forcing snaps on people (if you apt-get firefox it’ll install the snap even though you didn’t install it with snap), adding ads for it, snap having a proprietary backend, snap being essentially just a fundamentally worse version of flatpak.
the only advantage i’ve heard for snap is that it’s easier to package for.
Plus I think if you want the advantages of a stable release, easy for user, distro, they’ll also need to be immutable now, what’s the usecase for a non-immutable, stable, easy to use distro?
If you didn’t care about ease of use, you wouldn’t want immutable, but if you do, you absolutely do.
If you don’t care about stability, you might not care about immutable, but if you do, you absolutely do.
Ubuntu seems like a prime usecase for an immutable distro, but it isn’t for tradition-related reasons rather than it actually being good for users.
Snap is also useful for server software and it can apparently be used for more low level things such as drivers. Still, it being properiatary is enough for me to avoid it completely.
Ubuntu Core is the way Ubuntu’s doing immutability. They’ve already got tech demos of Ubuntu Core Desktop, but designing a distro around interchangeable parts with immutability and the ability to have airgapped networks that can still get updates is a nontrivial task. But it depends on things that snaps can do that Flatpak was never designed to do.
What happened to Ubuntu?
It’s popular and widely used so people naturally hate it.
and also snaps
forcing snaps on people (if you apt-get firefox it’ll install the snap even though you didn’t install it with snap), adding ads for it, snap having a proprietary backend, snap being essentially just a fundamentally worse version of flatpak.
the only advantage i’ve heard for snap is that it’s easier to package for.
Plus I think if you want the advantages of a stable release, easy for user, distro, they’ll also need to be immutable now, what’s the usecase for a non-immutable, stable, easy to use distro?
If you didn’t care about ease of use, you wouldn’t want immutable, but if you do, you absolutely do.
If you don’t care about stability, you might not care about immutable, but if you do, you absolutely do.
Ubuntu seems like a prime usecase for an immutable distro, but it isn’t for tradition-related reasons rather than it actually being good for users.
Snap is also useful for server software and it can apparently be used for more low level things such as drivers. Still, it being properiatary is enough for me to avoid it completely.
Ubuntu Core is the way Ubuntu’s doing immutability. They’ve already got tech demos of Ubuntu Core Desktop, but designing a distro around interchangeable parts with immutability and the ability to have airgapped networks that can still get updates is a nontrivial task. But it depends on things that snaps can do that Flatpak was never designed to do.
Can you explain any of those things? I’ve never understood the appeal and was just kinda hoping they’d let snap die.