this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
145 points (79.1% liked)

linuxmemes

21009 readers
1104 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

    • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    145
    I respect people who don't like snaps, but Canonical will not abandon a successful project (slrpnk.net)
    submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
    93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    snaps are a proprietary vendor-locked format, the only redeeming quality is being able to run them in cli (once Flatpak get that too, there is no valid reason for snaps to exist).

    I just find it midly infuriating (if that even is a thing, meaning I hate it but it's not that significant for me to distro hop on my work laptop) to have two "universal" package formats on my system with Canonical shoving the objectively worse one (from a free/libre pov) down my throat...

    [–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

    (once Flatpak get that too, there is no valid reason for snaps to exist).

    They said they will not fix it due to "security concerns"

    [–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

    I've used flatpak only once, but I am pretty sure I ran it through the cli. Did I imagine that? i might have imagined that, it was a while ago

    [–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

    no you didn't, you can install flatpak using the terminal but iirc flatpak are mostly made with GUI applications in mind, while snaps support installing command line utils quite well

    [–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

    Ah, fair enough, probbaly me misremembering then