I vote to kill snap
I can’t believe they used this as a pro for their distro…
I am currently only on Linux on my Steam Deck and I do have two RPi’s (though I don’t actively use them) so I don’t have personal current knowledge of differences between Snap, Flatpak, and App Image beyond that A: Snap always brings up lots and lots of hate in comments and B: is from Canonical.
But is it possible that they might choose to use Snap for having more program options due to Ubuntu being such a “mainstream” distro? I know lots and lots of programs do release Flatpaks, but are there more of them or does Snap have more? Real question since I am aware of how heated some threads get with folks being really “fuck Snap” or “it is fine.” Mostly just curious since I am more and more likely to move my main PC to Linux as my main OS after Windows 10 is dead.
Think of it as the Mac appstore VS the Windows App store. Mac apps (flatpak) are the same as desktop apps, but sandboxed, the store isn’t intrusive, and people found it convenient, so it was fine. Then the windows app store (snaps) launched and it did basically the same thing but slightly worse, except Microsoft (canonical) forced it down its users throats, so people hated it.
Both camps are right, from a technical perspective, snaps are fine, but philosophically, it sucks, and the Linux community cares way more about the latter than the former, otherwise they’d all be running windows.
I think that your example of the App Store and the Microsoft Store is helpful! I work on both systems at my job fixing computers for consumers. The only thing I dislike about the App Store is that it doesn’t let you install things without first signing in with an Apple ID (the spam levels of pop-up messages trying so freaking hard to make you sign in is infuriating). But the MS Store feels like all the worst parts of the Play Store and really fucks things up if it breaks. I will likely remember your reply the next time I think about Flatpaks and Snaps though. lol
Snap doesn’t just bring lots of hate in comments it also brings a lot of bloat in your system which is a big no in Linux community. Another thing is canonical is going out of their way to force snap. In Ubuntu even if you do apt install it is installing snap packages.
I’m not sure if there are more snap packages than flatpaks or .deb/.rpm but most Linux users are competent enough to either add custom repos or follow simple build instructions to build from source.
I don’t like Snap too, but it has some advantages over Flatpak. And unfortunately the most popular distribution still uses Snap. In example it is easier to create Snap packages
and Flatpak does not support CLI only applicatoins( Edit: my bad ) , but Snap does (something like grep in example). Also some may like it more that Snap relies on AppArmor instead using the custom solution of Flatpak.All in all, its not like black and white which is better. I still wish only one of the formats would exist, because this is not the kind of fragmentation I wish to have. But both exist and the end user should decide which of them to kill.
deleted by creator
Flatpak does not support CLI only applicatoins
Where does that misinformation come from? That’s not the first time I’ve heard it. Was that actually true at one point?
In think it comes from flathub not having many cli applications in it. I’d love to drop snaps for Flatpak only. But I can get so many snaps that aren’t on flathub it’s crazy.
What is so hated about snaps? I’ll admit I haven’t used Ubuntu since they started using snaps, but I don’t understand the hate about them in the Linux community.
The place to get snaps is proprietary and exclusive.
Oh… yeah I see the issue.
It says possibly snap, so we can hope…
Burn Snap out of there and I’m in.
Edit: looks like they’re not putting much towards snaps, it’s mostly Flatpak and systemd-sysext. I’m good with that.
I like that snap support is included. You can’t easily add it to immutable distros and there is still some software out there only easily available via snaps.
Snap WTF?
deleted by creator
If it’s only there like in KDE Neon, I’m fine with it. I don’t want any of my distro apps to come as Snaps though.
Why? What’s the issue with Snap? Is Flatpak any better?
Yeah, Flatpak is far better. The most glaring issue: Canonical hosts the only Snap backend, you can’t host it yourself. Flatpak on the other hand is fully open.
Don’t introduce proprietary crap just so companies can profit off of it.
Don’t introduce proprietary crap just so companies can profit off of it.
I agree but I think it’s the user who should be able to make the informed choice (ie. during installation)
deleted by creator
This is a stupid argument. In FSF’s eyes even having nonfree repository (ie. for drivers) is bad so this is completely irrelevant for anyone considering flatpak or snap. Both have nonfree stuff in there.
deleted by creator
I’m not arguing whether snap or flatpak is better. Flatpak is better.
But your arguments are going against each other. You disagree that FSF should tell you what software you can use but then you want to tell other users what software they can use. If you use flatpak despite of FSF’s opinions, you should let people use snap despite of your opinion.
Honestly, why enable this kind of behavior in any way? Any user is free to make an informed choice by installing it themselves.
We all know how this goes. Once a critical mass is reached, enshittification begins to milk everything dry. By making it an installer option, you’re legitimizing it and supporting a worse future for the Linux desktop.
Ok but KDE has official Snap packages so they already are “legitimizing it”. Also snap won’t be able to entshittify anything. Snapd is still open source, so you can just repackage the software for different package system.
My guy. There is no open backend for Snap. If Ubuntu enshittifies Snap, nobody can host an alternate backend for them. How does the client being open source help you?
You simply use a different packaging format as I said in the previous comment.
This article is far too hypey. One dude has started this initiative and needs people to work on his concept to get it off the ground. I’m not opposed to a red-hat free immutable system, but this one is so far from maturity this article is selling a first drawing like an almost finished product. Remind me in two years how this went.
Harald, the main architect behind it is already running it as his daily driver. Many others (myself included) are already testing it in VMs and on spare hardware with only very minor papercut issues to be resolved.
Sounds great! I’ll have a look once the user infrastructure is in place.
I use Karch, btw.
I thought we all agreed that “immutable” is a confusing term and that we should call it “atomic”
edit: I was wrong
I disagree, because they are not the same thing.
Immutable means read only root.
