Its a packaging model to pseudo-sandbox applications and avoid needing to install all of their dependencies locally… mostly.
There are performance implications but for actual performance critical operations, you are generally willing to install the dependencies (and would likely just run in a container/VM).
But the main issues boil down to concerns over some parts of the Snap ecosystem being closed source, Canonical’s ongoing efforts to try to get some of the Red Hat “premium linux” money, and arguments that other solutions (e.g. flatpaks and appimages) are “just as good, if not better”. And it doesn’t help that Canonical/Ubuntu is increasingly pushing snap as “the only solution” for some applications. Even though users can still just add the appropriate repository to use that with the package manager/sandbox solution of their choice.
Personally? I don’t like the ongoing push. But I also dislike how many applications are basically only supported as appimages (and to a lesser extent, flatpaks). My main issue with canonical that eventually made me switch to a different distro is that they are increasingly advertising their premium repositories. Theoretically, it is the same update frequency for the pro and free repos. Theoretically, I have a bridge to sell anyone who believes that.
Canonical is doing the same thing Microsoft is doing with Edge - using its dominant position to push its other products and force out competition, and to lock users (and potentially developers) into its own ecosystem.
Edge is chromium. If anything, it is MS providing an alternative to Chrome. Personally? I like having a browser that is not associated with my google account. Because sometimes you don’t want to have to do the twelve activation steps for a porn site every time you want to rub one out and having a different browser that nobody uses that you can keep a few cookies active in.
And considering Google already HAS that dominance and more or less have defined the ecosystem (to the point that reddit’s WYSIWYG was actively broken in Firefox for months, if not years)… that is a horrible example.
For future reference: A better argument is to reference chrome and the google assistant on an Android. Or siri and safari on an iphone.
Saying that Edge is Chromium is like saying that Manjaro is Arch or diamond is just coal. They’re related, but there’s significant material difference.
When it was introduced in Windows 10, Edge had an immediate and massive surge in its adoption rate. That wasn’t natural growth based on the application’s merits – it was simply a result of Edge being present in new installs.
But the advantage is that you don’t have to worry about installing some obscure version of a library because this application that was written ten years ago. Even though the vast majority of these are using pretty standard libraries anyway.
Its probably still a net good but I am very much the kind of person who would rather just run a few apt or dnf commands.
It’s actually less about the library being obscure, and more about version conflicts, which is actually more a problem with common libraries.
For example, let’s say you want to install applications A, B, and C, and they each depend on library L. If A depends on Lv1, and B depends on Lv2, and C depends on Lv3, with traditional package management, you’re in a predicament. You can only have one copy of L, and the versions of L may not be compatible.
Solutions like snap, flatpak, appimage, and even things like Docker and other containerization techniques, get around this issue by having applications ship the specific version of the library they need. You end up with more copies of the library, but every application has exactly the version it needs/the developer tested with.
Even a decade ago? Full agree and that is the source of a lot of my grey hairs.
These days? People understand these problems… in large part because the devs are dealing with them too. So there is a much bigger focus on backwards compatibility within a given major (if not minor) release and version tagged libraries so that you can have libfoo.so.1.2.3.4 and libfoo.so.2.4.6.8 installed side by side with no issues.
There are still definitely problem points and that is WHY containerization is more or less required for a production environment.
But in the consumer environment? It is nice and good practice but it is nowhere near as important as it used to be.
The age and obscurity of the library is irrelevant - you could always include libraries bundled with the app, if they didn’t exist in system repos. For example, in deb packages, you could include it in the data.tar portion of the package (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deb_(file_format)).
Libraries with version names baked in are one solution to the dependency hell problem, but that requires support from the language/framework/tooling to build the application, and/or the OS (or things get hacky and messy quickly).
If you read that dependency hell page, you’ll see another solution is portable apps, which specifically mentions Appimage, Flatpak, and Snap.
Additionally, if you read the Debian docs on How to Cope with Conflicting Requirements, the first solution they give is to “Install such programs using corresponding sandboxed upstream binary packages,” such as “Flatpak, Snap, or AppImage packages.”
