Canonical won, it's over.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/goodbye-apt-and-yum-ubuntus-snap-apps-are-coming-to-distros-everywhere/
Classic example of "when a headline asks a question, the answer is no."
>Goodbye apt and yum?
No. Nothing in the article indicates that. This is just another package distribution method. Good for it.
>>55087113
>arstechnica
Do you have a link from a respectable publication?
>>55087137
Just like how systemd was just another init system in the beginning. This is another step towards huge companies turning Linux into Android/Windows out of greed.
>>55087113
Means nothing until freetards pull their heads out of their asses and abandon all these piles of shit in favor of snapd.
>>55087113
They'll try and roll this out just like upstart and mir and the other app package format they tried
then they'll realize it's an unmaintainable piece of shit and undo the decision again
>>55087166
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10506188
>" all the third-party applications are installed with them so there are no version conflicts."
so basicly like a fucking .exe?
>>55087333
Yes. With all the security problems that entails.
>>55087359
i dont understand why are they advertising it as some sort of second comming of christ,
it will just cause more bloat and more security issues
>>55087388
because canonical is always trying to copy microsoft's “success” in the dying desktop market
I see they want to copy snapchat's immense success by creating a package manager that will spontaneously corrupt your files a set amount of time after installation
So it's Docker but for standard apps.
>>55087359
I gather that supposedly these applications are isolated from the main system somehow, so hardly the same as "a fucking .exe", as Anon puts it. I do worry over how Canonical touts this safety, as people should definitely stay wary over what they run.
XDG-APP
D
G
-
A
P
P
Statically compiled packages are not a bad thing by itself. Imagine different PHP, ruby, ffmpeg versions on an old system. However, I don't want that bloat for every package.
>>55087333
no, it's like a OS X (macOS) .app
you bundle your dependencies in
>>55088817
>Statically compiled packages are not a bad thing by itself.
Unless you're not fond of the idea of having a bunch of ancient, unpatched libraries hanging around on your system waiting to be exploited.
>>55088910
Which again leads us to how Snap packages are isolated. If they've done a robust job of it, this shouldn't be much of an issue.
>>55089086
>use browser packed with vulnerable libraries
>not an issue
It really doesn't matter how perfect their sandbox is, it won't stop them from getting that precious form data.
I was about to grab the ebuilds to try it out but lost interest when I quickly realized that nobody builds packages for it.
>>55087359
>this is what freetards believe
>>55087113
can someone explain me why snaps are a good idea ?
>>55089522
The theory is that it allows you to keep your libraries updated while still allowing apps that depend on specific outdated versions of those libraries to run. Whether that benefit outweighs the potential risks is up to you.
>>55089522
What I think it is from the description: it's like distributing a tgz containing your binary, along with all the shared libs you linked in with, then giving the user a script that sets LD_PRELOAD to your shared libs' directory. Except Snap also keeps track of what are installed, and it probably also does fancy things like keeping track of the versions and creating .desktop files for you.
It's probably a good idea for distributing applications where the user normally wants the latest and greatest, but very painful to compile, and adding a PPA will cause a huge mess to existing dependencies on the system.
>>55089229
Oh, you meant it in that sense. Well, sure, using outdated software where security is critical is bloody daft, I won't object to that.
>>55089511
>.exe
>secure
this is what microshills want you to believe
>>55089229
Hence why you don't use Snap with network dependent applications.
