- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- linux@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Alongside the Phoronix commentors I’m also of the same opinion that implementing Canonical’s defunct Snap package system is a waste of time and effort.
At this point, everyone with an understanding of the 3 primary containerized package types should know that Snaps in comparison to Flatpaks or AppImage packages should be avoided if possible.
If Canonical open-sourced their backend I believe that snaps would no longer cause such aversion and backlash from the community.
Nah. Even if the Snapstore backend were FOSS, you should still avoid Snaps because the way they implemented sandboxing subtly breaks many applications.
Not to mention, they dishonestly co-opt your
apt installinvocations to sneakily install the Snap version. Actual Microsoft behavior. If a company is that eager to deceive you and shove their tech down your throat, you should avoid it at all costs.Nah. Even if the Snapstore backend were FOSS, you should still avoid Snaps because the way they implemented sandboxing subtly breaks many applications.
Fair; that is true.
Not to mention, they dishonestly co-opt your
apt installinvocations to sneakily install the Snap version.🤨 damn that’s pretty crazy if true. Knowing Canonical this could be real, I’ll have to look this up.
Edit:
Confirmed this is trueApologies for linking to rdit, but yeah Canonical what’s going on with you
They also keep sneaking in new ways to get you back on snaps. It’s like whackamole.
Another wave of bug reports and rants about Linux incoming.