Bin the consumer environment? It is nice and good practice but it is nowhere near as important as it used to be.
I’ll give flatpak and snap one thing: they did make some concession to avoiding duplication, unlike docker which utterly duplicates everything.
With flatpak and snap, applications can depend on/pull in a maintained external layer. So you might want ‘gnome environment, version 43’ and other applications that want that can all share. That layer can be updated independently of dependencies. You might have two instances of the gnome layers (say 43 and 44) due to different applications declaring different versions, but it’s not too bad.
Now there is some duplication, some libraries that an app says “oh, no particular layer for this one, fine I’ll just bundle it”. But at least there’s a mechanism to not necessarily do that for everything.
I’ll add that the ‘pseudo-sandbox’ is of some dubious value, as far as I can tell the app declares how much or little sandboxing it wants and the user doesn’t really get the opportunity to consent or even know that a snap has full access versus limited access.
I’ll also say that some functionality is broken in snaps (and flatpak). For example I used KeepPassXC browser integration, and then when snap was used instead of native, it broke. A number of extensions broke and the development attitude was everyone pointing fingers everywhere else and ultimately saying “just find a ppa with a browser ok?”
I’ll second the “screw it, I give up on packaging, my app is now a monolithic flatpak, snap, appimage, or docker container” mindset of a lot of developers.
It’s a bad, slow and inefficient solution for a problem that is already solved. And because nobody would use their proprietary shit over flatpack, they force the users to use it. Even for things that exist natively in the repositories and would need neither snap nor flatpack.
. . . the main issues boil down to concerns over some parts of the Snap ecosystem being closed source, Canonical’s ongoing efforts to try to get some of the Red Hat “premium linux” money, and arguments that other solutions (e.g. flatpaks and appimages) are “just as good, if not better”. And it doesn’t help that Canonical/Ubuntu is increasingly pushing snap as “the only solution” for some applications.
When you speak of no single One True Way and things being completely open source, Canonical/Ubuntu have already left the chat.
Gotta be honest, as a dev I tried to make a Flatpack of my app and gave up. Making a snap was much easier. Of course, I also offer it as a .deb, .rpm, Pacman package, etc. too
I still don’t even know what problem snap and flatpak were intended to solve. Just apt or dnf installing from the command line, or even using the distro provided store app, has always been sufficient for me.
The idea is that the application may want libraries asynchronously of the distribution cadence. Worse, multiple applications may have different cadence and you want to use both (some app breaks with gnome 45 and so it needs gnome 44, and another app requires gnome 46).
Or some pick forks of projects that neglected to change the shared object name or version, so you have two multimedia applications depending on the same exact library name and version, but expecting totally different symbols, or different ‘configure’ options to have been specified when they built the shared library.
So we have this nifty mount namespace to make believe the ‘filesystem’ is whatever a specific application needs, and for that to be scoped to just one.
There’s also an argument about security isolation, but I find that one to be unfulfilled as the applications basically are on the honor system with regards to how much access it requests of the system compared to a ‘normal’ application. So an application can opt into some protection so it can’t accidentally be abused, but if the application wants to deliberately misbehave it’s perfectly allowed to do so.
Modern Linux distros tend to have configuration and dependency issues where certain packages if installed the “Linux Way” doesn’t completely work as desired at times depending on the distro or even a desktop spin (which might have different default libraries installed than the “main” one). Flatpak is a single configuration meant to work one single way across all distributions and has become more of a standard, usable way for Linux applications to just work.
Use Flatpak. Easy to install and easy to tweak from flatseal or similar GUI Flatpak permission tweakers if you want more flexibility at the possible cost of security.
You can, but that completely negates the reasons why you’d want to have a repo system in the first place. You gotta do the legwork to get updates, for example.
And to be explicit about it, zypper, dnf, apt, flatpak all have a specific mechanism to declare repositories and one ‘update’ check will walk them all.
snap does not, and manually doing a one off is useless. AppImage also has no ‘update’ concept, but it’s a more limited use case in general, it’s a worse habit than any repository based approach.
