the community. Users of community Linux distros
demand choice in where they obtain software.

> That and the whole aspects of malware/trust goes out the window.

Malware has already been successfully pushed to the Snap Store. The idea of
"trust" here is also antithetical to open-source and software freedom. Rather
than trusting software because it has verifiable source code, we now trust
software because it came from a store that removes well known malware.

~~~
tyree731
> Would you describe exactly what will be expensive in releasing the source
> code to software that was developed in house? Does it have lots of
> dependencies on proprietary software? If so, why?

If all you're doing is taking an internal repository and hosting it
externally, then it takes no time. But if you make sure licenses are being
used correctly throughout the code, audit to make sure no internal secrets
accidentally made their way into the internal repository (this happens as much
in closed source as it does in open source), and you try to remove any
problematic code, commit messages or references from the code, it takes time.

~~~
kemayo
Isn't it a bad look for Canonical, a major open source company, to not have
developed core software for their major open source product in an open source
friendly manner?

~~~
Andrew_nenakhov
Why should they do everything open source? To keep happy a few bored FOSS
maximalists, who have neither real interest, nor use for the code?

We develop open source applications ourselves, and the amount of jerks who
drop in from time to time and teach us how to do what (without contributing
any code or donations, of course) is overwhelming. They don't care how you pay
your bills and how much effort it takes to make things happen.

~~~
bananamerica
IDK where you work but isn’t it possible that many FOSS has significantly less
resources than Canonical?

------
aphexairlines
This seems like a problem:

> Snap packages are effectively black-boxes; they cannot be reproduced
> independently as the packaging data is controlled by the package maker
> alone.

One of the nice properties of debian packages is the ability to `apt-get
source` and build it locally. Would be a shame to lose that.

Maybe Nix and Guix can provide the best of both worlds here: self-contained
software but reproducible builds too.

~~~
superkuh
Any distro where you have to write a little haskell-ish 30 line script to set
up an environment just to be able to start compiling (or even running!) things
is not going to be widely popular for desktop use.

~~~
ghostwriter
For desktop use, any shortcut icon on a desktop would just be a wrapper script
for `nix-shell -p <package> \--run <package-binary>`

~~~
superkuh
I was thinking more things you find on the internet and then do a bit of
./autogen or mkdir build;cd build;cmake ../;make; and the like. Without a file
system you really do have to write that script and manually pull in the
relevant libraries, and you have to figure out what those are. No autotools
will be capable of doing it automatically because no global filesystem exists.

------
ed25519FUUU
> _The Linux Mint project has made good on previous threats to actively
> prevent Ubuntu Snap packages from being installed through the APT package-
> management system without the user 's consent. This move is the result of
> "major worries" from Linux Mint on Snap's impact with regard to user choice
> and software freedom. Ubuntu's parent company, Canonical, seems open to
> finding a solution to satisfy the popular distribution's concerns — but it
> too has interests to consider._

An excellent and succinct summary of the issue in the first paragraph. I have
to hand it to LWN for excellent synopsis/summary paragraphs in the articles.
This is a lost art in today's clickbait headline where the lede is buried in
the center of the Earth.

------
flavor8
I haven't been impressed with snap as a user.

The jetbrains stuff keeps several versions around by default, which eats disk
space. I'm sure there's a way to change that, but I haven't cared enough to
dig.

The other day I ran `apt install chromium-browser` on a brand new install; it
chose to install via snap (grr) and then snapd promptly crashed ("Waiting for
restart" \-- [https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/installing-the-chromium-snap-
in...](https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/installing-the-chromium-snap-in-test-
environment-results-in-snapd-being-oom-killed/13864)), but apt's wrapper
wasn't notified. I ended up ctrl-Cing, which left dkpg (somehow involved) in
an inconsistent state. Took several iterations of dkpg reconfigure and apt
update to recover. I've been on linux for 20 years, so not a big deal for me,
but my experience has been that snap is less newbie friendly than apt.

~~~
simosx
By default, snapd keeps three copies of older versions of a snap package. It
does so, so that you can revert easily to a previous version if the latest
version does not work. You can disable this feature by setting the appropriate
key to `1`.

There is a negative sentiment around snap packages. Even if you are an
experienced Linux user, you fall into that negative sentiment and even if an
issue is small, it is a deal-breaker for you.

