Snaps. Why? Please stop.

[KBD47]

I'm not a fan of fragmentation either, but sometimes you are just happy to have a particular app on Linux, or an updated version of it available.

[Pyro2577]

Novice Linux user here and i think they are trying to unify across multiple OSes or Distros. This will bring more people from Windows/Mac etc if it is easier to install 3rd party apps.

[michael louwe]

Novice Linux user here and i think they are trying to unify across multiple OSes or Distros. This will bring more people from Windows/Mac etc if it is easier to install 3rd party apps.

For that, the root solution is a Linux Anti-Fragmentation Policy to unify desktop Linux under 1 major average-user-friendly distro, either Ubuntu/MX-Linux or Manjaro Linux or Fedora. The solution is not Snap or flatpak or Appimage = again frgamentation results.
....... Google imposes her Android Anti-Fragmentation Policy on her OEM partners right from the beginning. Imagine if today we have 3 major Android distros, eg Android, Amazon Fire OS, LineageOS and their own app ecosystem. Richard Stallman and/or Linus Torvald should have done the same in the early 1990s, ie imposed a Linux Anti-Fragmentation Policy or Agreement on all Linux developers.

If I'm not mistaken, in the early 1990s, Stallman and his Free Software Foundation created the 1st Linux distro, Debian, which was usable only by tech-geeks. If he had imposed a Linux Anti-Fragmentation Policy/Agreement on all Debian developers, Ubuntu could have been the only average-user-friendly Linux distro = no need for Snap or flatpak, ie Linux app developers only need to develop for Ubuntu, and not for a non-existent Manjaro Linux and Fedora.

Ubuntu's Snap apps is the progeny of Ubuntu Touch's Click apps, similar to what is found in the Android app ecosystem. I believe Canonical adopted mobile Click apps into desktop Ubuntu with Snap apps was mainly to reduce manpower costs since Snap apps are maintained by the app developers and not by Ubuntu developers. IOW, it was not to unify desktop Linux which we all know is ununifiable in its present state of forkiness/free-libre/open-source.
....... It was foolish of M$ to integrate some mobile features into desktop Win 8/10, eg ugly Metro Tiles, confusing Settings vs Control Panel, etc. Canonical may be doing the same foolishness by imposing the mobile Snap app ecosystem into desktop Ubuntu.

I am also an average home-computer-user who is more interested in the business side of things and usability of computers and its various OS. OS vendors and developers have their own perspective, with a few being inconsiderate or hostile to average users. Fyi, .......

https://cialu.net/a-better-ubuntu-linux ... appy-snap/ - A Better Ubuntu Linux Without The Crappy Snap - Feb 12, 2019
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page= ... tore-Start - Ubuntu Has Started Work On A New Desktop Snap Store - 25 June 2019
.
.
P S - {sarcasm on} To unify across multiple Linux distros, Canonical should convert all the other rival major Linux distros into Snap apps, ie make Fedora and Manjaro Linux into Snap apps, like M$'s WSL or Windows Subsystem for Linux = Ubuntu Subsystem for Linux(USL).

[djph]

If I'm not mistaken, in the early 1990s, Stallman and his Free Software Foundation created the 1st Linux distro, Debian, which was usable only by tech-geeks. If he had imposed a Linux Anti-Fragmentation Policy/Agreement on all Debian developers, Ubuntu could have been the only average-user-friendly Linux distro = no need for Snap or flatpak, ie Linux app developers only need to develop for Ubuntu, and not for a non-existent Manjaro Linux and Fedora.

Not really. Debian was one of the first, but I don't believe it's that deeply in bed with the FSF.

Frankly, when it comes to developing applications, you target "linux", and let the users compile for themselves. Or, you target a package distribution system (APT -- Debian and derivatives OR RPM - RedHat and derivatives OR both).

Now, that being said, both Debian and RedHat are "stable" distros, so your new whiz-bang software will probably do better by targeting Ubuntu and/or Fedora moreso that the other two; due to their faster release cycles.

IOW, it was not to unify desktop Linux which we all know is ununifiable in its present state of forkiness/free-libre/open-source.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I am also an average home-computer-user who is more interested in the business side of things and usability of computers and its various OS. OS vendors and developers have their own perspective, with a few being inconsiderate or hostile to average users. Fyi, .......

Most developers of Linux-friendly software are also users of said software ("find a problem, fix a problem"), which leads it to be better overall than otherwise -- hence UNIX-like systems tending to "work". However, that has eroded in the past several years, as "the powers that be" are apparently chasing after "Windows-ifying" things.