This isn’t necessarily true - a developer choosing to not include their app in a repo can always opt for a self-updating mechanism.
Don’t get me wrong - repos and tooling to manage all of your apps at once are preferred. But if a developer or user wants to avoid the Canonical controlled repo, I’m just pointing out there are technically ways to do that.
If you’d question why someone would use snap at all at that point… that would be a good question. The point is just that they can, if they want to.
For computer idiots it’s not bad at all. It mostly just works if you don’t mess with it and Canonical relies on it to ship software for Ubuntu. It’s one of those you should know what you’re doing situations if you’re using standard Ubuntu and messing with it. If you remove it, you will have to figure out what’s shipped via snap and how to supplant it if you want it working, among other potential headaches.
No, it does not just work. It removes the option to install updates manually through GUI. If Firefox was running, the only GUI solution is to close it and wait 6 hours or whatever.
My wife was perfectly fine installing updates from the tray with Synaptic. The PC is always connected to the TV with Jellyfin left open in Firefox where she was watching.
So I switched to Manjaro to have a pretty OS that isn’t getting rid of their package manager controlling the most used program.
Ever since the fix for the “Pending update” notification, updating Firefox has been as complicated as closing it and reopening it when you see the notification. The pending update is installed immediately after closing it. It just works for my wife. ☺️
Also I wouldn’t leave her dead without automatic updates.
Yup. Actually I should have said implemented instead of fixed. The implementation was sizeable. I saw some of the PRs. From a user point of view it was a defect fix but in reality it was a non-trivial implementation. I guess that’s why it wasn’t there from the get go.
Those are all valid points, but there’s one more. As a person who is just coming back to Linux after 25-30 years and relearning it all from scratch, I just don’t want the hassle.
Sure, there’s overlap between distros, Linux is Linux, and any knowledge I might glean from Ubuntu would also largely apply to any other distro – but why should I bother with investing time into a product that is already heading toward future politics and regressive policies when I can just install [NotUbuntu] and swerve the entire mess?
There are hundreds of distros from which to choose these days, literally. Why start with one that’s already obviously moving toward the dark side? For all that I could just stay on Windows. I’m trying to get away from triple-E and paywalls and gatekeeping, not just find different ones.
Right now I’m testing out over a dozen distros on an old laptop in my spare time, and I think the only Ubuntu related one in my list is Pop!_OS, and it’s there only because Pop!_OS doesn’t rely on snap.
It’s one of those you should know what you’re doing situations
And I absolutely DO NOT, so that’s that, lol. These days every brain cell counts, so damned if I’ll waste any time wading into that mess.
The default Firefox in Ubuntu is a snap and I only knew that because due to nagging and having to restart constantly while I was using it and had to learn about snaps and how to install Firefox without them on Ubuntu.
If something exists in native form, use that. If it doesn’t or you want some sandboxing (and there is at least some argument for a containerized version that brings all its needed dependencies, for developers not having to test for every linux for example) there’s flatpack or appimage. Snap is just Canonical’s proprietary alternative to flatpack. And also worse in basically any aspect. So they shove it down their users throat instead. Even for stuff that would be available natively and should just be installed via the normal package manager. And to make really sure, nobody is avoiding their crap, they also redirect commands, so for example using apt to install your browser automatically redirects your command to snap install…
I just started tinkering with Ubuntu a week ago. What’s wrong with snap?
Its a packaging model to pseudo-sandbox applications and avoid needing to install all of their dependencies locally… mostly.
There are performance implications but for actual performance critical operations, you are generally willing to install the dependencies (and would likely just run in a container/VM).
But the main issues boil down to concerns over some parts of the Snap ecosystem being closed source, Canonical’s ongoing efforts to try to get some of the Red Hat “premium linux” money, and arguments that other solutions (e.g. flatpaks and appimages) are “just as good, if not better”. And it doesn’t help that Canonical/Ubuntu is increasingly pushing snap as “the only solution” for some applications. Even though users can still just add the appropriate repository to use that with the package manager/sandbox solution of their choice.
