Oh Snap!

[rab0171610]

Snaps may have a benefit for an app developer. However, as a home desktop user, many of its features are simply hindrances. Namely sandboxing. While that may be great for a server or business computer that has higher security needs and requires protections between multiple users running apps and opening files on a network, I do not need it. From the snap wikipedia:

Applications in a Snap run in a container with limited access to the host system.

I do not need that much security, even for a web browser and would like my apps to have access to the system as they always have. This is the reason people are having trouble setting firefox snap as the default web browser in the system settings and having it stick. This is also why people are having issues with access to files and saving files to the system, opening files with Dolphin or file browser of choice.

The Snap sandbox prevents snapped desktop applications from accessing the themes of the host operating system to prevent compatibility issues.

Just not desirable in my opinion.

The snap file format is a single compressed filesystem using the SquashFS format with the extension .snap. This filesystem contains the application, libraries it depends on, and declarative metadata. This metadata is interpreted by snapd to set up an appropriately shaped secure sandbox for that application. After installation, the snap is mounted by the host operating system and decompressed on the fly when the files are used. Although this has the advantage that snaps use less disk space, it also means some large applications start more slowly

I do not want apps mounted, decompressed on the fly, lugging its own libraries, sandboxed unnecessarily. Call me old-fashioned. What works great for cloud based systems and a home computer user are not the same thing. Just my two cents.

[simonsaysthis]

What are these Snap problems people are referring to? Besides FF being exclusively shipped as a Snap (with all its problems) I can easily install Flatpak or continue to use DEB for just about anything. Its also evident that the FF snap has significantly improved already since launch. This discussion has become much more ideological than about real problems.

[rab0171610]

What are these Snap problems people are referring to? Besides FF being exclusively shipped as a Snap (with all its problems) I can easily install Flatpak or continue to use DEB for just about anything. Its also evident that the FF snap has significantly improved already since launch. This discussion has become much more ideological than about real problems.

Skip to the bottom and post without reading anything previous. Nice.

[simonsaysthis]

Skip to the bottom and post without reading anything previous. Nice.

The original discussion was about having to leave (K)Ubuntu because of Snap. You preference to not use sandboxed apps has nothing to do with the supposed problems merely by having snapd installed on a distro.

[Snowhog]

How does having snapd installed cause problems?

Technically, it doesn't. But 'purists' who dislike all things SNAP just don't want it on their system. Period. Nothing more. Personal preference. And that's what Linux is all about: personal preference, i.e., choice.

[simonsaysthis]

Technically, it doesn't. But 'purists' who dislike all things SNAP just don't want it on their system. Period. Nothing more. Personal preference. And that's what Linux is all about: personal preference, i.e., choice.

Exactly. That's how I see it too. And since FF snap will soon launch within an acceptable timeframe and have native messaging abilities it will all boil down to preference. Nothing more

[jlittle]

... FF snap will soon launch within an acceptable timeframe ...

Canonical have said they're working on it, but that sounds like marketing, and wishful thinking. I doubt they can get within what I'll find "acceptable". If anyone has numbers on this they'd be quite interesting.

all about: personal preference, i.e., choice.

IMO that's tautological, just avoiding the issues. I think the "snaps are surreptitious spyware" and "snaps use closed, un-free components" issues shouldn't be dismissed as preferences. And these kinds of issues aren't just "personal", in that people's choices can affect us all.

[Bings]

I didn't realise atrocious start up times and not wanting to have loop device spam was an ideological reason. Having it so when you type "apt install" it actually installs something with snap is just shoving it down people's throats. It's behaviour that says "we know you won't actually want it so we'll make it extra hassle for you to get round it".

[simonsaysthis]

Canonical have said they're working on it, but that sounds like marketing, and wishful thinking. I doubt they can get within what I'll find "acceptable". If anyone has numbers on this they'd be quite interesting.

What about it is marketing if there are concrete and detailed discussion about the issues with progress updates? Have you been following these before you came to your conclusion? I too am annoyed by the long start up times of FF. But I have been monitoring progress, despite me not using FF as my main browser, and there is a tangible improvement already.

The other point about snaps being closed or the claim that they are spyware has been discussed ad nauseam for the past years, so no need to roll that up there. You feel they have no benefit and are spyware. Others disagree.