The "chromium" issue has been explained in 2019. Ubuntu 20.04 does not plan to
package "chromium" as a deb package (too difficult to maintain properly),
therefore there was a need for a backup plan if users were trying to install
it.

~~~
flavor8
> Even if you are an experienced Linux user, you fall into that negative
> sentiment and even if an issue is small, it is a deal-breaker for you.

I don't think that's fair. Apt/deb is solid, battle tested, and works.
Introducing snap with this kind of instability is the source of the
negativity.

> The "chromium" issue has been explained in 2019.

And the fact that it still crashes in 2020, on a flagship package on a modern
laptop, is really really bad. In fact I had the same crash happen during a
dist-upgrade on another laptop(!) which locked up the entire dist-upgrade.

If apt is going to call snap, it needs to be rock solid.

------
pyrophane
I immediately thought of Linux Mint Debian Edition when I saw this. They
describe it as something they are developing just in case, you know, "Ubuntu
was ever to disappear." Well, excepting for some kind of Microsoft acquisition
of Canonical ("we will be shifting our focus to developing Ubuntu for WSL"), I
don't think Ubuntu will disappear, but it certainly might become so unfriendly
to downstream distros that they have to move off of it.

------
Spivak
Canonical's decision to abuse the power of apt packages to make it some
"universal installer" is kinda gross. I get the thought but I would consider
is surprising that, say, installing python-* actually installed pip and ran
pip install.

This is totally going to break Gnome Software's UI since it has plugins for
snap, flatpack, apt, dnf, pacman, etc.. and making it so that Chromium from
apt is doing a run-round with snap makes it really confusing to the user.

~~~
rlpb
> Canonical's decision to abuse the power of apt packages to make it some
> "universal installer" is kinda gross.

This is a mischaracterization. "chromium-browser" is a transitional package
that installs the chromium snap for one reason: it is to provide an upgrade
path for users of Chromium in previous Ubuntu releases to the latest Ubuntu
release without breaking Chromium.

I use an example of where Debian does the same thing: on the latest Debian
release, install "mysql-server" and you'll get MariaDB, not MySQL. Granted
this doesn't bridge across from a deb to a snap, but the mechanism is the same
and the technical reasoning is the same. It is to stop users from ending up
with a regression in available software following an upgrade.

There is no "to make it some "universal installer"" going on here.

You may not like the decision, but please do not make it out to be for reasons
that do not exist - at least without providing the facts to allow readers to
decide for themselves.

(I work for Canonical but don't work in an area related to the Chromium snap,
Snap Store, this decision, etc. I speak for myself, and not Canonical).

~~~
Avamander
> it is to provide an upgrade path for users of Chromium in previous Ubuntu
> releases to the latest Ubuntu release without breaking Chromium.

Are you seriously, unironically claiming this?

You broke a massive amount of native plugins. The snap auto-update mechanism
fucks up Chromium's data each time because Chromium gets no warning that it
suddenly can't write to the disk. Its launch time is also way worse. On top of
all that, Chromium just vomits all over syslog due to incomplete/bad
confinement. You even made the damn switch when a massive CVE was found in
Chromium, delaying a __critical __security update for a week due to the
switch.

What a massive load of bullshit.

~~~
rlpb
> Are you seriously, unironically claiming this?

Yes - because when I say "without breaking Chromium", I mean that Chromium
wouldn't work at all because it wouldn't be installed following an upgrade, as
opposed to some things you don't like about how the Chromium snap works but
don't apply to the majority of Chromium users.

Edit: you seem to be conflating your disagreement on Ubuntu's choice to move
to shipping Chromium as a snap with a technical detail on how the upgrade path
for users was achieved. I understand you disagree with the former. The claim
that this is about "make it some "universal installer"" is entirely false, and
I'm simply pointing out why. Downmodding me for disagreeing with the former is
doubly inappropriate here.

~~~
Avamander
> I mean that Chromium wouldn't work at all because it wouldn't be installed
> following an upgrade

Because you don't ship it as a normal package any more, which is caused by
you. Calling it something you did "for the users for the sake of not breaking
it" is really rather nasty.

> you seem to be conflating your disagreement on Ubuntu's choice to move to
> shipping Chromium as a snap with a technical detail on how the upgrade path
> for users was achieved.

Oh I disagree with both, there's no conflation there.

------
roryokane
I think the LWN article misunderstands what Ken VanDine meant by “pressure” in
the following quote:

> By shipping such a key application as a snap it will continue to keep
> pressure on to ensure we keep improving the experience while also reducing
> our maintenance burden for the LTS and future releases of Ubuntu.

The article takes the quote to mean that “Canonical … is using [Snap] to apply
pressure where it wants to see change” and implies that Canonical is trying to
pressure distros like Linux Mint to support Snap. But I think VanDine meant
only that using Snap in a high-profile package puts pressure on _Canonical_ to
make Snap easier to use in _Ubuntu_.

That’s a less controversial goal than the one implied by the article. Of
course, whether Canonical’s actions are truly motivated by that goal is a
separate discussion topic.

------
jeffdavis
I've been wondering for a while whether the concept of "open source" and its
connection to freedom are becoming meaningless.

Source code has been a dynamic thing for a while, and I think that's part of
the reason the GPL (at least v2) is not very popular any more. I mean, nobody
really even wants source code, it's just a maintenance headache.

Even after complexity started to take over, there was still the argument that
you could audit your computer if it was doing something funny, or ask a
different company to maintain it for you, instead. But that seems less and
less practical as time goes on. The company that wrote the software is really
the only game in town to keep it useful.

Snaps are a logical extension of this phenomenon. They cross a line in the
sand, perhaps, but basically just continue a trend already going on.

Also, the unix security model seems fundamentally bad. The idea that any code
you execute can delete everything in your home directory is insane. It imposes
a huge burden of trust on your software distribution system for the most
trivial things. That reduces the practicality of using third-party sources.

I'm not really defending snaps and I will probably avoid them as long as I
can. But I sort of feel like the battle might already be lost.

------
jefft255
I wonder if it is finally time for me to give Arch a try. It's a shame that
all my lab's machines run Ubuntu; although I find it solid, this sort of
controlling behavior by Canonical seems against the spirit of FOSS.