[michael louwe]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is bad in the sense of fragmented desktop Linux having a minuscule world market share of about 2% for more than 20 years. To tech-geeks, it is a good thing, eg for them to play with to their hearts' content = a niche market.
....... Normally, a world market share of about 2% for many years would mean the demise of the product/service, eg Win 10 Mobile. Desktop Linux is only alive because some tech giants find free-of-charge Linux useful to be kept alive, like a master keeping alive his slave. Hence, the Linux Foundation has financial contributors like Google, Amazon, Facebook, M$, Intel, AMD, IBM, Oracle, etc. ( https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/ ) Eg Google and Facebook uses Linux for nearly all their operations = no need to pay M$ for Windows licenses.
.
.

Most developers of Linux-friendly software are also users of said software ("find a problem, fix a problem"), which leads it to be better overall than otherwise -- hence UNIX-like systems tending to "work". However, that has eroded in the past several years, as "the powers that be" are apparently chasing after "Windows-ifying" things.

Right from the beginning, Windows and MacOSX were developed by M$ and Apple during the 1980s for the average mass users and tech-geeks(= for them to fiddle and play with), eg user-friendly GUI = point-and-click; whereas desktop Linux was developed in the early 1990s by Stallman and Linus/tech-geeks for tech-geeks only, eg lack of GUI = mostly CLI or Terminal commands. Only from Ubuntu 12.04/2012 onward, was desktop Linux usable by the average mass users. Even today, upstream Linux distros like Debian and Archlinux are not usable by average mass users.
....... In comparison, right from the beginning, Linux-based Android and iOS were developed by Google and Apple during the 2000s for the average mass users and tech-geeks, and not only for tech-geeks.

Proprietary non-free software/OS does not always mean it is a bad thing. Millions of average and tech-savvy mass computer users believe M$ is not a bad thing when she offers them an affordable desktop Windows OS that is very user-friendly ootb, well-supported by hardware OEMs and has 10 years of support. Is it a bad thing for you to pay for your Internet service.?
....... Conversely, open-source free-of-charge software/OS does not always mean it is a good thing, especially when things do not work ootb for average users.

[djph]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It is bad in the sense of fragmented desktop Linux having a minuscule world market share of about 2% for more than 20 years. To tech-geeks, it is a good thing, eg for them to play with to their hearts' content = a niche market.

Perhaps "Linux" as a whole isn't trying to "target" the desktop market. Much like IBM gave up targetting it and sold all that off to Lenovo about 10 years back.

If you look outside the "Desktop Market" (which has always been plagued with being compiled from second-tier sources, such as what a web-browser reports the OS as), to the "Server Market", it's basically a situation of "Use Linux" -- with (IIRC) some 90% of webservers running it, not to mention supercomputers and the like.

....... Normally, a world market share of about 2% for many years would mean the demise of the product/service, eg Win 10 Mobile. Desktop Linux is only alive because some tech giants [...]

"Desktop Linux" has nothing to do with tech giants trying to push it on people; but rather people interacting with it (or UNIX proper) on servers, and deciding that it's good enough for daily use, and adding features to it for that purpose (although the X Windows System was developed in the mid/late 1980s -- I believe as part of simplifying things; but I don't have the full history of X Windows) . Remember that until the early 1990s or so, there was a relatively thriving computer market, and not the Microsoft-uniculture that pervades today.

.

Most developers of Linux-friendly software are also users of said software ("find a problem, fix a problem"), which leads it to be better overall than otherwise -- hence UNIX-like systems tending to "work". However, that has eroded in the past several years, as "the powers that be" are apparently chasing after "Windows-ifying" things.

Right from the beginning, Windows and MacOSX were developed by M$ and Apple during the 1980s for the average mass users and tech-geeks(= for them to fiddle and play with),eg user-friendly GUI = point-and-click; whereas desktop Linux was developed in the early 1990s by Stallman and Linus/tech-geeks for tech-geeks only, eg lack of GUI = mostly CLI or Terminal commands. Only from Ubuntu 12.04/2012 onward, was desktop Linux usable by the average mass users. Even today, upstream Linux distros like Debian and Archlinux are not usable by average mass users.
....... In comparison, right from the beginning, Linux-based Android and iOS were developed by Google and Apple during the 2000s for the average mass users and tech-geeks, and not only for tech-geeks.

Your history books are somewhat wrong.

