
Ubuntu testing Snappy for Desktop Next - baldfat
https://plus.google.com/+WillCooke/posts/AxfoU3N1Ezo
======
orf
I don't see what all the hate is about. The developer documentation[1] looks
really interesting.

1\. [https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/snappy/guides/packaging-
form...](https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/snappy/guides/packaging-format-apps/)

------
colindean
Before anyone gets up in arms about apt going away for the next release... no.

Ubuntu Desktop Next is Canonical's playground for testing new ideas. 15.10
Desktop Next will use Snappy for sure, and IIRC 16.04 will be an LTS that
_may_ use Snappy if 15.10 DN works out exceptionally well. Snappy's
insufficiently mature yet, IMO, and the effort to convert packages without a
Snappy target for some equivalent of `alien` seems a bit gargantuan.

~~~
caio1982
[https://launchpad.net/deb2snap](https://launchpad.net/deb2snap)

~~~
ZoF
So this lets you convert debian packages into a snappy friendly format?

Is that why you're posting this link? Does it have a more specific meaning in
this context?

I'm just curious and wish you had posted at least a short explanation with the
link.

I don't like feeling stupid fellow human.

~~~
caio1982
Colin's comment touched a few different topics but in the end he talked about
the effort of converting existing Debian packages to Snaps, and even mentioned
Alien, which is an old converter of packages formats. This deb2snap is still
WIP but it works fine.

------
jdnier
In case you're wondering what Snappy is...
[http://developer.ubuntu.com/en/snappy/](http://developer.ubuntu.com/en/snappy/)

------
bryanlarsen
Could we please get the title changed, please? It's wrong in at least 4 ways.

\- This isn't new, snappy has been announced for a while now.

\- It's not primarily for desktop -- snappy was created for the needs of
"cloud" operating systems; it just happens also to be useful on the desktop.

\- It's not new: CoreOS and RedHat Atomic use the same principles and preceded
snappy.

\- It's not for desktop, it's for "desktop next", which is an Ubuntu test
distribution that almost nobody has heard of.

~~~
bryanlarsen
A good alternate title is hard. "Ubuntu testing Snappy for Desktop Next" might
work. Probably best to revert to the original title with an Ubuntu thrown in
for context, "An important notice for Ubuntu Desktop Next users".

~~~
dang
Thanks! We used your first suggestion because it's more informative.

------
baldfat
I feel that this has been needed in Linux for a long time BUT it has to be
something that is picked up by the majority of the distros similar to the way
SystemD has been picked up.

It seems so much better to have a user space container system for packages and
a separate DEFINED standard config area.

------
pervycreeper
So how will they push security fixes to the bundled dependencies?

------
Scarbutt
The title or the link needs to be change, I click on it to learn about
Snappy's features, was disappoint.

~~~
reddotX
meh, just read the source code (go) [http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~snappy-
dev/snappy/snappy/files/...](http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~snappy-
dev/snappy/snappy/files/head:/snappy/)

------
lqdc13
I don't get it... What's wrong with apt? I wish everyone just used one package
manager.

~~~
jcastro
Do an upgrade or install an application on your laptop ... while that is in
progress pull the battery out. Package manager breaks.

Atomic commits, rollbacks, and the big one, decoupling the OS from the
applications. Developers can just publish their apps directly on their own
schedule.

~~~
click170
> Developers can just publish their apps directly on their own schedule.

As a Debian user I do not see that as a feature, I see that as a risk.

One of the biggest reasons I use Debian is because package management is done
the way it is, but a lot of people complain because the packages in Debian
Stable are out of date. I think the disagreement here isn't on whether the
software in Debian Stable is up to date, it's actually about what the
definition of stable is. Many people prefer bleeding edge. For me, I prefer
Debian's definition of stable, and I don't want the developers of the software
being able to push it to my systems on a whim because on rare occasion
developers have been known to use their users as their testers, and this is a
risk I want to minimize.

Regarding your other points, could you expand a bit on decoupling the OS from
the applications? Everything else sounds like it could be a feature request
against apt, do you have a moment to file them? It sounds like you've got some
good ideas.

~~~
dmix
> Many people prefer bleeding edge. For me, I prefer Debian's definition of
> stable

Having maintained Debian, Fedora, and ArchLinux machines over the past few
years, I've found ArchLinux has vastly improved in terms of stability recently
while still maintaining close to bleeding edge releases. I don't see it get
enough credit for this. This must be the result of having a high quality team
of package maintainers who know how to push out new packages properly.

Fedora on the other hand also promises bleeding edge - but for years I found
it broke far too often, and yum is certainly not helpful in those situations.

As a result I no longer see it as a "bleeding edge vs stable" dichotomy. You
can have your cake and eat it too if you a) choose your software stack wisely
and b) use a distro with a smart team behind it. Switching to the Debian boxes
always feels like stepping back 2yrs in a time machine, which has a high cost
for a person who likes to keep up with progress in software development.