~~~
bityard
You might like Linux Mint or Pop OS, both of which are re-spins of Ubuntu
without snaps.

Or for that matter, regular old Debian probably has 99% of what you need.

~~~
kelnos
Adding a vote for regular old Debian. My strategy is to run Debian testing,
and then 6 months or so after it's promoted to stable, switch back to the new
testing branch. This way I get a reasonably stable experience (Debian's view
of "testing" is at least as stable as many other distros' view of "stable"),
avoid the large churn in testing right after a new stable series is released,
and still get to use all the newest stuff.

The only thing to watch for is testing isn't covered by the Debian security
team, so you need to pay attention to security advisories and make a call to
keep or uninstall if a package you use has a security issue, as testing often
doesn't get security fixes until a week or so after stable does.

~~~
slenk
Been using debian for a few years and loved it. Ubuntu calling their own
website on every shell login is a serious problem

------
trashburger
It's very funny that this article is two places above the article about how
Canonical is bringing Flutter to Linux via the Snap Store. Some choice quotes
from that article:

> Flutter’s native cross-platform story is growing rapidly and Canonical
> wanted to be at the vanguard.

> By making Linux a first class Flutter platform, Canonical is inviting
> application developers to publish their apps to millions of Linux users and
> broaden the availability of high quality applications available to them.

> Canonical will continue to collaborate with Google to further improve Linux
> support and maintain feature parity with the other supported platforms.

------
Animats
Is it time to switch from Ubuntu to Mint? Does Mint have enough repositories
that work? I'm at Ubuntu 18.04 LTS, and Ubuntu 20 seems to have a host of
unwanted Canonical-oriented features. I'd appreciate comments.

~~~
gitgud
> _" Ubuntu 20 seems to have a host of unwanted Canonical-oriented features."_

I'm curious, what "Canonical-oriented" features are you referring to? (besides
snap)

After the move to Gnome, I've found Ubuntu to be less and less "Canonical-
oriented"... which is good

------
Darmody
Just today I switched from Ubuntu to Pop_OS (I hate that name). Unity was
giving me some trouble as it's starting to conflict with all the newer stuff
so I had to make a decision.

I dislike Gnome Shell. It's clean and fast but the GUI is "locked" to the main
monitor and I can't even switch windows without looking at it.

But I love how the distro is made focusing on a good user experience. To give
you an example, the shop (software center) allows me to choose between deb
packages and flatpak if available. Sounds like something obvious, but after
having snaps shovelled down my throat when I was thinking I was installing deb
packages, this means I can finally trust my distro again.

Now the only thing I need is a good DE. Maybe the next decade.

~~~
dTal
[https://support.system76.com/articles/desktop-
environment/](https://support.system76.com/articles/desktop-environment/)

I don't use Pop!_OS, but I recommend Plasma.

~~~
Darmody
I know Plasma, I can't stand the inconsistency and the ugliness.

------
ho_schi
Use Flatpak.

It just another bad move from Canonical in a long list of terrible failures,
which weakend Linux fundamentally: * Upstart vs Systemd * Mir vs Wayland *
Snap vs. Flatpak * Unity vs. GNOME and Gtk * Ubuntu Phone vs. you should have
teamed up with Nokia and Maemo before...

Looks like they don't learn. The fork and fight against the others and always
lose.

Nowadays Ubuntu is upstreaming usefull patches to GNOME, again. Thank you! But
imagine what GNOME and Gtk could be look like already, when Ubuntu had
"helped" them earlier. I could be already a lot of better years ago? Mutter,
Gtk, Terminal and Nautilus. GNOME is healthy! But they could so much better
years ago.

Forking is good thing, when it aims initially for a merge.

------
jwlake
I'm unclear why ubuntu needs the chromium package in apt. Seems like they
should just stop publishing apt packages for chromium, only publish in snap,
and steer users into using snap for installs and not apt. Seems less confusing
and wins or loses on its merit.