The Linux Kernel was initially developed in 1990 / 1991 by Linus Torvalds, because he could; as an alternative to the Minix UNIX-like microkernel.
GNU applications were developed in the mid 1980s by RMS, etc. due to clashes with the UNIX powers that be making some really bad decisions about cutting off access to their software -- remember AT&T's UNIX was something like a $40,000 license at the time. HURD (the GNU Kernel) never really took off though -- Linus' kernel took center stage there.

That being said, Windows didn't take off because it was better; but rather because Gates made some rather cunning business moves that ultimately forced people's hand in the matter -- mainly through his partnership with IBM to sell machines with Windows pre-installed.

Proprietary non-free software/OS does not always mean it is a bad thing. Millions of average and tech-savvy mass computer users believe M$ is not a bad thing when she offers them an affordable desktop Windows OS that is very user-friendly ootb, well-supported by hardware OEMs and has 10 years of support.

"Affordable" only because it's "free(tm)" on that new machine they bought; not because they necessarily chose to purchase it. But we can't really fault people for thinking it came "free" when there isn't a line-item on their bill for the OS.

"Well supported" only because a lot of hardware is trash targeted to the lowend Windows PCs of the day. If you look at the companies that do support Linux relatively well (as in not just "token" support), they tend to be big names; rather than "nobodies" -- Intel, nVidia, AMD, HP, Brother -- not that "big names" mean they will support Linux well (if at all -- I'm lookin' at you, Epson).

Can't really argue the support -- although it's a 5+5 model (5y "Mainstream" - new Windows features and the like + 5y "Extended" (security only)). Which is somewhat necessary from MSFT's end of things, since they can't rely on people getting new PCs every 3-5 years anymore -- the WinXP era is when that really changed (and, at least around here, caused a lot of heartache with friends and family -- "What do you mean I can't use it anymore, the machine still works fine!")

Is it a bad thing for you to pay for your Internet service.?

Only since it's a government-mandated monopoly these days. I miss the early / mid 1990s with "hey use our service instead of the big boys! We only cost 19.99!".

....... Conversely, open-source free-of-charge software/OS does not always mean it is a good thing, especially when things do not work ootb for average users.

Then the average needs to be brought up. Although (at least around here), the "average user" is heavily using either iOS- or Android-based tablets or ChromeOS in the cases where they still need a keyboard. "The desktop" (or "laptop" for that matter) is becoming less and less of a thing. It'll likely never go away (thanks businesses, gamers, etc.), but it's probably going to become the niche market in "general computing" in the future.

[michael louwe]

Your history books are somewhat wrong.

.

. Let us go back in time a little to the mid-1970s when IBM was the king of the computer hardware industry. Microsoft started in 1975 as a producer of programming languages for the MIPS Altair 7500. In 1981, Microsoft bought an operating system for the Intel based 8086 chip from a small company called Seattle Computer Products and redesigned its product to license it to IBM for its new personal computer. This was released as MS DOS 1.0. (Microsoft Timeline) IBM, at the time held a monopoly over the hardware of computers - but by allowing Microsoft, an outside source, to develop the operating system of its computers, and Intel to develop the chips, IBM effectively ceded control of the software industry to those up-and-coming companies. Microsoft retained the right to license their operating system to other manufacturers and helped to generate the massive IBM clone business.

When Microsoft first produced MS DOS, it was not a monopoly, but rather another company trying to compete in the new computer software market. But the decade was good to the company, and the 1980s saw both Microsoft and Intel become the leaders of the new computer industry. While companies like Apple had more technologically innovative machines than the DOS-based PCs, the Macintoshes were more expensive and they therefore never gained much market share.

By the late 1980s, Microsoft controlled the operating system market; versions of MS-DOS ran on over 80% of personal computers. Microsoft did not, however, control any applications markets. Lotus had the top spreadsheet, 1-2-3, and WordPerfect had the leading word processor, WordPerfect.

It was the introduction of Microsoft Windows version 3.0 in 1990 that cemented Microsoft's position as a software monopoly. . .

It has also been claimed that Microsoft used its control over the operating system and graphical user interface markets to help its growth in the applications market.

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts ... osoft.html - The Making of Microsoft - 1996.

IIRC, during the 1980s, desktop computers were expensive, eg the first user-friendly GUI-based Apple Lisa 1 computer came out in 1983 and cost US$10,000 each = a niche enthusiast/hobbyist market. M$ came out with her own GUI-based Windows 1.0 in 1985. When M$ began to license out Windows to OEMs at affordable prices, this brought down the cost of each computer to below US$1,000 = IBM-compatible Windows computers soon became a mass consumer market for average users and tech-geeks, while over-priced Apple MacIntosh computers remained a niche market. .......

