this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
262 points (98.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43946 readers
645 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Snap on Ubuntu. I totally did not comprehend that it was proprietary; I just thought it was convenient, like apt.
Wait it's also proprietary in addition to being slower, more annoying and much more intrusive than Flatpaks let alone just native packages? That not only makes it heavily obsolete but is even more against the whole point of Linux than Windows' winget (if the open source community repo is used instead of msstore), as snap is hardcoded to use the closed Servers from Canonical. That's just bad on another level honestly.
Yeah :/ I just found out about it yesterday.
Snap as a format is not proprietary but Canonical's Snap Store is. And Canonical's Snap Store is basically the only one in existence and (semi?) hard-coded into all the tools.
In any case, on a fresh install I usually throw out all the Snap stuff and go for Flatpak, because for some apps, these two formats tend to be the only options anymore.
Removing snap from Ubuntu, at least, seems to be more impossible with every update as far as I've heard. Apparently it just reinstalls itself if you try to use apt in order to install eg. Firefox and then uses snap for that package. So I'd guess actually disabling snap would mean somehow configuring or editing apt itself or some addon to it. Any way, such a closed design in combination with the tactics Canonical (at least did) use in order to keep snap as a default looks kinda Microsofty to me.
Wann Klage gegen Canonical wegen Monopolstellung?
In Englisch nem Deutschen zu antworten fühlt sich affig an lül
Basically you need to have a list of packages to avoid in your head. :) And with every passing release there are more. Great!!
Since I've gone back to using Ubuntu I've managed to avoid these traps somehow.
While their practices suck, they don't exactly have a monopoly. If they're eventually bought out by MS, something could happen. (So far, MS seems happy (and capable) to do its own thing though.)
Yeah, but this is a public thread in an English-language community.
I didn't know that, but I already disliked it because installed apps don't really integrate in the system (eg: file system access, themes).
Even Ubuntu installs this way something as basic as Firefox, what the fuck? At least I managed to get rid of the snap version and install it properly.
Ahh, I hate Snap so much. It actually what drove me to switch to Arch (btw). It was just so annoying going to install something and having it try to pull in snap and all its dependencies... And of course, if you don't want Snap you have to deal with the inconvenience of finding another way to install the app.
There are reasons to dislike Snap on principle and also very practical reasons. It liked randomly preventing the system from shutting down. Installing a new OS on a slow or unreliable internet connection and want a browser? How about we install Snap and then tell to download that thing and maybe a bunch of random internal dependencies with no visible progress and unreliable error handling? Get it away from me.