I think Snap has the potential to be better than Flatpak. It’s a real sandbox instead of the half-assed shit Flatpak has going on. The problem I have with Snap is that Canonical keeps the Server closed-source. I don’t want a centralized app store where Canonical can just choose to remove apps they don’t like. So as long as the Server is closed-source, I will stay on Flatpak
I asked the question because of the label “half-assed” that the commenter above me put on Flatpak. I do not know much about snap, Flatpak and how they differ (other than the fact that both are used as containerisation technologies for desktop apps and the former is by Canonical), and why Flatpak is necessarily worse that snap (by what metric? System performance? Storage?)
@MigratingtoLemmy@I_like_cats I wondered about that, but to me it just feels like an isolated file system based app structure, kinda like the .app folders in Macs. Does that sound right?
And with permissions, you can stop the app from accessing anything outside of its specific little file system.
I don’t know if sideloading snap apps is a thing, but it has been proven that creating a snap repo isn’t particularly difficult. Snap server being closed isn’t really an issue Imho.
Isn’t the issue that snap doesn’t even support third party repos to begin with? So you’d have to patch the client before you can even access any other servers. Unless they have fixed that in the meantime.
I think Snap has the potential to be better than Flatpak. It’s a real sandbox instead of the half-assed shit Flatpak has going on. The problem I have with Snap is that Canonical keeps the Server closed-source. I don’t want a centralized app store where Canonical can just choose to remove apps they don’t like. So as long as the Server is closed-source, I will stay on Flatpak
How is Snap’s sandbox better than Flatpak’s?
Snaps can integrate with system like native packages, unlike Flatpaks that stay at user level like Appimages.
that’s really just two differences:
Is Flatpak not a container system?
Kind of? Maybe?
It has similar goals to something like docker, but goes about it very differently, and it’s obviously meant for user-facing applications.
You wouldn’t use docker to install steam, but you can use flatpak.
I asked the question because of the label “half-assed” that the commenter above me put on Flatpak. I do not know much about snap, Flatpak and how they differ (other than the fact that both are used as containerisation technologies for desktop apps and the former is by Canonical), and why Flatpak is necessarily worse that snap (by what metric? System performance? Storage?)
They are referring to flatpaks level of security. It’s sandboxing leaves a lot to be desired, as I’ve understood it.
Well probably because you usually don’t want it so secure that it doesn’t function correctly anymore.
On snap I often need the --classic option to get sth running because it won’t run properly in a full ssndbox
@MigratingtoLemmy @I_like_cats I wondered about that, but to me it just feels like an isolated file system based app structure, kinda like the .app folders in Macs. Does that sound right?
And with permissions, you can stop the app from accessing anything outside of its specific little file system.
I see. Thanks!
That and these damn annoying loop devices.
I don’t know if sideloading snap apps is a thing, but it has been proven that creating a snap repo isn’t particularly difficult. Snap server being closed isn’t really an issue Imho.
You can create a snap store proxy, but that still has to register and pull from Canonical’s source.
Isn’t the issue that snap doesn’t even support third party repos to begin with? So you’d have to patch the client before you can even access any other servers. Unless they have fixed that in the meantime.
Go restart your browser in the middle of the day because snap just updated it in the background.