Screenshot doesn’t even show half.

  • I_like_cats@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

        • rush@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          that’s really just two differences:

          • weaker separation/sandboxing (process is granted permission to everything) (mostly bad with handy usecases)
          • an alias feature for binaries contained in packages so you don’t have to run them by ID
      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          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?)

          • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They are referring to flatpaks level of security. It’s sandboxing leaves a lot to be desired, as I’ve understood it.

            • Johanno@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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

      • Emperor Palpapeen@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        @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.

    • Raspin@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • lloram239@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.