~~~
berkes
On latest LTS (Ubuntu 20.04 LTS) the apt version is simply a transitional
package. It installs the snap for you.

It says so on the description directly next to the name: "Transitional package
- chromium-browser -> chromium snap"

There only for people upgrading, so they are not suddenly surprised seeing
their browser gone.

~~~
jwlake
Just seems like an unintended consequences confusing situation. I think a
pretty rational policy would to _never_ have an apt package install a snap
package. Moving to snap is a breaking change, effectively, so you have to bite
the bullet at some point.

Mixing your distribution systems with references to each other seems like a
recipe for confusion and anger. And it looks like they got the expected
outcome.

~~~
yxhuvud
Then people get stuck on old insecure versions of chromium. Or it simply
disappears. Do you really think that doesn't create confusion and anger?

~~~
berkes
> Or it simply disappears.

Worse. Because when you then search the "software store", and install
chromium, all your bookmarks, history, forms and other state is lost. At least
the "apt package" migrates that for users.

------
tom_devref
You can avoid snaps by using Synaptic Package Manager. I learned this the hard
way after installing Xubuntu 20.04 and finding every piece of software I
installed from Ubuntu Software Center was either a slow, buggy or completely
broken snap image.

------
hamandcheese
My only brief experience with Snap packages was installing golang (on Ubuntu).
I was just dabbling, and the snap package seemed to be a lot more recent than
the apt version, so I went for it.

A week or so later, I guess the snap package auto-updated itself, because my
go installation broke with an error about how the go tool version no longer
matches the currently running version of go.

That pretty much ruined Snap in my mind, particularly for system software.

------
einpoklum
This snap business is what we get when commercial interests try to warp the
concept of FOSS distributions. That's what we get for letting companies such
as Canonical and Red Hat control so much of the distribution space (and I
mention Red Hat because of systemd, which has made its inroads much more
successfully).

And snap is bad not just because you can't patch, or pin, or set up a snap
mirror etc. The whole concept is bad.

That

------
rootbear
I dislike how snap clutters up my df listings. I have to pipe them through
grep to get rid of the noise:

    
    
      df -h | grep -v /snap
    

An option to ls to suppress all loopback mounts might be a nice option.

~~~
Symbiote

      alias df='df --exclude-type=tmpfs --exclude-type=devtmpfs --exclude-type=squashfs'

~~~
mixmastamyk

        sudo apt autoremove --purge snapd  # ;-)

~~~
kakd
&& sudo apt-mark hold snapd

------
speakspokespok
Suse has been around just as long as RedHat, put out a great suite of
products, went for-profit, and seems to do well in the EU market. They've
never generated as much buzz - good or bad - though. Is that just my
perspective from being in the American linux bubble? Centos, RHEL, Debian,
Ubuntu, Arch even; I hear about those players all the time.

------
osd5
Installed ubuntu 18.04, purged snapd. It was back after `do-release-upgrade`
to 20.04

~~~
the_af
I installed 18.04 a couple of weeks ago, after software I needed didn't work
for 16.04. I don't need snaps and want to continue using .debs (which so far
I'm doing, but some snap apps come preinstaled).

What is the cleanest way of ditch the snap system and its preinstalled apps?
I'm assuming this won't break anything important.

PS: I'm not planning on installing 20.04 any time soon. At least not until the
dust really settles. I don't see the point of running the absolutely latest
version until there is a strong, evidence-backed consensus on its strong and
weak points.

~~~
lioeters
sudo rm -rf /var/cache/snapd/

sudo apt autoremove --purge snapd gnome-software-plugin-snap

rm -fr ~/snap

From: [https://askubuntu.com/questions/1035915/how-to-remove-
snap-s...](https://askubuntu.com/questions/1035915/how-to-remove-snap-store-
from-ubuntu)

\---

..Or..

sudo apt purge snapd

rm -vrf ~/snap

# following may not be required as apt purge already removes them

sudo rm -vrf /snap /var/snap /var/lib/snapd /var/cache/snapd /usr/lib/snapd

# trying to install some package like chromium-browser will bring back snapd

# make sure snapd is not installed as a dependency anymore

# downside is that some package installation might fail because of dependecy
on snapd

sudo apt-mark hold snapd

From: [https://www.kevin-custer.com/blog/disabling-snaps-in-
ubuntu-...](https://www.kevin-custer.com/blog/disabling-snaps-in-
ubuntu-20-04/)

------
fractal618
I'm hoping they will switch their base to Clear Linux. I have been using Clear
Linux on my personal laptop, and it's been a fantastic experience so far.

~~~
pyrophane
What's been fantastic about it? I'm genuinely interested. My only real
familiarity with Clear is that I see it dominating those Phoronix benchmarks,
but I didn't know it was a complete end-user distro.