Personally? I don’t like the ongoing push. But I also dislike how many applications are basically only supported as appimages (and to a lesser extent, flatpaks). My main issue with canonical that eventually made me switch to a different distro is that they are increasingly advertising their premium repositories. Theoretically, it is the same update frequency for the pro and free repos. Theoretically, I have a bridge to sell anyone who believes that.
Canonical is doing the same thing Microsoft is doing with Edge - using its dominant position to push its other products and force out competition, and to lock users (and potentially developers) into its own ecosystem.
…
Edge is chromium. If anything, it is MS providing an alternative to Chrome. Personally? I like having a browser that is not associated with my google account. Because sometimes you don’t want to have to do the twelve activation steps for a porn site every time you want to rub one out and having a different browser that nobody uses that you can keep a few cookies active in.
And considering Google already HAS that dominance and more or less have defined the ecosystem (to the point that reddit’s WYSIWYG was actively broken in Firefox for months, if not years)… that is a horrible example.
For future reference: A better argument is to reference chrome and the google assistant on an Android. Or siri and safari on an iphone.
Saying that Edge is Chromium is like saying that Manjaro is Arch or diamond is just coal. They’re related, but there’s significant material difference.
When it was introduced in Windows 10, Edge had an immediate and massive surge in its adoption rate. That wasn’t natural growth based on the application’s merits – it was simply a result of Edge being present in new installs.
Wait, but doesn’t it result in more copies of the dependencies being installed locally because they’re duplicated for each application?
It sure does
But the advantage is that you don’t have to worry about installing some obscure version of a library because this application that was written ten years ago. Even though the vast majority of these are using pretty standard libraries anyway.
Its probably still a net good but I am very much the kind of person who would rather just run a few
aptordnfcommands.It’s actually less about the library being obscure, and more about version conflicts, which is actually more a problem with common libraries.
For example, let’s say you want to install applications A, B, and C, and they each depend on library L. If A depends on Lv1, and B depends on Lv2, and C depends on Lv3, with traditional package management, you’re in a predicament. You can only have one copy of L, and the versions of L may not be compatible.
Solutions like snap, flatpak, appimage, and even things like Docker and other containerization techniques, get around this issue by having applications ship the specific version of the library they need. You end up with more copies of the library, but every application has exactly the version it needs/the developer tested with.
Even a decade ago? Full agree and that is the source of a lot of my grey hairs.
These days? People understand these problems… in large part because the devs are dealing with them too. So there is a much bigger focus on backwards compatibility within a given major (if not minor) release and version tagged libraries so that you can have libfoo.so.1.2.3.4 and libfoo.so.2.4.6.8 installed side by side with no issues.
There are still definitely problem points and that is WHY containerization is more or less required for a production environment.
But in the consumer environment? It is nice and good practice but it is nowhere near as important as it used to be.
The age and obscurity of the library is irrelevant - you could always include libraries bundled with the app, if they didn’t exist in system repos. For example, in deb packages, you could include it in the data.tar portion of the package (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deb_(file_format)).
Libraries with version names baked in are one solution to the dependency hell problem, but that requires support from the language/framework/tooling to build the application, and/or the OS (or things get hacky and messy quickly).
If you read that dependency hell page, you’ll see another solution is portable apps, which specifically mentions Appimage, Flatpak, and Snap.
Additionally, if you read the Debian docs on How to Cope with Conflicting Requirements, the first solution they give is to “Install such programs using corresponding sandboxed upstream binary packages,” such as “Flatpak, Snap, or AppImage packages.”
This is incorrect. The target audience for Flatpak is desktop users: https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/introduction.html#target-audience. Flatpaks are explicitly for consumer, graphical applications.
I’ll give flatpak and snap one thing: they did make some concession to avoiding duplication, unlike docker which utterly duplicates everything.
With flatpak and snap, applications can depend on/pull in a maintained external layer. So you might want ‘gnome environment, version 43’ and other applications that want that can all share. That layer can be updated independently of dependencies. You might have two instances of the gnome layers (say 43 and 44) due to different applications declaring different versions, but it’s not too bad.