Microsoft included a clause in its contract with IBM which permitted the sale of the finished PC operating system (PC DOS) to other computer manufacturers. These IBM competitors licensed it, as MS-DOS, in order to offer PC compatibility for less cost. ...

The availability by 1986 of sub-$1000 "Turbo XT" PC XT compatibles, including early offerings from Dell Computer, reducing demand for IBM's models. It was possible to buy two of these "generic" systems for less than the cost of one IBM-branded PC AT, and many companies did just that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible

[michael louwe]

Perhaps "Linux" as a whole isn't trying to "target" the desktop market.

Remember "The Year of Linux on the Desktop" has been parroted by Linux tech-geeks for years.

Again, like Google, Facebook and Amazon, many companies and websites prefer free-of-charge Server Linux because they would not need to pay M$ for costly Windows Server licenses. OTOH, such companies and websites would need to hire Linux professionals/experts/tech-geeks to setup and maintain their servers or outsource this to Linux consultants or subscribe to RHEL for full 24/7 tech support.

[michael louwe]

If you look at the companies that do support Linux relatively well (as in not just "token" support), they tend to be big names; rather than "nobodies" -- Intel, nVidia, AMD, HP, Brother -- not that "big names" mean they will support Linux well (if at all -- I'm lookin' at you, Epson).

.
Intel Rapid Storage Technology(RST) for faster fake-RAID performance and Intel Optane Memory for system acceleration do not support Linux. Certain Intel graphics cards do not support Linux ootb. Nvidia and AMD graphics cards may not support a Live Linux DVD/USB ootb for booting and do not support Linux in dual-card configuration, eg a computer using an integrated Intel graphics card and a better dedicated Nvidia/AMD graphics card. HP and Brother printers that come with scanners may not support Linux.
....... All the above support Win 10/8.1/7.

[michael louwe]

Only since it's a government-mandated monopoly these days. I miss the early / mid 1990s with "hey use our service instead of the big boys! We only cost 19.99!".

That means pro-business government policy is a bad thing, not the paying for your Internet service. I pay only US$15 per month for my 4G Mobile Broadband Internet service with unlimited calls, SMS and data at 5Mbps, though hotspot sharing is limited to 5GB per month = pro-consumer government policy is also a good thing. We also pay for our electricity, water and other utility services. There is no free lunch in this world.

[djph]

Your history books are somewhat wrong.

[...]
https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts ... osoft.html - The Making of Microsoft - 1996.

While a decent history of MS, the linked article doesn't bolster your statements concerning Linux's predecessors in the same timeframe (which, incidentally, is what I was referring to when telling you your history was flawed).

Intel Rapid Storage Technology(RST) for faster fake-RAID performance and Intel Optane Memory for system acceleration do not support Linux. Certain Intel graphics cards do not support Linux ootb. Nvidia and AMD graphics cards may not support a Live Linux DVD/USB ootb for booting and do not support Linux in dual-card configuration, eg a computer using an integrated Intel graphics card and a better dedicated Nvidia/AMD graphics card. HP and Brother printers that come with scanners may not support Linux.

Link to the source on the intel graphics?
I'll grant you RST and optane.
Worst I've seen with nVidia / AMD cards is having to tell the kernel on a live system to quit trying to enable them. My Dell XPS15 with nVidia card runs perfectly fine when it needs to run nVidia.
Brother MFC-L8850CDW also works flawlessly printing and scanning, though it won't do OCR (not that it matters, it's terrible at it).

Only since it's a government-mandated monopoly these days. I miss the early / mid 1990s with "hey use our service instead of the big boys! We only cost 19.99!".

That means pro-business government policy is a bad thing, not paying for your Internet service. I pay only US$15 for my 4G Mobile Broadband Internet service with unlimited calls, SMS and data at 5Mbps, though hotspot sharing is limited to 5GB per month = pro-consumer government policy is also a good thing. We also pay for our electricity, water and other utility services. There is no free lunch in this world.

My point, which you seem to have missed, was that the dissatisfaction was caused by the limitation of choice in the matter, moreso than 'government policy'.

[michael louwe]

Link to the source on the intel graphics?

.
https://wiki.debian.org/GraphicsCard

. .Intel

If your graphic card is etc. 2007 and newer, try uninstalling xserver-xorg-video-intel and use the builtin modesetting driver (xserver-xorg-core) instead.

945GM - xserver-xorg-video-intel

GMA 500 How to install Intel's proprietary driver. .

.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardwareSupport ... dsPoulsbo/

. This page details support for the Intel GMA500 "Poulsbo" video hardware with Ubuntu 12.04 and higher.

