• NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    118
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t have a problem with snaps as a technology. If you want to use them, then who am I to judge?

    But what I do have a problem with is when I don’t have a choice and I am being forced to use what the distro maintainers think is good for me. That is what finally made me quit Ubuntu and switch to Fedora.

      • Penta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        59
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well snap itself isn’t proprietary, the backend server distributing the snaps is.

        • frazorth@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Explain how this distinction matters in the real world?

          Snap distribution is as much a part of snaps as Snapd.

          Who cares that part of it is open source if other parts aren’t?

          • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            If Canonical folded Snap could be taken over by others who could build new server software for it, either from scratch or based off the other projects to develop alternative servers for it, and modify snap to accept multiple repos like that. That’s the difference, also just being able to fork snap like that. Though the fact it hasn’t been done says something about how many real snap enthusiasts there actually are.

            • frazorth@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              If Canonical folded, someone else could come along and reinvent everything on the server side. And that makes it Open Source?

              • Draconic NEO@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                What makes it open source is the fact that the parts which matter most are open source. The part that installs on the system is open source, and because of that it can be more easily tweaked and modified to accept other servers. In actuality it can be modified to do so right now, it’s just that there is little reason to do so because the amount of people enthusiastic about snap isn’t very large, as it has many other problems besides just the centralized server infra.

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I do have a problem with them, the same problem was solved, better, with other technologies like appImage (which doesn’t litter your mount list with 100 meaningless entries).

      Even flatpak is better, snap is an also ran they’re trying to force on us without being as good as any of the competitors.

    • lengau@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      Couldn’t the same argument be made for any distro? They give you what they put in their repos. If you want a deb package, use the mozillateam PPA (which is built on Canonical’s hardware, same as Mozilla’s snap of it).

      • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        IIRC, the issue was that - unless you take steps to explicitly prevent it - Ubuntu would occasionally reinstall the snap version. I don’t remember the details, been a while since I had to dance that dance, but I recall it being one of the things that put me off snap in particular, Ubuntu in general and sparked my search for a different distro.

        I’m now on Nobara, a Fedora-based gaming-oriented distro maintained by GloriousEgroll (who also maintains the popular Proton-GE)

        • lengau@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Like with any time you’re trying to select a specific source for a package, you need to set apt configuration to prefer that source. It’s standard apt behaviour with a standard way to configure it.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      when I don’t have a choice and I am being forced to use what the distro maintainers think is good for me.

      That’s the case on literally any distro.
      And just like on literally any distro, you can also install Firefox from FlatPak, the Mozilla repo or from source.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Except on Ubuntu it just installs the snap regardless. If you don’t pay attention you may not even realize that it is a snap. Also the snap store is controlled exclusively by one company with a questionable history.

        • superkret@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          Read my comment again:

          install Firefox from FlatPak
          the Mozilla repo
          or from source

          In none of these cases will Ubuntu be able to install it from snap instead.
          Only the Firefox “package” in the Ubuntu repos actually just links to a script that installs the snap.