[rab0171610]

Well the OP has moved on because of snaps and the direction Ubuntu is going. No one has to stick with Kubuntu and be miserable. The good news is that there are a lot of nice distros out there. Kubuntu is not magical by any means. For anyone miserable with it I suggest moving on. Lots of great choices, Arch and their easier to install derivatives EndeavourOS and Manjaro, Spiral Linux (debian based, can be upgraded to unstable for less out of date system, rolling), etc. All are great with a solid KDE install option. Ubuntu is not doing anything special that other distros are not doing just as well or better.

[simonsaysthis]

The good news is that there are a lot of nice distros out there. Kubuntu is not magical by any means

I use Fedora Plasma spin with couple of proprietary apps as snaps. I don't use Kubuntu because it feels stale to me compared to Ubuntu desktop and other derivatives like Budgie. There are also too many bugs for an LTS release. I can use the Wayland session in Fedora fine whereas in Kubuntu its a disaster. I guess there just isn't enough manpower behind the distro anymore.

[verndog]

...I can use the Wayland session in Fedora fine whereas in Kubuntu its a disaster. I guess there just isn't enough manpower behind the distro anymore.

Not just Kubuntu but all KDE distros, XFCE. Gnome is the only one I find working well with Wayland.

[Schwarzer Kater]

[…]
As a PS, I came here because I need to shift from the outgoing LTS to version 22.04.
And it looks like my root is with 21 GB no longer big enough.
This is while Neon has enough with 16 GB. (But less apps)

If you want to absolutely keep your partition scheme as it is and if you can backup your system/data:
You could try doing a new installation of Kubuntu 22.04 instead of upgrading, use the "minimal" installation option and add the programs and stuff you need afterwards. Perhaps this will fit.

You could also try to clean up your system:
Remove unnecessary programs, log files, (APT) caches, etc. and see if an upgrade will fit afterwards (but also do a system backup with e.g. Clonezilla or Timeshift before in case this doesn't work out!).

Repartitioning (or a completely new strategy with another file system - I wrote this for the btrfs fans ) would be more future-proof, though, if you want to keep using Kubuntu or any of the more "heavier" distros…

[claydoh]

A read:

Still has valid points, but is outdated, and has been discussed/debunked/expanded upon in the two years+ since this was written.

In my own use and testing, speed of flatpaks are hard to compare, unless you have old systems and spinning drives.
I can't tell, myself.

Disk space is also relative. If I am using a Gnome/Gtk app fia flatpak on a KDE system, it IS more disk space than so-called 'native' packages, but not always as much as you might think, depending on the application.
Same for ram. For me, testing OBS both native and flatpak seemed to use similar amounts here, despite that flatpak uses its own libraries for some Mesa, ffpmeg, and other audio/video related things.

But something like Wine, flatpak may be imo a more stable and useful thing than using external repos for often flaky implementations (WineHQ, sometimes has been crap). There is no GUI involved here, so differences in overall size and ram usage would be minimal.

Basically, use the tool that gets the job done in the way you want, and with the levels of effort you want.

[Schwarzer Kater]

[…]
In my own use and testing, speed of flatpaks are hard to compare, unless you have old systems and spinning drives.
I can't tell, myself.

Disk space is also relative. If I am using a Gnome/Gtk app fia flatpak on a KDE system, it IS more disk space than so-called 'native' packages, but not always as much as you might think, depending on the application.
[…]

My experience with "containerized" formats (and older systems):

With Flatpaks there is practically no difference regarding speed compared to "native" packages. Flatpaks start faster than Snaps (and AppImages), of course - on older systems with HDDs this is more relevant the older the system gets (computing power wise and HDD/SDD wise - I hope this is correct English…). On brand-new, state-of-the-art systems the speed difference between Flatpaks and Snaps (and AppImages) becomes less relevant.

If you install just two or three Flatpaks the drive space used can be much more compared to "native" packages due to the fact that things like Mesa, GNOME Application Platform, Nvidia drivers and other necessary stuff for the application and your individual system have to be installed alongside as Flatpaks.
Because these "core" packages are only installed once this difference diminishes the more Flatpaks you install. Similar is true with Snaps. As a rule of thumb AppImages are bigger than "native" packages because they always have to contain everything they need in every single image individually (but they don't need extra drivers for an Nvidia GPU for example).
If drive space really is an important factor for you these days try to avoid all three of those "containerized" formats.