I thought a Snap would contain at least the content of the necessary .deb files, if not the files themselves.
Does anyone know the internal structure of a Snap.?
The security depends on the people who build the Snap… same applies to .deb files and any other type of package.
What you get with Debian is a reasonable amount of screening to ensure packages are not infected with malware… probably better than any other package builder. If Snaps are not based on that , they lose some security.
So what exactly are Snaps based on and who does the security work?
That’s why LMDE exists.
In case for any reason Ubuntu cannot be used as the base of Mint, LMDE will become THE Linux Mint.
Absolutely true.
Snaps are packages, which have the apps containerized, containing also the dependencies.
Who does the security work? Good question. I think Snapcraft or Canonical should do it. Do they really? I don’t know. I don’t use snaps…
but only about snap structure… not how it is built.
No one seems to know… where do Ubuntu get the files from that they build into a snap? Do they use .deb files? Do they work from the maintainers website? Do they do any customizing?
There is some info about how to see the sources here
You can apparently build a Snap yourself. The program used is called Snapcraft. It is configured by a .yaml file.
I think the open source thing is compromised if we need to ask these questions. Snap is a closed source app store if you ask my opinion. I prefer not to use it. I was Ubuntu user more than 15 years. It was my #1 os always. Snap changed it. I still don’t hate Ubuntu I just don’t use it.
Yes, Snaps do at least erect a barrier making it more difficult to access source code.
People do not seem to react in the same way to Docker containers. One can always look at the Dockerfile and see exactly how a Docker or Podman container is built.
One can theoretically do the same with a Snap container, but it is not easy because of the way snaps are installed into Linux, and because Snapcraft is more complicated than looking at a simple text Dockerfile.
I think the idea of bundling dependencies is going to reach its limitations soon… software is getting larger. What will a snap look like for something 5x the size of firefox and with 200 dependencies?
What Gentoo’s portage does will be more viable for large software blobs and will not compromise source access or ability to fiddle the configuration.
Flatpak attacks the size problem in another way. It has a git-like facility called OSTree , which manages the file space of all installed Flatpaks and de-duplicates any non-unique dependency files. So multiple Flatpaks take less space than the sum of several single Flatpak installs.
Snap does not have that, neither does Appimage.
Snaps require systemd. Flatpak and Appimage do not.
Sorry I am digressing.
Yes some people dislike Ubuntu because they dislike Snaps.
Let me put forward a different idea.
Most people who become Linux users do so because they are looking for a degree of mental challenge.
Most start with an easy distro like Mint and many progress to something more challenging
If you ranked distros in order of ‘degree of mental challenge’ , Ubuntu would be close to the bottom of the list. It does everything for you… like Win almost only it does it better.
so
People dislike Ubuntu because it provides minimal mental stimulation.
I think this is partially correct. These days there’s an increasing amount of Windows/Mac refugees showing up who just want to use their computer to get stuff done. Those people are not looking for a mental challenge; for them the computer is just a tool.
Windows, these days, seems to be bending over backwards to make sure it is hated. MacOS has some silly things which make people hate it as well.
When you just want to get stuff done, OS’ like Ubuntu are the best solution. Thing is, those people hating on Ubuntu are often power users/developers/administrators, or some such. These people don’t need Ubuntu, they need at least Fedora. They want to be in control and if there’s one thing you’re not getting with Ubuntu it’s control. Now, it’s exactly those people who are active in the various Linux communities moaning about Ubuntu.
You won’t find the average user in those communities, unless they have a problem to fix. They don’t care about whether they use snaps, debs, or flatpaks… all they care about is whether their system works and is usable.
Usually these people show up at the doorstep of some Linux distribution because of some unfixable problem with either Windows or MacOS. Be it that they won’t get security updates anymore or some silly crash which happens because of some unfixable asinine reason.
Yes, that is a different type of user to the ‘hobbyist brigade’ I was thinking of.
If a user wants performance above all else they will, as you say, like Ubuntu.
It depends whether your Linux is a toy or a tool.
Mine is both… I have one distro which is the tool, and several other toys.
Then, of course , my toys are actually learning tools, but not usually productive tools.
Hi Rosika,
I once used Unix purely for work… but it changed me by presenting an opportunity to grow and learn. It opened doors for me and I took the opportunity and never looked back. Today in retirement, possible research projects lie idle while I explore the wonderful world of modern computing. Its my choice… time to enjoy life.
Linux changed me as well, if I may say so. That is: in a good way.
It´s fun exporing how things work under the hood, although it´s not always as easy task.
Linux can trigger curiosity an involvement in people, I suppose.
Problem is with most of these distributions their setup and maintenance is more involved than click, click, done. I know of few non-systemd distribution which have easy to setup and maintain for the end-user systems, and that’s PCLinuxOS and AntiX. As far as I’m aware, there are no others. Distrowatch indicates that MX Linux also has a non-systemd version, but I would not know.