Unfortunately the support for this hardware is extremely limited on Linux. There are several drivers, but all lack certain basic features, such as future and current maintenance or support for suspend and hardware acceleration. . .

.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Intel_GMA_3600
.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
.
https://wiki.debian.org/iwlwifi

. Intel Wireless WiFi Link, Wireless-N, Advanced-N, Ultimate-N devices

This page describes how to enable support for Intel 802.11n devices on Debian systems. ...

Non-free firmware is required, which can be provided by installing the firmware-iwlwifi package.

Also, even though Intel/AMD processors support Linux ootb, certain processor features may not support Linux, eg power management for battery power conservation in laptops.

[michael louwe]

Worst I've seen with nVidia / AMD cards is having to tell the kernel on a live system to quit trying to enable them. My Dell XPS15 with nVidia card runs perfectly fine when it needs to run nVidia.

.
viewtopic.php?t=122257 - Solve boot problems with AMD and NVIDIA graphics cards

Your Dell XPS 15 uses only ONE graphics card, ie an Nvidia graphics card. I was referring to lack of Linux support for a hybrid-graphics-card or dual-graphics-card computer, eg a high-end gaming laptop. ....... https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Hybrid_graphics

[michael louwe]

While a decent history of MS, the linked article doesn't bolster your statements concerning Linux's predecessors in the same timeframe (which, incidentally, is what I was referring to when telling you your history was flawed).

.
M$ had already established a mass market monopoly when johnny-come-lately GNU/Linux arrived on the scene during the early 1990s. Whatever the history of GNU/Linux, average mass users rejected Stallman+Linus's desktop Linux because it was unusable to them, eg the 1993 Debian 0.01, ie desktop Linux was developed by tech-geeks for tech-geeks, so that they can forever have the freedom/libre to play/fiddle with open-source software by using the CLI or non-GUI = a hobbyist OS. IOW, the history of Linux is rooted in developing the OS and software not for average mass consumers, especially not for newbies. Many tech-geeks opted for Windows, eg IT Admins, Windows app developers, etc.

Eg Ubuntu's new Snap app ecosystem development is mainly to advantage Linux app developers(= do less work) and Ubuntu developers(= do less work) while disadvantages users(= apps launch and run slower, and/or with more problems).
....... Similarly for Linux Mint 19.2's new update policy development which allows LM developers to be careless about sensitive updates(eg do less testing of updates) while users may be exposed to more update bugs and more potential problems with Timeshift setup and system restoration.

[michael louwe]

Ubuntu's Snap app ecosystem is like M$'s Windows 10 on ARM - unnecessarily adding a complex layer of virtualization or pseudo-emulation to apps, instead of running the apps natively which is faster and entails less problems.

[ColdBootII]

^+1 exactly, if it ever gains any greater adoption it will sink Linux computing to the level at which Linux gaming is at this moment.

The argument that it "helps reduce fragmentation in Linux ecosystem" simply doesn't stand because developers would still want to have their own package manager that uses their own package format. Never mind that repos that are supposed to provide end users with some useful software for that particular package manager, end up thin as a rail.

It's fragmentation from vanity, "because I can", not from any other reason.

[Portreve]

I think you folks might want to take a look at this thread.

[DAMIEN1307]

After reading clems june 2019 blog, my thoughts & concerns expressed over the last 2 yrs in various posts about snaps etc. seem justified...DAMIEN

https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3766

[all41]

After reading clems june 2019 blog, my thoughts & concerns expressed over the last 2 yrs in various posts about snaps etc. seem justified...DAMIEN

I rarely agree with your point of view--but +1 on this Damien

[michael louwe]

https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/intent-t ... -only/5987 - Intent to Provide Chromium as a Snap only - May 2018.

Today, chromium updates are built and published for every supported Ubuntu release except trusty (currently xenial, artful, bionic, cosmic) shortly after they are made available upstream. That’s both time- and resource- consuming, and it’s also not trivial to keep it building on older Ubuntu releases.

.
So, Canonical Inc had no such problems with Ubuntu 16.04 and earlier but only with Ubuntu 18.04 and later = does not compute.
....... Seems Canonical Inc intends to cut costs by pushing unuser-friendly Snap apps to replace all apps/programs = maintenance of apps/programs will fall on the shoulders of Linux Snap app developers and not on Ubuntu developers.

Maybe, Canonical Inc also intends Ubuntu Snap Store to be like Android Google Play Store = Ubuntu will be able to dominate desktop Linux to the exclusion of all other Linux distros.