▲ 289 ▼ Release notes of an open source app. Someone is pretty mad at Canonical for Snap (programming.dev) submitted 2 years ago* by suy@programming.dev to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev 20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] DiabloD3@programming.dev 118 points 2 years ago (4 children) Good on them. Snap is a plague. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] pkill@programming.dev 36 points 2 years ago (3 children) Why are they even still pushing that nonsense when flatpak at least somewhat gets closer to getting bwrap implemented right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 42 points 2 years ago Why are they even still pushing that nonsense It's a for-profit corporation. They only have one goal. permalink fedilink source parent [–] hunger@programming.dev 27 points 2 years ago (1 child) To be fair: snaps can work for all kinds of things all over the stack from the kernel to individual applications, while flatpak just does applications. Canonical is building a lot around those abilities to handle lower level things, so I guess it makes sense for them. IMHO flatpak does the applications better and more reliably and those are what I personally care for, so I personally stay away from snaps. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pkill@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago Fair point. For instance one thing that sucks about flatpaks is that you can't torsocks them permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pkill@programming.dev 36 points 2 years ago (3 children) Why are they even still pushing that nonsense when flatpak at least somewhat gets closer to getting bwrap implemented right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 42 points 2 years ago Why are they even still pushing that nonsense It's a for-profit corporation. They only have one goal. permalink fedilink source parent [–] hunger@programming.dev 27 points 2 years ago (1 child) To be fair: snaps can work for all kinds of things all over the stack from the kernel to individual applications, while flatpak just does applications. Canonical is building a lot around those abilities to handle lower level things, so I guess it makes sense for them. IMHO flatpak does the applications better and more reliably and those are what I personally care for, so I personally stay away from snaps. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pkill@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago Fair point. For instance one thing that sucks about flatpaks is that you can't torsocks them permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dirk@lemmy.ml 42 points 2 years ago Why are they even still pushing that nonsense It's a for-profit corporation. They only have one goal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hunger@programming.dev 27 points 2 years ago (1 child) To be fair: snaps can work for all kinds of things all over the stack from the kernel to individual applications, while flatpak just does applications. Canonical is building a lot around those abilities to handle lower level things, so I guess it makes sense for them. IMHO flatpak does the applications better and more reliably and those are what I personally care for, so I personally stay away from snaps. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] pkill@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago Fair point. For instance one thing that sucks about flatpaks is that you can't torsocks them permalink fedilink source parent
[–] pkill@programming.dev 4 points 2 years ago Fair point. For instance one thing that sucks about flatpaks is that you can't torsocks them permalink fedilink source parent
