I’m very beginner of Linux server admin. Few days ago I set up snap version of nextcloud server app on my own Ubuntu VPS server, and I found that Snap system might be focused to build original file system hierarchy in /snap directory, and I felt a little weird about that.

For example, Linux file system hierarchy is defined to set server app config into /etc/app/conf.d or so.
But snap version app tend to set it into /snap/app/current/app/config or so.
It sounds so complicated for me.

So I want to know about how Snap is thought by others. I’m happy if you might tell me something here.

    • moon_matter@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      As the makers of the most popular distro and the creators of Snaps, the format will continue to exist until Canonical decides it shouldn’t. The Linux community doesn’t have a lot of say in the matter. Fragmentation and duplication of effort is also nothing new to FOSS and it has both pros and cons.

  • DeltaWhy@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not a fan, mainly because it’s proprietary. Canonical hosts the only repository and you can’t change it. The file system stuff is secondary.

    I do think Flatpak is alright, and I use a few Flatpak apps, but since I use Arch, I generally prefer to install things from the AUR.

  • hemko@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Think of your datacenter as hooters restaurant. Snap is the creeps there, you want them nowhere near your servers.

  • stdevel@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem I have with Snap is that it’s a rather mediocre over-engineered technology (e.g. decompressing images had poor performance for a long time; see the Firefox snap drama) that is pushed very hard by Canonical. It has a closed-source market and nobody knows what Canonical does on their side for performing anti-malware scans (that haven’t been very reliable in the past). That’s not how open-source works. We want to have a decentral approach like Flatpak repositories have.
    Flatpak is my default, but sometimes I also use AppImages.

  • Gourd@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s annoying fragmentation when even for a stable distributable package there’s flatpak as a standard, and I’ve never seen why Ubuntu needs their own with a proprietary store.

    Like I generally tend to favor native packages, but I can at least appreciate Flatpaks having advantages and times even I want to use them. (Largely when stuff is a pain to compile on Arch for library reasons.) Snap is a non-universal universal package format.

    (Also going to shout out AppImages, which are an entire package as a single ELF file you can run on basically any distro. I’m not sure how good they are for important work, but I just think they’re neat and have come in handy for running stuff on old CentOS in the past.)

    • thehatfox@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s annoying fragmentation when even for a stable distributable package there’s flatpak as a standard, and I’ve never seen why Ubuntu needs their own with a proprietary store.

      It’s the Canonical way, just as with Mir, Upstart, Unity, and a bunch of other NIH Canonical projects.

      I miss the old Ubuntu sometimes, the Ubuntu that wanted to be an up to date Debian with sensible defaults, easy installation, and commercial support. It seems that wasn’t profitable or visionary enough for somebody though, and we’ve ended up here instead.

      • Colombo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s the Canonical way, just as with Mir, Upstart, Unity, and a bunch of other NIH Canonical projects.

        A commonly repeated lie.

        Mir, Upstart, and Unity all precede or are parallel to the other project. While Wayland technically existed when Mir was created, Wayland wasn’t very active at that time. Upstart was replacing init, systemd was created later and draw inspiration from Upstart. Unity was replacing Gnome 2, Gnome 3 was released a year after Unity and was a mess. Finally, Snap and Flatpack are more or less parallel, both solving a different issue, with Snap being a more system-level solution such as for drivers, IoT, while up until recently, Flatpack couldn’t handle command-line apps at all, concentrating solely on GUI apps installed through GUI appstore.

  • Bero@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    For server software I prefer docker/podman,
    For desktop apps I prefer native and then flatpaks

    • Widget@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      The idea itself is reasonable enough: get some security by isolating packages from each other, and avoid python-style package conflicts by isolating dependencies as well.

      Macs have been doing it for forever, and hardly anyone noticed.

      Which leads to the real problem, that Canonical’s implementations are consistently terrible.

    • moon_matter@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Package maintainers prefer appimages/snaps/flatpaks over native because it’s as close to write once, deploy everywhere as we’re going to get. Maintaining packages for distros is a thankless job often done by volunteers because there’s no possible way for the developer to maintain packages for every distro.

  • this_is_router@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    IMHO: It’s bullshit, wastes resources, ubuntus server implementation is proprietary and it fragments the package management of a distro. Snap is the worst, flatpak and appimage are tolerable since they are at least open source but i personally try to avoid these “solutions” like the plague.

    apt for the win. tbh i trust the debian package maintainer way more then i trust an obscure developer that can’t release his software without all dependencies baked in.

    • phi1997@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Eh, when Debian doesn’t have the latest version of dependencies, Flatpak is necessary. Flatpak will long-term likely be great for running abandoned legacy software too.

    • christophski@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      People always complain about “dependency hell” with apt, but I’ve always found it to be the perfect solution

      • this_is_router@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Me too, you just need to avoid installing packages from repos that are not for your distribution. And live with the package versions until the next release is ready

  • piquant00@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve used snaps and flatpaks. Snaps take a lot of disk space, but that doesn’t bother me much. I’m running EndeavourOS more often than I boot into Xubuntu lately, and I haven’t installed snap on Endeavour yet, but I might.

    Use what you like.