~~~
fractal618
I've been using it for a few days now, and it's solid. My personal laptop is
getting older, so it's hard to comment on perfomance, but i was able to
install a steam video game "path of exile without touching the terminal or
file manager.

------
unethical_ban
I haven't used Snap much, but I would like to add this: The Ubuntu Software
Center (and debian packaging in general) is not gen-pop friendly. There are
library packages, support packages, metapackages, and when you search, the
results are shaky, non-existent, or overwhelmed by results no end-user would
be interested in installing standalone.

There is also the issue of dependencies, and there is some elegance in the
design philosophy of "package everything for a program and install it
standalone" vs. having shared libraries.

So I see the benefit in an app-store. Someone below said "snap is horrible"
because it's lock in. It isn't! Ubuntu hasn't taken away apt.

But simple, easy package distribution to nontechnical users, for the benefit
of stability and ease of use, is a noble one.

------
iso1631
Between VLC, Snap and Ubuntu I'm seriously considering installing Windows -
last time I did was Windows 98.

Given up trying to compile VLC thanks to usual the usual python mess
(ImportError: No module named 'nasm')

VLC don't bother distributing debs any more, just these shit snaps.

In years gone by distributions used to do a good job of keeping systems
healthy.

They no longer seem to care about the old way of doing that though, things
like debs and make just aren't cool any more. Instead you have 160 different
package managers all fighting each other, which you then install to update
your build environment to install another package manager to build a new build
system to eventually dig down to generate some shitty python crap which runs a
gcc command.

------
whalesalad
One of the first things I do on any Ubuntu-based box is remove snap
completely.

------
tkuraku
For me, flatpaks are a better user experience in just about every way. The one
feature they are missing is that there is no equivalent to the snap --classic
confinement. That means that for applications like vscode the flatpak
experience is very poor. You cannot easily access command line tools from the
editor. For instance using the anaconda python distribution from the vscode
flatpak is a pain.

------
nullc
To call Ubuntu snap a security disaster would be a tremendous understatement.

------
freetime2
> The problems with Linux Mint came to a head when Ubuntu moved Chromium to
> Snap distribution in Ubuntu 19.10. On the surface, that isn't a problem in
> and of itself — the Linux Mint project can always start providing its own
> Chromium APT packages. The problem was the decision to change the Ubuntu
> chromium-browser APT package itself upstream in Ubuntu. Previously, that
> package would simply install Chromium directly. With the change, it would
> instead install the Snap package-management tools first and then install the
> Snap equivalent of the Chromium package — without making it clear to the
> user what was happening.

I don't have any issues with this behavior. I find it really annoying when I
find a package I am looking for on apt and install it, only to realize that
it's way out of date, and I'm supposed to install it via snap or some other
means to get a reasonably up to date version. Pointing apt at the snap store
is a nice convenience in my opinion.

------
chimen
The fact that you have to post on a forum and argue with people why you need
permission X for your snap package was enough for me to abort publishing on
this platform. I should ask permissions from the users not from the platform
publishers on a forum post.

~~~
donmcronald
This is exactly the issue I have with it. It feels like an attempt to control
app distribution on Linux. No thanks.

I'm so sick of the app store model. The app stores usurp control of
distribution from developers which adds risk which reduces willingness to
invest and the result is that app stores attract low effort, low value apps
unless they're coming from a huge company. Everyone loses except the app store
owners, big platforms like Facebook and Spotify, and spammers / scammers.

The app store model is one of the worst things to happen to tech in my
lifetime.

------
znpy
yesterday I finally decided to investigate why gnome-calculator was so slow at
starting up in my ubuntu-based xfce desktop.

It's a snap. instead of just launching a stupid binary (it's a f-ing
calculator for christ's sake) somebody decided it was better to use a snap,
mount a filesystem, add a cgroup and everything.

For me that was the last straw: I eradicated all the snaps in my system,
uninstalled snapd and everything gnome-related that I could. Jesus christ.

Again, it's a f-cking calculator.

I don't need a snap for that.

That's what get people hating snaps.

For the record, I'm now using xcalc. It's less pretty but it starts
IMMEDIATELY.

------
addicted
I usually go with Ubuntu on cloud platforms because it’s one of the defaults.

Any suggestions on what’s a good alternative distributor go with that is
widely supported and easily available on the variety of cloud platforms?

