288
Good on them. Snap is a plague.
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
288 points (98.3% liked)
Programmer Humor
19652 readers
2305 users here now
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why are they even still pushing that nonsense when flatpak at least somewhat gets closer to getting bwrap implemented right?
Why are they even still pushing that nonsense
It's a for-profit corporation. They only have one goal.
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.
Fair point. For instance one thing that sucks about flatpaks is that you can't torsocks them
What is AFTL? Probably not "Anterior talofibular ligament" as the internet told me
Android File Transfer for Linux. Here's the release note from the OP.
Thanks. I should have linked to that myself, perhaps.
What's easier to understand: ankle anatomy or Ubuntu publishing.
Ankle!
Canonical could have done a lot better with the explanation message here. The idea is to push apps towards XDG compliance and the use of things like Portals.
That said, unlike Wayland, portals really aren't there yet from a UX perspective, especially for an app that is heavy on file transfers.I prefer what Flathub does where it puts a nice green checker beside your app for XDG compliance - it's an encouragement, but not an enforcement.
This post title is misleading. The developer was working with Snap until Canonical didn't allowed it anymore. He's pissed with the policy enforcement which is strictly speaking commercial and as bad as Apple's afaik...
Sorry, could you clarify what you mean? I don't see the difference. Isn't the author complaining about Canonical for the policy enforcement?
Canonical has been taking bad decisions for quite some time now, and this developer was trying to reach Ubuntu users even while probably knowing these. Which makes sense, of course. The point being that this dev's disappointment seems quite specific in these notes (against Snap), and imho he might work again towards shipping their app through Snap if he was allowed to. My comment compares Canonical to Apple, to give some context of where Canonical is at so many other idiosyncrasies (for example, I also heard other bad stuff about their H.R., in particular a way too lengthy hiring process.)