Canonical want help testing their Steam snap package for Ubuntu

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedjeI bet you if there could be alt stores to snap, no one would hate it as much as they do.

Well that is the situation today but people still hate it as much as they do. Now there AFAIK does not yet exist such a store, but there _could_ do since everything needed to build it is available, it's just that no one have bothered and that is hardly Canonical:s fault.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but I'm pretty sure their backend is tied very much into their client.

The URL to the store is most likely hardcoded in the source code of snapd, but the code is open so it can be forked and so far we don't know how Canonical would treat a patch that changes that to a config value under say /etc/snap.d/.

Right, but who would want to bother when you can just use flatpak? :)

Of course, but then perhaps also at the same time stop the hate for snap? I mean that was the context, not that you had to use it ;)

My actual problem with snap is how difficult it is to remove it from an Ubuntu system... well less about how difficult it is, but it's annoying that it breaks the Ubuntu Software Center when you do. If you want to just use flatpak / debs, you're basically going to be using gnome-software (if you want gui).

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedjeI bet you if there could be alt stores to snap, no one would hate it as much as they do.

Well that is the situation today but people still hate it as much as they do. Now there AFAIK does not yet exist such a store, but there _could_ do since everything needed to build it is available, it's just that no one have bothered and that is hardly Canonical:s fault.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but I'm pretty sure their backend is tied very much into their client.

The URL to the store is most likely hardcoded in the source code of snapd, but the code is open so it can be forked and so far we don't know how Canonical would treat a patch that changes that to a config value under say /etc/snap.d/.

Right, but who would want to bother when you can just use flatpak? :)

Of course, but then perhaps also at the same time stop the hate for snap? I mean that was the context, not that you had to use it ;)

My actual problem with snap is how difficult it is to remove it from an Ubuntu system... well less about how difficult it is, but it's annoying that it breaks the Ubuntu Software Center when you do. If you want to just use flatpak / debs, you're basically going to be using gnome-software (if you want gui).

One can always criticize the implementation of course. I have zero experience with the software center since I only use apt directly and thus had zero problems removing snap from e.g servers (I run a few micro servers at aws where I had to really squeeze out every available byte of RAM).

But I can guess that it is difficult since they obviously want their users to use snap so they have built it into the system basically.

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedjeI bet you if there could be alt stores to snap, no one would hate it as much as they do.

Well that is the situation today but people still hate it as much as they do. Now there AFAIK does not yet exist such a store, but there _could_ do since everything needed to build it is available, it's just that no one have bothered and that is hardly Canonical:s fault.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but I'm pretty sure their backend is tied very much into their client.

The URL to the store is most likely hardcoded in the source code of snapd, but the code is open so it can be forked and so far we don't know how Canonical would treat a patch that changes that to a config value under say /etc/snap.d/.

Right, but who would want to bother when you can just use flatpak? :)

Of course, but then perhaps also at the same time stop the hate for snap? I mean that was the context, not that you had to use it ;)

My actual problem with snap is how difficult it is to remove it from an Ubuntu system... well less about how difficult it is, but it's annoying that it breaks the Ubuntu Software Center when you do. If you want to just use flatpak / debs, you're basically going to be using gnome-software (if you want gui).

I think with time it'll become harder and harder to remove snap from Ubuntu because it looks like Canonical's plans are to move in the direction of Ubuntu Core where system services are installed as snaps. This obviously will make Ubuntu more solid since there is less chance for packages to step on each other, but will pretty much force every Ubuntu user to use snaps.

Quoting: sarmad

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: slaapliedjeI bet you if there could be alt stores to snap, no one would hate it as much as they do.

Well that is the situation today but people still hate it as much as they do. Now there AFAIK does not yet exist such a store, but there _could_ do since everything needed to build it is available, it's just that no one have bothered and that is hardly Canonical:s fault.

I'd like to be proven wrong, but I'm pretty sure their backend is tied very much into their client.

The URL to the store is most likely hardcoded in the source code of snapd, but the code is open so it can be forked and so far we don't know how Canonical would treat a patch that changes that to a config value under say /etc/snap.d/.

Right, but who would want to bother when you can just use flatpak? :)

Of course, but then perhaps also at the same time stop the hate for snap? I mean that was the context, not that you had to use it ;)

My actual problem with snap is how difficult it is to remove it from an Ubuntu system... well less about how difficult it is, but it's annoying that it breaks the Ubuntu Software Center when you do. If you want to just use flatpak / debs, you're basically going to be using gnome-software (if you want gui).

I think with time it'll become harder and harder to remove snap from Ubuntu because it looks like Canonical's plans are to move in the direction of Ubuntu Core where system services are installed as snaps. This obviously will make Ubuntu more solid since there is less chance for packages to step on each other, but will pretty much force every Ubuntu user to use snaps.

Yeah, this is what I think will happen, and it'll basically make it no longer a Debian based distribution with decent defaults (which is what I used it for up until they dropped Evolution for Thunderbird. Sure is Thunderbird sufficient for a large swath of people using desktop Linux. Yes. Is it sufficient for enterprise use? No. (at least it wasn't at the time, some stuff has matured so that it's better than it used to be, though Evolution still beats it as far as being a full groupware suite).

I'd like to say it doesn't affect me, but then I've seen a few apps already that are limited to being distributed via the snap store (or tar ball), so are more difficult to install on Debian.