~~~
john-shaffer
I'm very happy with Debian. I mostly like Ubuntu, but I can't have snapd
restarting things whenever it feels like it.

------
dzonga
snap vs flatpak vs appimages once again shows the fragmentation within the
linux desktop ecosystem. as a user, it makes me sad, cz I can't have one good
solid experience. snap, updates might break, flatpak is not fully supported.

And my strong belief, is Microsoft is going to eat Linux Desktop. WSL to run
your server apps and coding environment. windows for user apps. as someone who
hasn't used windows in over 10 years, day by day seems windows is gonna be the
future. sad to say, but true.

~~~
gitgud
> _" snap vs flatpak vs appimages once again shows the fragmentation within
> the linux desktop ecosystem."_

A common misconception about the FOSS ecosystem is that many similar projects
is "wasted effort". In reality, diversity is what allows for progress and
flexibility. Otherwise you end up with a single package manager which nobody
can change AKA mono-culture.

> " _Microsoft is going to eat Linux Desktop. WSL to run your server apps and
> coding environment._ "

Only if Microsoft make their OS free, otherwise you're buying windows to run a
translation layer of Linux (WSL) on top of it... doesn't make sense to a lot
of people...

~~~
rvz
> A common misconception about the FOSS ecosystem is that many similar
> projects is "wasted effort".

From a developers and users perspecive, it is a wasted effort. Users still
keep wasting time 'choosing' a distro. There's 1 form of Windows and macOS to
choose and support. For a software vendor, you need to 'define support'. I can
support all Windows and macOS users, but I can only target a certain amount of
Linux users on some selected distros which isn't all Linux users.

Perhaps the reason the Linux desktop has failed is because of the lack of a
standard desktop or common SDKs other than the Linux kernel itself.

> In reality, diversity is what allows for progress and flexibility. Otherwise
> you end up with a single package manager which nobody can change AKA mono-
> culture.

Just look at the tons of distro configurations that a software vendor needs to
test for which is why many companies place some Linux distros as under having
'unsupported' status and have to target a select few, unlike Windows and
macOS.

The best "Linux Desktop" to support is WSL.

~~~
gitgud
> _" From a developers and users perspective, it is a wasted effort."_

My point is that, the perceived "wasted effort" is actually learning and re-
thinking the desktop. Many novel approaches to simpler OS's and package
managers have risen, due to the diversity of the FOSS ecosystem.

Just like Darwinian evolution, many projects spawn into existence, only the
fittest survive. The projects/distro's that don't survive were not a _waste_ ,
they serve to prove which ideas work/don't work. Making all projects better
off.

> _" Just look at the tons of distro configurations that a software vendor
> needs to test for"_

True there's many distros, but there's no reason to support them all, only the
biggest. It's similar to translating books into other languages, you would
translate a book to [1] Dumi, as it's the least used language on Earth.

Most Vendors only support the top OS's which are probably Windows, MacOS and
Ubuntu.

> _" Perhaps the reason the Linux desktop has failed is because of the lack of
> a standard desktop or common SDKs other than the Linux kernel itself."_

This is a real point, and is something snap, flatpack etc. are trying to fix.
Maybe one day a Linux desktop will unify on a standard...

[1] [https://www.daytranslations.com/blog/rare-languages-
spoken/#...](https://www.daytranslations.com/blog/rare-languages-
spoken/#:~:text=Dumi%20is%20the%20world's%20least%20spoken%20language%20and%20one%20of%20the%20rarest).

------
djeiasbsbo
Lately i've been using flatpak to install many applications and then `flatpak-
override` to remove any unwanted permissions from those apps. Usually i try to
completely sandbox them by only giving them access to a specific folder on
disk.

However, here on HackerNews i've seen many articles about how "flatpak is
dangerous" lately. Is there any real concern? If yes, what would be another
option? Appimages? I definitely don't want to rely on snaps now...

------
leommoore
I did find it particularly annoying when I upgraded to Ubuntu 20.04 and seemed
to duplicate applications. Adding a snap version side by side with my old
applications.

------
pkaye
Why do they base it on Ubuntu instead of Debian anyway?

~~~
michaelmrose
To derive substantial value from software which is packaged specifically for
Ubuntu but not Debian?

To have relatively up to date software without running unstable?