Atomic means that updates are done in a snapshotted manner somehow. It usually means that if an update fails, your system is not in a half working state, but instead will be reverted to the last working state, and that updates are all or nothing.
I create a btrfs snapshot before updates on my Arch Linux system. This is atomic, but not immutable.*
There is also “image based” which distros like ublue (immutable, atomic) are, but Nixos (also immutable and atomic) are not.
*only really before big updates tbh, but I know some people do configure snapshits before all updates.
Not all. Red Hat started this by naming their immutable distributions with “atomic” (but then not consistently…). Some people agreed, but not everyone.
What does atomic mean in this sense? That seems more confusing than immutable.
It means a change either applied completely and successfully, or not at all (think “atomic transactions” in databases).
Who said that?
Fedora has pushed for the change by rebranding their immutable distros as Fedora Atomic Desktops, and these are likely the most popular immutable distros. Bazzite’s homepage also describes the distro as atomic, but never mentions the term immutable.
How is atomic less confusing? Immutable means that something doesn’t change, atomic means that it’s the size of an atom or has nuclear energy
EDIT: I’ve learned that some people are overly pedantic about the meaning and practical use of the word “immutable”, so much so that they decided to create a bigger confusion by giving another word a completely different and exclusive meaning
How could you install anything or change any setting if it “doesn’t change” ?
Settings live in user space. Software exist in containers like AppImage, Flatpak or Distrobox. If something need deep system integration, they can be layered on top of the system in the user layer. Immutable does NOT mean less control. Just exerting control over the system in a different, usually more systematic, automatic and deterministic way.
Ah yes, the immutable OS, except for all of the various mutable parts.
We should totally not call it anything less confusing.
It’s not confusing at all… How is this any more confusing than:
Flatpak - they’re not literally flat…
Snap - I’ve never seen or heard any evidence of something snapping by any definition of the word I’m aware of.
Dolphin - what the fuck is this, no sea life whatsoever!
Kate - this is a text editor, not a person.
Distrobox - not in an actual box.
etc.
The main difference to your examples is that an “immutable OS” is in fact mutable, while none of your examples describe themselves with an adjective that is contradicting with their function/inner workings.
Flatpak is a pretty good name, because it makes software flat in the sense that it avoids having a (tall) dependency tree.
I installed Bottles, but was disappointed when it didn’t actually have anything to do with bottles.
If you think every name of every product, etc., is going to be literal… you’re gonna have a tough time in life.
Alright I am installing this
Ingl, this sounds like exactly the thing I want. Immutability aside, this is how I use EndeavourOS right now, but more sophisticated.
I’m sold on it.
Man, I almost want to say “I love it”. Remove the “snap” and the “immutable” and I’m all in.
Almost there 🤏🏽I don’t understand why people want immutable. I don’t know all that much about Linux but on my Steamdeck it keeps getting in the way anytime I try to do anything
Immutable is fantastic in theory. Where it falls apart is having to basically rebuild the whole distro every time you want to make a change. It should be there your base distro is immutable, then any extra changes go on an additional mutable layer but that would be difficult to set up. (You’d need a package manager like Nixos or something.)
your base distro is immutable, then any extra changes go on an additional mutable layer
That is exactly how OsTree and other layering solutions work. Only Nix requires a whole distro rebuild.
It isn’t, though. Package layering modifies the install itself. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-silverblue/getting-started/#_flatpak_command_line
The big problem with the way ostree works is that installing things has side effects. Every item you install with ostree makes all future items slower to install, including regular os updates. This is a significant flaw in the way they designed it and really makes immutable oses less attractive.
It’s not a flaw. Ostree is a last resort, you should be using containerized software. Layering a package should only be done when strictly necessary and not as the regular way to manage packages. If you need an overtly customized system, you use Nix or universal blue to design your new system declaratively and create your custom image.
That is a flaw. Flatpak is great where it works but Flatpak doesn’t solve all problems, neither does any one solution except os level modification. It can be a last resort by it should be a last resort that works. The layering system could be put together such that you don’t get side effects of installing packages like that. It might be tough to fix but that doesn’t make it not a flaw.
Please remember that no one is taking anything away from you. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to use it. Traditional package managing isn’t going away any time soon. You are safe. Others can have their preferred tech, and you don’t have to like it. It’s ok to have different tastes.
There’s KDE Neon already. The whole point of this distribution is the atomic immutable part.
Neon isn’t arch based, which is why this one piqued my interest.
Ooo damn that sounds exactly what I’d like to try.
On the other hand I feel like I’m too old for this shit. My system works fine, I understand everything, and things rarely break and never in an unrecoverable way.
The distro is designed to be a bulletproof, highly user-friendly operating system that showcases the best of KDE technology—a system that KDE can confidently recommend to casual users and hardware manufacturers.
So it looks like there will finally be a distribution that Windows, Mac, and ChromeOS users can jump to and just start using without having to learn much and with a much better and more familiar GUI than GNOME.
I think you’re exactly right, honestly I think this has potential to be huge. Whether we like it or not, in order for a lot of mid-level savvy users to feel comfortable switching over they need a “default” option (like joining mastodon.social) to get their feet wet. A distro specifically built for KDE I think could appeal to a lot of people.
EDIT: Also for the people buying laptops in businesses and schools obv
Hopefully the stable version will become a competitor to Linux Mint
deleted by creator
So you’re telling me that if snaps take off and become a standard there’s a good chance I’ll have to use them just to get my drivers? Now I hate them even more!
99% of people don’t understand anything about Snaps except from thinking they’re worse than Flatpak
I use Fedora KDE but this one sounds like exactly what I need. I primarily use Linux for software dev and web browsing and Windows for gaming and Office.