~~~
rifung
Hm interesting.. do you ever feel like you are missing out on any programs
while on ArchLinux? It seems that when people want to support Linux they often
only choose to support Ubuntu/Debian.

I'm definitely tempted to give ArchLinux a try now though

~~~
tormeh
The great thing about Linux is that if some software supports one distro, then
there's always a sane way to get it working on other distros.

~~~
rifung
Ah! Well, I suppose I was always afraid of having to mess with OS related
stuff instead of getting things done but I think it's about time I learn.
Thanks for the information!

------
tormeh
I'm really excited, actually. Atomic upgrades is great! I just hope the
underlying system is deterministic/declarative because as it is, my install
gets a little less stable every time I do an upgrade.

------
nickysielicki
it amazes me that everyone still uses ubuntu. It's not the 'stable' operating
system that everyone thinks it is. I mean, it is stable, but not more than the
dozens of other distributions that have far more up to date repositories with
more packages, and are more lightweight.

I'm far from a distrohopper. I don't think they're all so different. But when
considering the minute differences between linux distributions, I find that
ubuntu generally has more disadvantages.

~~~
niyazpk
>> I find that ubuntu generally has more disadvantages.

Examples please?

~~~
nickysielicki
It's just a lot of little things... It's not that ubuntu is bad, it's just
that, well, there is no reason to use ubuntu when there are distributions that
do much more much better.

\- PPA's are perhaps the most terrible way of providing more up to date
packages than what is available in main repos. Typically they'll 404. You're
also trusting some random person on the internet to maintain your system. I
much prefer arch PKGBUILDs.

\- You'll commonly find out of date packages. As a developer this is
particularly frustrating. I don't want to just unpack an archive to my rootfs.
I also don't want to wrestle debuild just to get a newer library. I understand
that LTS support is important, but it really isn't that important.

\- The whole amazon fiasco from a few years back ticks me off. Yeah, I know
you could disable it. It's just that they did that by default in the first
place.

\- upstart sucks, and in spite of the fact that they're moving/moved, they
hung on too long because they are stubborn.

Let me ask you this: What are the advantages of ubuntu over other linux/gnu
distributions?

~~~
nl
_What are the advantages of ubuntu over other linux /gnu distributions?_

Googling for "how to install _random linux software_ on Linux" will generally
get either an Ubuntu package, or somewhat working instructions for getting it
mostly going on Ubuntu.

On other Linux distributions (even major ones like CentOS/Redhat) you'll often
be on your own.

~~~
lqdc13
Pretty much this.

Many times I can't even compile a package from source after trying for for an
hour, but the author happens to have a .deb file around and everything works
smoothly.

------
chris_wot
This sounds awful, but what is Desktop Next? Simple google search is
unenlightening, I'm asking the lazy-web here...

~~~
reddotX
Mir + Unity8
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mCPxkPqiUc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mCPxkPqiUc)

~~~
azinman2
Ok so I don't mean to be a hater but that demo looks like I'm supposed to be
impressed by stuff that apple had in os x in 2001, as well as recent iOS
additions in 2007. It's 2015 and this is just beginning development now.

Diff priorities, diff resources, blahblahblah. But come on -- there ARE quite
a bit of man hours since 2001 in gnome, kde, X11, Mir, compviz, Maemo, etc.
Enough that recognizing Apple started doing things right so long ago that a
unified response to at least copy let alone improved would have yielded
significant results at least by 2010.

</hate>

~~~
ikawe
Are you referring to nextstep ideas like the app bundle?

This quote in particular sounds like an app bundle:

    
    
        Creating snappy Ubuntu apps is much easier than traditional packaging, 
        simply bundle all the files you need in a single package and publish, then 
        users can download it instantly. Snappy packages can be statically linked 
        and include their own copies of any file they need.

~~~
azinman2
No I was referring to the UI work with Mir shown in the YouTube video linked
by the parent.

