Canonical won, it's over

Canonical won, it's over.
arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/goodbye-apt-and-yum-ubuntus-snap-apps-are-coming-to-distros-everywhere/

Other urls found in this thread:

news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10506188
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

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.

>arstechnica
Do you have a link from a respectable publication?

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.

Means nothing until freetards pull their heads out of their asses and abandon all these piles of shit in favor of snapd.

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

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?

Yes. With all the security problems that entails.

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

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.

I gather that supposedly these applications are isolated from the main system somehow, so hardly the same as "a fucking .exe", as user 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.

no, it's like a OS X (macOS) .app
you bundle your dependencies in

>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.

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.

>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.

>this is what freetards believe

can someone explain me why snaps are a good idea ?

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.

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.

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.

>.exe
>secure
this is what microshills want you to believe

Hence why you don't use Snap with network dependent applications.