Now there is some duplication, some libraries that an app says “oh, no particular layer for this one, fine I’ll just bundle it”. But at least there’s a mechanism to not necessarily do that for everything.
I’ll add that the ‘pseudo-sandbox’ is of some dubious value, as far as I can tell the app declares how much or little sandboxing it wants and the user doesn’t really get the opportunity to consent or even know that a snap has full access versus limited access.
I’ll also say that some functionality is broken in snaps (and flatpak). For example I used KeepPassXC browser integration, and then when snap was used instead of native, it broke. A number of extensions broke and the development attitude was everyone pointing fingers everywhere else and ultimately saying “just find a ppa with a browser ok?”
I’ll second the “screw it, I give up on packaging, my app is now a monolithic flatpak, snap, appimage, or docker container” mindset of a lot of developers.
It’s a bad, slow and inefficient solution for a problem that is already solved. And because nobody would use their proprietary shit over flatpack, they force the users to use it. Even for things that exist natively in the repositories and would need neither snap nor flatpack.
Best explanation of snaps and their problems i’ve ever read.
It’s slow, forced by Canonical, and starts a pointless format war with Flatpack.
Flatpack isn’t without its own quirks and flaws. There is no One True Way. Being open-source, there shouldn’t be one.
It is definitely slow though, mostly on first run.
Yeah, that. That’s exactly the problem. To quote @Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever above, who put it much better than I could:
When you speak of no single One True Way and things being completely open source, Canonical/Ubuntu have already left the chat.
There should be one way for sandboxed shit, since the alternative of package managers already exists
We don’t need snap, app image, flatpak all to compete. We need shit that just works
There’s a bunch of different package managers too. It all just kinda works.
The way you get “shit that just works” is through iteration and competition.
If we just decide that the first solution to get any market share is the solution for all time? Uhm… hello Windows?
Okay, we tried appimage and it didn’t work, so the second iteration as flatpak is mostly functional
you don’t need ENDLESS competition of formats
Gotta be honest, as a dev I tried to make a Flatpack of my app and gave up. Making a snap was much easier. Of course, I also offer it as a .deb, .rpm, Pacman package, etc. too
I still don’t even know what problem snap and flatpak were intended to solve. Just apt or dnf installing from the command line, or even using the distro provided store app, has always been sufficient for me.
The idea is that the application may want libraries asynchronously of the distribution cadence. Worse, multiple applications may have different cadence and you want to use both (some app breaks with gnome 45 and so it needs gnome 44, and another app requires gnome 46).
Or some pick forks of projects that neglected to change the shared object name or version, so you have two multimedia applications depending on the same exact library name and version, but expecting totally different symbols, or different ‘configure’ options to have been specified when they built the shared library.
So we have this nifty mount namespace to make believe the ‘filesystem’ is whatever a specific application needs, and for that to be scoped to just one.
There’s also an argument about security isolation, but I find that one to be unfulfilled as the applications basically are on the honor system with regards to how much access it requests of the system compared to a ‘normal’ application. So an application can opt into some protection so it can’t accidentally be abused, but if the application wants to deliberately misbehave it’s perfectly allowed to do so.
Modern Linux distros tend to have configuration and dependency issues where certain packages if installed the “Linux Way” doesn’t completely work as desired at times depending on the distro or even a desktop spin (which might have different default libraries installed than the “main” one). Flatpak is a single configuration meant to work one single way across all distributions and has become more of a standard, usable way for Linux applications to just work.
Use Flatpak. Easy to install and easy to tweak from flatseal or similar GUI Flatpak permission tweakers if you want more flexibility at the possible cost of security.
This computer idiot would also like to know why snap bad.
The main reason is that it is completely controlled by Canonical, with no way to add alternative repos.
It’s worth noting you can bypass the repo, and install snaps that you downloaded from some other source - see https://askubuntu.com/questions/1266894/how-can-i-install-a-snap-package-from-a-local-file.