------
jethro_tell
Yes!! Another soon to be half finished project from Ubuntu that breaks
compatability with everyone else. They don't seem to have the devs to finish
the projects they have, and they keep removing the Debian and ubuntu community
in favor of in house development. They are half finished writing a full new
userland, but most of the time it's just broken shot that never quite works
and never quite gets finished.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
So not too different then from another major Linux software vendor that cannot
be named, except significantly more honest about catering to its own specific
direction, and thus less popular and less adopted by the broader developer
community.

------
anon3_
Ubuntu will eventually fade away, Canonical will run out of money.

Have you ever noticed every project they have: Mir, Phone, Unity, Bazaar,
Launchpad

Are all virally licensed, lack portability and drive people away in droves?

Ubuntu has the widest gap in users : developers, yet they're funded.

Now:

\- So long Debian compatibility. That's the one _principal_ thing Ubuntu had
going for it.

\- Exodus / dam-breaks: I see Mint moving to Debian, as well as many
{K,L,X}ubuntu developers. _" Enough"_.

\- It's GPLv3. So there goes a lot of developers / potential for portability.
Just like Mir. You can't write modules for GPLv3 software. Commercial vendors
will be scared away from investing in it. What do you really gain by using
such a restrictive license? Can you see it means we have to rewrite everything
over again from scratch in a permissive one?

------
arthurcolle
this seems stupid

apt-get is great, so why change whats great?

~~~
anon3_
To be fair, from a _packagers_ perspective, it's hell.

[https://wiki.debian.org/IntroDebianPackaging](https://wiki.debian.org/IntroDebianPackaging)

[http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-
guide/index.en.html](http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-
guide/index.en.html)

Compare that to gentoo / archlinux / _BSD ports.

If they actually _simplified* their system and made it permissively licensed
and POSIX portable, maybe people would bite.

But GPLv3 is just a way to make suckers develop for Canonical for free - at
the end of the day - you have _no rights_ over your own contributions and they
have _100% ownership_.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
GPLv3 makes no such impact. Now, if they had a CLA (which Canonical's projects
infamously often do), you could make that argument.

~~~
anon3_

      GPLv3 makes no such impact. Now, if they had a CLA (which Canonical's projects infamously often do), you could make that argument.
    

[http://www.canonical.com/projects/directory](http://www.canonical.com/projects/directory)

    
    
      The following projects are covered by Canonical’s contributor agreement. If you want to contribute to any of the projects below, please contact the project contacts listed in the third column.
    

Sanppy:: (sic), snappy

------
noo5Tool
This looks to be a package manager that will have the concept of an "app
store"[1]. Has anyone found how someone can build and namespace their own app
store?

From a brief read-through of the docs it looks like the namespace of
applications is "owned" by Ubuntu which means it is difficult to add external
sources. For example it is `snappy install vim` instead of `snappy install
ubuntu.com/vim`

[1] [https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/snappy/guides/packaging-
form...](https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/snappy/guides/packaging-format-apps/)

~~~
Ezhik
I know Cydia for iOS does the "app store" thing, paid apps and all. Don't
really know how that's implemented, but other than that, it's APT based.

~~~
comex
Cydia has repositories just like Debian, but there are multiple independently
operated ones in a default install; they accept proprietary software .debs,
and don't take as active a role in shaping the system into a coherent whole as
a standard Linux distro (to avoid clashes, packages get reverse-DNS style
names), but they do cooperate with each other and with saurik (the developer
of Cydia) - I'm sure other people could tell you more about what that looks
like. They manually review package submissions before adding them, but they
don't have the resources to subject every one to an Apple-like testing
procedure. Adding custom repositories is exposed in Cydia's UI and is common.
(Among many legitimate uses, this is also commonly used to add repos which
host pirated copies of paid Cydia packages and App Store apps. Oh well.)

Cydia has some additional functionality compared to stock APT:

\- Purchases - are basically handled as a separate layer; they're the only
part of Cydia which is centralized, and are done through a web UI hosted by
saurik. IIRC, once the package is purchased, Cydia's version of APT sends a
device identifier header when requesting .debs, and repositories have to check
with saurik's server to decide whether to return 403 or not. By itself this is
pretty easy to crack, so many popular packages add their own DRM (yuck).

\- In addition to the short textual descriptions, package metadata can contain
a "depiction" header containing a URL which Cydia will display in a web view
when the user navigates to the package. This is intended to (a) allow each
repo to design their own UI and maintain independence, (b) provide richer
package info more flexibly than a fixed description UI would allow, e.g.
including videos, and (c) allow repos to display ads, which they need to
survive as payments aren't handled through them.

(I originally had a somewhat long paragraph here on how utterly horrid a UX
this is in practice, but it's not really on topic, so I'll leave it at that.)

