http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/goodbye-apt-and-yum-ubuntus-snap-apps-are-coming-to-distros-everywhere/
is snapd the future of universal linux binary distribution? did canonical just save us?
https://www.happyassassin.net/2016/06/16/on-snappy-and-flatpak-business-as-usual-in-the-canonical-propaganda-department/
or is it shit?
>trusting canonical to not be evil
>trusting canonical to not be jews
>trusting canonical to not have ulterior motives
this is why there will never be a year of the linux desktop.
>>55193755
>canonical is evil
>canonical is jews
>canonical have ulterior motives
they are just incredibly incompetent
>>55193703
It's shit.
Also, Canonical are really being super-dicks recently. They are very hard to work with for everyone else.
The big trouble with containers is they're not very good at security updates for shared libraries inside packaged apps...
>>55194015
but do they really need security updates if the whole thing is isolated?
as long as this particular application runs, it's fine, isn't it?
This sums it up
Wouldn't snaps lead to malware?
time will show, it is new tech
remember that libreoffice fiasco with 1gb snap (that they later fixed and got under 300mb)
>>55194403
I'm still using linux as my main OS, but I've been out of 'the community' for a while and I'm surprised that people aren't more excited about this
I mean, this was in the 'top 5 things that linux as a whole needs urgently' list for a good while. I really want to know what valve has to say about it
>>55194504
How do you use a kernel as your main OS?
Nobody relevant is going to adopt this because of Canonical's shitty CLA.
>>55193703
>Closed source server code
>everyone who wants to develop something for Snappy has to sign the Calonical license agreement, basically transferring all rights over to Canonical
>Ubuntu only, just like every project to ever come from Canonical
I'll pass, thank you.
>>55194530
I-I mean GNU/Linux, sorry stallman-sama it won't happen again
>>55194537
>>55194538
the whole thing is on github, someone will fork it as they always do.
>>55194568
But the point of the article is that this will unify and standardize all linux distros, which wouldn't happen if they all fork it.
>>55194600
they can have different front-ends for every distro as long as the snaps themselves work anywhere, which they do
>>55194090
>containers
>isolated
I've got some really, really bad news for you, anon.
>>55194893
isn't that the whole point
Canonical should stop and get out of the linux community. They contribute to nothing, always makes their own tools, forks, and shitty stuff that nobody wants.
So it's literally a windows tier approach that just says fuck proper dependency tracking, we now need devs to update all the libraries in packages themselves?
>>55193703
snaps were not made to replace your package manager, it was made to complement it.
this shit is getting way out of proportion
I can't seem to find any information on whether this crap allows to ship source with the package and allow building it on the target machine, for the target machine.
I can't stand binary-only package distribution anymore, so this is my topmost concern about this crap.
>>55196848
This
>>55196848
Seems like it.
And for quite a while it seems that Canonical is trying to *covertly* make Ubuntu "Windows that ain't really Windows".
>>55193703
The second link doesn't say it's shit. It only says that Canonical's PR is dishonest. Snappy sounds like it might be cool, but Canonical is being Canonical and trying to squash competition.