------
rdfi
The Ubuntu podcast has a very recent episode about this:
[https://ubuntupodcast.org/2020/06/25/s13e14-ace-of-
spades/](https://ubuntupodcast.org/2020/06/25/s13e14-ace-of-spades/)

The conversation around snaps starts at 5:20.

It sounded to me that they genuinely tried to put themselves in both side's
shoes.

------
Kliment
Also see here for all the snap-specific bugs in chromium (bugs that only exist
in the snap version, and not with the normal one)
[https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chromium-
browser/+...](https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chromium-
browser/+bugs?field.tag=snap)

------
teekert
Actually Canoncial employees claim that many things claimed here are false.
I.e., you can set up your own back-end and you can set-up proxies of to
block/allow snaps that from entering an organization. You can also provide
patched snaps that are presented from a store proxy that are not visible
outside the organization for example.

Source: The Ubuntu podcast Telegram channel

------
dreamcompiler
Seems like Canonical is taking a page from the old Microsoft playbook:
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Will this stop them before step 3?

------
Tepix
I am still running Ubuntu 18.04 because of snap. Is there some way to upgrade
in-place to something that doesn‘t force snap upon me?

------
ColanR
I've been putting off my next OS reinstallation, but I think I'll be moving
away from Ubuntu and over to Mint this time.

~~~
rocky1138
Pop!_OS is another choice to consider. Apparently they are sticking with
Ubuntu but are stripping the Snap stuff before pushing any updates.

~~~
fullstop
I've been using Pop!_OS on a System76 laptop since February, and like it quite
a bit.

I use plasma desktop on all of my other systems, but left this one with the
defaults.. so far I really like it, but I have a problem with gnome-shell
leaking memory over time, since I tend to not shut down or log out over long
periods of time. If I don't restart / log out, /usr/bin/gnome-shell eats up
more and more memory (as the gdm user). I let it get up to about 7GB before I
updated some firmware and rebooted the laptop.

I mean, I put 32GB of RAM in the thing in an attempt to future-proof it, but
this is kind of bonkers.

~~~
philliphaydon
Going to fire this up in a VM now and give it a go, maybe replace Ubuntu 20.04
with it.

I just tried out Mint but it installs SO much rubbish. It installs mysql?!?

I don't mind it installing some useful software but Mint goes overboard.

With 20.04 I'm constantly sitting at 20-27gb of used memory when doing dev
work.

~~~
fullstop
One thing which I very much liked about it is that the installer takes care of
luks / cryptsetup.

~~~
philliphaydon
OH. Pop!_OS is awesome. Thanks a lot!

~~~
fullstop
I'm glad to hear that you're liking it!

------
vyuh
When I removed snapd from Ubuntu, all installed snaps and their mount points
still remained. Then I reinstalled snapd to remove the snaps. I could not find
a command to force remove a snap if other snaps depend on it. So I had to
delete each snap one by one manually, taking care of dependency tree.

------
mastrsushi
Can someone explain the need for Linux Mint? It's derived from Ubuntu which is
derived from Debian which just sounds ridiculous.

Is Ubuntu considered difficult to install? Does it not support older hardware
as well as Mint? Wouldn't Ubuntu be more supported if they just ended Mint and
jumped aboard?

~~~
indymike
Originally, it was user interface.

~~~
mastrsushi
Haha, that's like when they developed Pantheon, slapped it on Ubuntu and
called it Elementary"OS".

There are people who lack so much ambition that they refer to sets of scripts
and preconfigs with an OS branding.

------
zelphirkalt
Anyone using Snap to get more up-to-date versions of packages might be
interested in trying out Guix package manager on "foreign distro". Has a lot
of free (as in freedom) software in latest or close to latest versions ready
to install and I find myself using it more and more.

------
GF53F545
[https://globelinfo4u.blogspot.com/2020/07/unable-to-
locate-p...](https://globelinfo4u.blogspot.com/2020/07/unable-to-locate-
package-kali-linux-2020.2.html)

------
datashaman
Hate snapd. Statically linking every dependency is a step backwards, I don't
need to have duplicates of common shared libraries in every binary. It's the
first thing I uninstall with Ubuntu.

------
falcrist
From the July 2 Mint blog post:
[https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3766](https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3766)

> When Flatpak came out it immediately allowed anyone to create stores. The
> Flatpak client can talk to multiple stores. Spotify is on Flathub and they
> can push towards it. If tomorrow they have an argument with Flathub they can
> create their own store and the very same Flatpak client will still work with
> it. When Snap came out, it was only a client. The server was behind closed
> doors and the client couldn’t talk to multiple servers.

and

> Ubuntu is planning to replace the Chromium repository package with an empty
> package which installs the Chromium snap. In other words, as you install APT
> updates, Snap becomes a requirement for you to continue to use Chromium and
> installs itself behind your back.