That doesn’t give you a separate “repo,” but it does allow you to install snaps from anywhere.
You can, but that completely negates the reasons why you’d want to have a repo system in the first place. You gotta do the legwork to get updates, for example.
And to be explicit about it, zypper, dnf, apt, flatpak all have a specific mechanism to declare repositories and one ‘update’ check will walk them all.
snap does not, and manually doing a one off is useless. AppImage also has no ‘update’ concept, but it’s a more limited use case in general, it’s a worse habit than any repository based approach.
This isn’t necessarily true - a developer choosing to not include their app in a repo can always opt for a self-updating mechanism.
Don’t get me wrong - repos and tooling to manage all of your apps at once are preferred. But if a developer or user wants to avoid the Canonical controlled repo, I’m just pointing out there are technically ways to do that.
If you’d question why someone would use snap at all at that point… that would be a good question. The point is just that they can, if they want to.
For computer idiots it’s not bad at all. It mostly just works if you don’t mess with it and Canonical relies on it to ship software for Ubuntu. It’s one of those you should know what you’re doing situations if you’re using standard Ubuntu and messing with it. If you remove it, you will have to figure out what’s shipped via snap and how to supplant it if you want it working, among other potential headaches.
No, it does not just work. It removes the option to install updates manually through GUI. If Firefox was running, the only GUI solution is to close it and wait 6 hours or whatever.
My wife was perfectly fine installing updates from the tray with Synaptic. The PC is always connected to the TV with Jellyfin left open in Firefox where she was watching.
So I switched to Manjaro to have a pretty OS that isn’t getting rid of their package manager controlling the most used program.
Ever since the fix for the “Pending update” notification, updating Firefox has been as complicated as closing it and reopening it when you see the notification. The pending update is installed immediately after closing it. It just works for my wife. ☺️
Also I wouldn’t leave her dead without automatic updates.
I’m glad yours enjoying Manjaro. 👌
I didn’t know they fixed it now, good to know.
Yup. Actually I should have said implemented instead of fixed. The implementation was sizeable. I saw some of the PRs. From a user point of view it was a defect fix but in reality it was a non-trivial implementation. I guess that’s why it wasn’t there from the get go.
Those are all valid points, but there’s one more. As a person who is just coming back to Linux after 25-30 years and relearning it all from scratch, I just don’t want the hassle.
Sure, there’s overlap between distros, Linux is Linux, and any knowledge I might glean from Ubuntu would also largely apply to any other distro – but why should I bother with investing time into a product that is already heading toward future politics and regressive policies when I can just install [NotUbuntu] and swerve the entire mess?
There are hundreds of distros from which to choose these days, literally. Why start with one that’s already obviously moving toward the dark side? For all that I could just stay on Windows. I’m trying to get away from triple-E and paywalls and gatekeeping, not just find different ones.
Right now I’m testing out over a dozen distros on an old laptop in my spare time, and I think the only Ubuntu related one in my list is Pop!_OS, and it’s there only because Pop!_OS doesn’t rely on snap.
And I absolutely DO NOT, so that’s that, lol. These days every brain cell counts, so damned if I’ll waste any time wading into that mess.
I hate it for the refresh nag messages alone.
The default Firefox in Ubuntu is a snap and I only knew that because due to nagging and having to restart constantly while I was using it and had to learn about snaps and how to install Firefox without them on Ubuntu.
If something exists in native form, use that. If it doesn’t or you want some sandboxing (and there is at least some argument for a containerized version that brings all its needed dependencies, for developers not having to test for every linux for example) there’s flatpack or appimage. Snap is just Canonical’s proprietary alternative to flatpack. And also worse in basically any aspect. So they shove it down their users throat instead. Even for stuff that would be available natively and should just be installed via the normal package manager. And to make really sure, nobody is avoiding their crap, they also redirect commands, so for example using apt to install your browser automatically redirects your command to snap install…
If snap had another store, eg Fdroid to play store, all would be fine. So that’s that!
cuz flatpak better