Re: ubuntu/snap future
On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 12:49:14 +0100
Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue 06 Apr 2021 at 11:20:58 +0200, Yoann LE BARS wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello everybody out there!
> >
> > On 2021/04/06 at 01:53 am, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > There's nothing user-unfriendly about .debs. They just don't want to
> > > maintain their software and are looking for a "fire and forget"
> > > solution. I can't see this as anything but a bad thing, something the
> > > world can live without.
> >
> > Well, I do not like the way Ubuntu uses snaps, but there are some good
> > reasons to use something like snaps or flatpacks.
> >
> > Even with a less careful procedure to integrate and update packages
> > than the one of Debian (which I like), create a new package and update
> > one take some time. There are several examples when a user needs a bug
> > fix or some functionality that packages in distributions do not provide.
> > In such a case, without snaps or flatpacks, the user has to compile the
> > program, which need some technical skills and can be sometimes really
> > tricky. Appimages are less interesting, as you have to update them manually.
> >
> > Use parsimoniously, packages like snaps or flatpacks are something very
> > useful, which improve user experience even for power users. The problem
> > with Ubuntu is it uses way too much snaps and I do not think it is a
> > matter of laziness.
>
> I had occasion to install Zoom a few weeks ago;'snap install zoom-client'.
> Everything went smoothly and I quite like having this proprietary package
> strictly confined.
'apt install zoom_amd64.deb' goes smoothly as well. Confinement is
certainly a good thing - I'll have to look into whether the snap route
is preferable to the firejail solution that I currently use.
Celejar
Reply to: