I know this thread is likely to quickly descend into 50 variants of "ew, snap", but it's a good write up of what is really a pretty interesting novel approach to the immutable desktop world.
As the article says, it could well be the thing that actually justifies Canonical's dogged perseverance with snaps in the first place.
I appreciate that they try, and as much as I dislike some of snap's design choices I think it has a place. Flatpak appears to be the winner in this race however, and I feel like this is Unity all over. Just as the project gets good they abandon it for the prevailing winds. I've been told the snap server isn't open source, which is a big concern?
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Unlike desktop environments where there were equivalent alternatives to Unity, Flatpak isn't an alternative to Snap that can deliver an equivalent solution. You can't build an OS on top of Flatpak. This is why I think that if Snap makes the lives of Canonical developers easier, they'll keep maintaining it. We'll know if Ubuntu Core Desktop becomes a mainstream flavor or the default one. I think there is a commercial value of it in the enterprise world where tight control of the OS and upgrade robustness are needed. In this kind of a future Snap will have a long and productive life. If it ends up being used only for desktop apps which Flatpak covers, it may fall by the wayside as you suggested.
Absolutely, and I think that's why snap has a future at all. Immutability is the future, as well as self-contained apps. We saw the explosive growth of Docker as indication that this was the way. If they can make their tooling as easy as a Dockerfile they will win just by reducing the work needed to support it.
I'm pretty excited about it. It's a much cleaner solution to the problem immutable OSes are trying to solve. Dare I say it's better even than the Android model because it covers the whole stack with a single system.
I don't like Canonical pushing snaps as universal apps for all distros, because of issues like sandboxing not working on mainline kernels.
But it's pretty interesting to see how a fully snap based desktop OS could look like. It might have less limitations than rpm-ostree. Easy access to recent mesa and similar would be awesome.
Snap makes a lot of sense for desktop apps in my opinion. There's a conceptual difference between system level packages that you install using something like APT, and applications. Applications should be managed at the user layer while the base system should provide all the common libraries and APIs.
It's also worth noting that this is a similar approach to what MacOS has been doing for ages with .app bundles where any shared libraries and assets are packaged together in the app folder. The approach addresses a lot of the issues you see with shared libraries such as having two different apps that want different versions of a particular library.
The trade off is that you end up using a bit more disk space and memory, but it's so negligible that the benefits of having apps being self-contained far outweigh these downsides.
I know this thread is likely to quickly descend into 50 variants of "ew, snap", but it's a good write up of what is really a pretty interesting novel approach to the immutable desktop world.
As the article says, it could well be the thing that actually justifies Canonical's dogged perseverance with snaps in the first place.
I appreciate that they try, and as much as I dislike some of snap's design choices I think it has a place. Flatpak appears to be the winner in this race however, and I feel like this is Unity all over. Just as the project gets good they abandon it for the prevailing winds. I've been told the snap server isn't open source, which is a big concern?
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Unlike desktop environments where there were equivalent alternatives to Unity, Flatpak isn't an alternative to Snap that can deliver an equivalent solution. You can't build an OS on top of Flatpak. This is why I think that if Snap makes the lives of Canonical developers easier, they'll keep maintaining it. We'll know if Ubuntu Core Desktop becomes a mainstream flavor or the default one. I think there is a commercial value of it in the enterprise world where tight control of the OS and upgrade robustness are needed. In this kind of a future Snap will have a long and productive life. If it ends up being used only for desktop apps which Flatpak covers, it may fall by the wayside as you suggested.
Absolutely, and I think that's why snap has a future at all. Immutability is the future, as well as self-contained apps. We saw the explosive growth of Docker as indication that this was the way. If they can make their tooling as easy as a Dockerfile they will win just by reducing the work needed to support it.
I'm pretty excited about it. It's a much cleaner solution to the problem immutable OSes are trying to solve. Dare I say it's better even than the Android model because it covers the whole stack with a single system.
I don't like Canonical pushing snaps as universal apps for all distros, because of issues like sandboxing not working on mainline kernels.
But it's pretty interesting to see how a fully snap based desktop OS could look like. It might have less limitations than rpm-ostree. Easy access to recent mesa and similar would be awesome.
Snap makes a lot of sense for desktop apps in my opinion. There's a conceptual difference between system level packages that you install using something like APT, and applications. Applications should be managed at the user layer while the base system should provide all the common libraries and APIs.
It's also worth noting that this is a similar approach to what MacOS has been doing for ages with .app bundles where any shared libraries and assets are packaged together in the app folder. The approach addresses a lot of the issues you see with shared libraries such as having two different apps that want different versions of a particular library.
The trade off is that you end up using a bit more disk space and memory, but it's so negligible that the benefits of having apps being self-contained far outweigh these downsides.