They're worse than Flatpak in every way and the one advantage it does have on the server is nullified by the fact that Docker exists but apparently nobody told Canonical that (Snap proponents love to hark on about how suitable Snaps are for server-side applications when the reality is that nobody wants their server tied to a proprietary store that auto-updates behind their backs)
>Pop! should have kept sna-
Your cryptowallet has been emptied. No refunds.
They're worse than Flatpak in every way and the one advantage it does have on the server is nullified by the fact that Docker exists but apparently nobody told Canonical that (Snap proponents love to hark on about how suitable Snaps are for server-side applications when the reality is that nobody wants their server tied to a proprietary store that auto-updates behind their backs)
tbf, Snaps can also be shipped unsandboxed, and some apps just don't work well (or at all) inside a sandbox.
Honestly, they should just mimic Windows and keep the executable and all the libraries in the same folder. ezpz
>Snaps can also be shipped unsandboxed, and some apps just don't work well (or at all) inside a sandbox.
Classic Snaps were a mistake in my opinion. Canonical wants to pretend that Snap is Universal when Classic Snaps break that promise (some Classic Snaps just do not work outside of Ubuntu. Snap in general doesn't work well outside of Ubuntu to be honest).
I used VSCode as a snap on multiple distros just fine.
The flatpak version had some weird bugs related to the sandbox and couldn't open system files, and I didn't want to install a deb/rpm and depend on the system not being shit.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>The flatpak version had some weird bugs related to the sandbox and couldn't open system files
You can change that. It's just the default permissions being overly restrictive.
I didn't mean to imply that every Classic Snap is broken, just that the potential is there (I encountered this myself in the past, I don't remember which Snap it was. I don't use Snaps anymore)
Essentially, Classic Snaps break the portability guarantees. They might as well be .debs or .rpms
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Classic Snaps break the portability guarantees
Speaking of portability guarantees, have the AppImage devs fixed the Fuse2 issue yet? I remember that was breaking AppImages on a bunch of systems.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No and they're not going to. If anyone brings it up they just tell you to install libfuse 2 and that's the end of it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Weird. From this guy's latest comment, it seems they wanted to embed libfuse3 in the appimage runtime, but there have been no updates in regards to that.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Even if they link it statically it's still going to depend on the host library that's needed to make FUSE work.
Basically the situation is hopeless. If they want it to work everywhere then they need to support arbitrary versions of libfuse which seems like it'd be difficult or impossible to do.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Weird. From this guy's latest comment, it seems they wanted to embed libfuse3 in the appimage runtime, but there have been no updates in regards to that.
One possible way to fix this would be to write a libappimage and make distributions ship that. It should have a fixed API.
2 months ago
Anonymous
e.g instead of fusermount it could have a non-conflicting appimage-mount command, etc.
Basically they just need to fork FUSE with only the bits they need.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Why can't an appimage just run its own version of FUSE by itself?
Does it need to be loaded by the system in some special way and only the host's version is loaded like that or something?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Mounting filesystems is a privileged operation so you have to go through the libfuse library on the host which is either setuid root or has special capabilities.
so we are getting "gnome but written in rust"?
Why can't linux gays make good DE, how the 2 guys who work (sometimes) on xfce do better job than full team of paid devs?
Just 2 more months
>Fedora COSMIC spin
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNG
>coded in rust
thanks but I'll stick with i3wm
At least you're not a gnome gay. I can respect that.
i3wm is all you will ever need
Le oramge crab le hecking bad because... BECAUSE IT JUST IS OKAY?
Le oramge crab le hecking good because... BECAUSE IT JUST IS OKAY?
no funny arrow therefore you both say and look like that.
Pop! should have kept snaps.
They're worse than Flatpak in every way and the one advantage it does have on the server is nullified by the fact that Docker exists but apparently nobody told Canonical that (Snap proponents love to hark on about how suitable Snaps are for server-side applications when the reality is that nobody wants their server tied to a proprietary store that auto-updates behind their backs)
>but apparently nobody told Canonical that
canonical has always had severe NIH syndrome. mir, upstart, etc
>Pop! should have kept sna-
Your cryptowallet has been emptied. No refunds.
tbf, Snaps can also be shipped unsandboxed, and some apps just don't work well (or at all) inside a sandbox.
Honestly, they should just mimic Windows and keep the executable and all the libraries in the same folder. ezpz
>Snaps can also be shipped unsandboxed, and some apps just don't work well (or at all) inside a sandbox.
Classic Snaps were a mistake in my opinion. Canonical wants to pretend that Snap is Universal when Classic Snaps break that promise (some Classic Snaps just do not work outside of Ubuntu. Snap in general doesn't work well outside of Ubuntu to be honest).
I used VSCode as a snap on multiple distros just fine.
The flatpak version had some weird bugs related to the sandbox and couldn't open system files, and I didn't want to install a deb/rpm and depend on the system not being shit.
>The flatpak version had some weird bugs related to the sandbox and couldn't open system files
You can change that. It's just the default permissions being overly restrictive.
I didn't mean to imply that every Classic Snap is broken, just that the potential is there (I encountered this myself in the past, I don't remember which Snap it was. I don't use Snaps anymore)
Essentially, Classic Snaps break the portability guarantees. They might as well be .debs or .rpms
>Classic Snaps break the portability guarantees
Speaking of portability guarantees, have the AppImage devs fixed the Fuse2 issue yet? I remember that was breaking AppImages on a bunch of systems.
No and they're not going to. If anyone brings it up they just tell you to install libfuse 2 and that's the end of it.
Weird. From this guy's latest comment, it seems they wanted to embed libfuse3 in the appimage runtime, but there have been no updates in regards to that.
Even if they link it statically it's still going to depend on the host library that's needed to make FUSE work.
Basically the situation is hopeless. If they want it to work everywhere then they need to support arbitrary versions of libfuse which seems like it'd be difficult or impossible to do.
One possible way to fix this would be to write a libappimage and make distributions ship that. It should have a fixed API.
e.g instead of fusermount it could have a non-conflicting appimage-mount command, etc.
Basically they just need to fork FUSE with only the bits they need.
Why can't an appimage just run its own version of FUSE by itself?
Does it need to be loaded by the system in some special way and only the host's version is loaded like that or something?
Mounting filesystems is a privileged operation so you have to go through the libfuse library on the host which is either setuid root or has special capabilities.
Is this how an open-source developer should behave online?
Yes.
None of this:
>This issue is getting a little heated
Business from Ebussy
Be a man.
Thanks but i have a job, no time for tinker troony, so i stick with ubuntu + GNOME
>Thanks but i have a job, no time for tinker troony,
Use Windows 10 or 11.
>use something that breaks equally or more often than rolling release linux distros
>Source: voices in my head
Actually pretty excited to try it out. Wonder how long it'll take for it to make its way to Arch?
so we are getting "gnome but written in rust"?
Why can't linux gays make good DE, how the 2 guys who work (sometimes) on xfce do better job than full team of paid devs?
Why did thesw gays had to write ANOTHER fricking DE instead of siding with any of the existing ones?
because it's written in rust to generate as much hype as possible from Linux gays and troons
Because all existing DEs suck dick.
make your own DE
I don't know why I'd use anything other than awesomewm tho.
>gnome on hrt
no thanks
on hrt
That's just Gnome.
>gnome
into the trash it goes