Yea that seems to me to be a problem.

From the June 1st Mint blog post:
[https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3906](https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3906)

> ...in the Ubuntu 20.04 package base, the Chromium package is indeed empty
> and acting, without your consent, as a backdoor by connecting your computer
> to the Ubuntu Store. Applications in this store cannot be patched, or
> pinned. You can’t audit them, hold them, modify them or even point snap to a
> different store. You’ve as much empowerment with this as if you were using
> proprietary software, i.e. none. This is in effect similar to a commercial
> proprietary solution, but with two major differences: It runs as root, and
> it installs itself without asking you.

If I'm reading this right, Snap is basically trying to fix the problem of
software dependencies on older packages by bundling things together (a la
flatpack)... but it ALSO replaces the various repositories in different
distributions of linux with a closed-source, centralized repository that
points towards cannonical, and advertises ubuntu to people using other distros
and potentially gives cannonical control over the distribution of sotfware in
the linux ecosystem. AND it can do this behind the scenes without the
knowledge of the users, who may think they're still using their normal repo
system.

The whole scheme seems completely antithetical to the principles of FOSS. You
don't have to go full Stallman to see this as a bad thing IMO. From that
perspective, Mint's decision to drop support for Snap makes a LOT of sense.

Also, one of the reasons I enjoy running linux (I dual-boot with windows) is
that it does what I tell it to do, and ONLY what I tell it to do. There's no
BS like Cortana auto-installing or onedrive automatically uploading a bunch of
my pictures to the cloud (yes that actually happened). I already have a linux
distro that takes that benefit away, but I accept that (for now), because it's
a phone. I'm not ok with losing that on my desktop.

------
fractal618
I am hoping that they switch over to Clear Linux. I just switched over on my
personal laptop, and it's been terrific.

------
totetsu
Is anyone using ubuntu-core and snaps in backend production? Automatic updates
seems like a pretty big show stopper.

------
rammy1234
what's in for canonical for backing snap when most can see through the pain
points it poses ?

------
FpUser
Good riddance. This nanny security encroachment got to stop

------
rotterdamdev
How come Debian can package chromium but Ubuntu cannot?

~~~
mixmastamyk
> Google tracks you even in incognito via AdSense. There is an EU case on it.
> It's just snakeoil.

(Replying here because your comment I quoted above is dead! Vouching didn't
help. Must have made someone mad.)

I don't believe the very few sites (mostly work related) I use chromium with
have adsense, but it is possible here and there.

------
Thaxll
Funny coming from Mint the worst distro security wise.

------
lifeisstillgood
should I just give up and go back to FreeBSD ?

------
CrankyBear
Ancient news.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23433794](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23433794)

------
renewiltord
I like the App Store functionality etc. It's good to have a trusted store and
all that. It's just that Snap packaged stuff is slower to open than stuff
otherwise. A user on lobste.rs[0] showed what it was like and mine is just as
bad

Also by `df` and `mount` are unusable with this stuff.

0:
[https://lobste.rs/s/aktv9k/problem_ubuntu_20_04_snaps_where_...](https://lobste.rs/s/aktv9k/problem_ubuntu_20_04_snaps_where_your_home#c_fysair)

------
macinjosh
Nowadays I don’t know if drops means released (like an album), or stopped
supporting. Guess I will have to RTFA. :)

------
seemslegit
Canonical was overdue for cancellation ever since they pulled the "Amazon
shopping lens" crap.

------
marvinblum
Thanks god.

------
gitgud
Snap isn't too bad, at least Ubuntu are trying to make it easier for new
software to run on older machines... they might even swap it out if they get
enough backlash

I've used Ubuntu since 2014 and have been impressed at most of the decisions
they've made, mainly:

\- [1] Sticking to 6 month release cycles. Any features not ready, go into the
next release. (Windows copied this, but constantly miss release dates)

\- [2] Trying Unification of all applications, across desktop and mobile OS.
But abandoning the project when it became clear it wasn't working.

\- [3] Trying their own desktop manager Unity, then abandoning it when
everyone was complaining and focusing on better Gnome integration.

I especially like how they try developing a technology and if it's not working
or being adopted/liked, then it's abandoned by the core team... which is
better than focusing on hated/dead technology...

[1] [https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle](https://ubuntu.com/about/release-
cycle)

[2]
[https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39490848](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39490848)

[3] [https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2018/05/ubunt...](https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2018/05/ubuntu-18-04-the-return-of-a-familiar-interface-marks-the-
best-ubuntu-in-years/)

