this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
238 points (84.8% liked)

linuxmemes

20880 readers
5 users here now

I use Arch btw

Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
238
I respect people who don't like snaps, but Canonical will not abandon a successful project (slrpnk.net)
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
91 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Mainly the snap client doesnt let you configure a secondary source, and ubuntu's repo doesn't have a good track record of not providing malware.

https://baronhk.wordpress.com/2023/10/01/malware-in-the-ubuntu-snap-store-again/

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/ubuntu-command-not-found-tool-can-be-abused-to-spread-malware/

https://www.linuxuprising.com/2018/05/malware-found-in-ubuntu-snap-store.html

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

So that's admittedly not a good look for canonical, but my read of that is that if you're getting widely-known software from a developer who's publishing it to snap themselves, and you're cautious about your usage, snap is fine.

For example, essentially my only use of snap is to install certbot. If I follow the directions from certbot.eff.org precisely, then I'll get certbot installed and no issues.

I certainly agree that (a) the system is ripe for abuse and (b) should be self-hostable to support Free software. Both of these could be fixed by canonical opening it up.