rootww
NateNate60Unpopular opinion: snap is not so bad and genuinely useful for many things
I would rather have a snap than building from source or use some tar.gz archive with a sketchy install script
babybusI would rather have a snap than building from source or use some tar.gz archive with a sketchy install script
I agree, but that sounds like false dichotomy to me because snap competes with flatpak.
Agreed, and I came in to mention the dishonest comparison. Before snap, we didn’t install Firefox with a tgz, we installed it with apt from the ubuntu repos. I’ve never installed Firefox from source, and I doubt 99.9% of its users have either.
There are plenty of use cases that snap provides that flatpak doesn’t - they only compete in a subset of snap’s functionality. For example, flatpak does not (and is not designed to) provide a way to use it to distribute kernels or system services.
I don’t think that the distribution of system packages is the issue. People need a way to easily distribute and obtain everyday applications, and to keep them up to date in the same manner. Linus spoke about this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pzl1B7nB9Kc
Linus Torvalds on why desktop Linux sucks
It depends what you’re trying to accomplish. For me, having the ability to essentially use Lego to put together my system is one of the great features of both snap and nix that Flatpak doesn’t cover.
I never presented this as a dichotomy. You know, people prefer things in a certain order, right? I prefer Flatpaks and native packages over snaps and I prefer snaps to building from source.
True, but your post did kinda read like this: