Adios Apt and Yum? Ubuntu's Snap Apps Are Coming To Distros Everywhere (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader shares an Ars Technica report: Ubuntu's "snappy" new way of packaging applications is no longer exclusive to Ubuntu. Canonical today is announcing that snapd, the tool that allows snap packages to be installed on Ubuntu, has been ported to other Linux distributions including Debian, Arch, Fedora, and Gentoo among others. To install snap packages on non-Ubuntu distributions, Linux desktop and server users will have to first install the newly cross-platform snapd. This daemon verifies the integrity of snap packages, confines them into their own restricted space, and acts as a launcher. Instructions for creating snaps and installing snapd on a variety of distributions are available at this website. Snaps can exist on the same system as either deb or RPM packages. Snaps aren't the only new package manager for Linux distributions that aims to simplify installation of applications. There's also AppImage and OrbitalApps.

Comments

And hello problems

[phorm]

Adios to tried and true package managers, hello dependency and network/firewall hell as you try to resolve conflicts between the different sources?

Re:And hello problems

[tlhIngan]

Adios to tried and true package managers, hello dependency and network/firewall hell as you try to resolve conflicts between the different sources?

Well, snaps actually are trying to solve this.

Let's say you have a critical program you need for your work. And let's also say that it needs specific versions of software installed - you can't upgrade those dependencies or your risk breaking the program.

Now, all package managers have the ability to freeze a package - that is, prevent updating it. So you dutifully do it, and it works great - in the beginning. Slowly as time goes on the number of updates you get will slow to a trickle as you get more and more new packages dependent on newer versions of the dependencies. Eventually you'll get to a point where you can't install anything as what you want needs a newer version than what you have, or is dependent on things that need a newer version.

Snaps help solve that - your program can be made into a snap with the versions of libraries it needs, while the rest of your system marches forward

It doesn't matter what the application is - if it needs specific revisions of dependencies, holding back can lead to various DLL hells.

Snaps won't replace apt or yum - those tools are always going to be required. Snaps are useful for programs with a tricky set of dependencies to have them easily met

Re:And hello problems

[Dadoo]

Snaps help solve that - your program can be made into a snap with the versions of libraries it needs, while the rest of your system marches forward

That sounds a lot like the "winsxs" folder, which is currently eating up 25% of the total space on my Windows machine, for no good reason. Having the same "feature" on Linux really doesn't thrill me.

Re:And hello problems

[cheesybagel]

So in other words the "solution" is the Microsoft way of shipping a copy of the .dlls with every single program. So if someone finds a security issue with .dll (say OpenSSL) even if the bug gets fixed in the library you need to issue updates to all the apps as well. Fun.

Re:And hello problems

[jandrese]

But this way when a library has a security vulnerability you will never be rid of it.

Re:And hello problems

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCKING AWESOME!

You mean certain programs can opt to keep using vulnerable libraries?! YES! Soon Linux will finally catch up to Windows in terms of malware thanks to Snap!

Where can I find a UNIX-like Linux distro?!

[Anonymous Coward]

In the year 2016, where can I, a long time Linux user, get a decent UNIX-like Linux distro?!

What I mean by that is a Linux distro that follows the UNIX philosophy of simplicity, doing one thing well, openness, and modularity.

All of the major distros today, including conservative ones like Debian, are rife with systemd, GNOME 3, now this "snap" crap, and all sorts of other shenanigans that violate the UNIX philosophy.

I don't want to use a goddamn relic like Slackware, either. I guess what I want is Debian, but just before systemd was forced on Debian users. So a distro that's sensibly conservative, that's reliable, that works, and that follows the UNIX philosophy.

And don't even bother suggesting Devuan. It's a terrible, terrible joke of a distro in my experience. Conceptually it's what I'd want, but in practice I've found it to be a total shitfest.

At this point I don't think I'll have any choice but to use FreeBSD. Yeah, it's not Linux, but I don't think that I even care about using Linux at this point. I need a UNIX-like system, and if FreeBSD can deliver (and all of the evidence suggests that it can!) maybe I should just say to hell with Linux and use FreeBSD instead.

Re:Where can I find a UNIX-like Linux distro?!

[jedidiah]

It's not a contradiction. A better way of putting it might be "more Unix and less Windows please".

It remains to be seen whether today's iteration of "yet another standard" is going to reduce the number of standards or just increase them (as is usually the case).

Also, dpkg and rpm are already widely supported. Moving to something new wipes out all of that progress. Churn for it's own sake in general does that.

We're not Microsoft. We can't burn something down and completely redo it every release like they do. We don't have the clout for people to put up with that kind of nonsense.

Re:Where can I find a UNIX-like Linux distro?!

[skids]

I don't know if I'd throw the term "modern" around so much as "trendy". After all, isolating apps in containers where they cannot integrate with the rest of the OS is pretty much warmed over mainframe thinking.

I Like Apt

[Thelasko]

When I first tried Linux, I didn't understand the repository system. I had been so used to the Windows .exe files I didn't understand downloading my programs from a single secure repository. One day, it clicked. The repository system is so much better. No more worrying about compatibility, or someone adding malicious software to my programs. It all comes from one secure repository and is known to be compatible with my system.

In fact, that model works so well, Apple and others now use the same model. They call it an "App Store". I've even heard rumors that Microsoft wants to switch to this model

So, why is Linux going back to the old, and inferior way of doing things?

Clickbait headline...

[LichtSpektren]

1) DEBs and RPMs aren't going anywhere; they serve different functions from Snappy Core. Snaps are better for servers that require zero downtime because they prevent ABI breakage as packages are updated asynchronously. DEB and RPM are better for desktop, mobile, and less-important servers because they take up monumentally less room (because you don't have to have a million versions of the same dependency installed at the same time).

2) As TFS indicates, Snaps can coexist with all the other packaging tools (apt, dnf, yum, zypper, slapt, portage, pacman, etc.).

3) A large percentage of the Linux community are [a] too suspicious of Canonical to ever adopt any of their technologies and [b] conservative to the tried-and-true methods of doing things. apt will probably live forever on account of that.

Re:Clickbait headline...

[gmack]

I don't know if I agree with point 1. SNAPS (as a concept) should be better for third party apps because the APP as it is packaged, now imports all of the libraries it needs. The downside of course, l is that if some library has a security issue, you must wait for the package maintainer of each SNAP app that contains it to do the update.

Re:Why switch?

[Fly Swatter]

Its main purpose is for servers that require zero downtime, where you want to upgrade application X and/or its dependencies without breaking even the smallest functionality of application Y.

I disagree, snapd is Canonical's attempt to bring an android/ios like 'app universe' to their linux OS. Unfortunately if it succeeds, I also forsee it bringing the in-app advertisements and micro-payments mess :(

Re:You're making up contradictions that don't exis

[LichtSpektren]

There's no contradiction.

1) Systemd and GNOME 3 aren't the only "modern technologies" out there. They are among the most anti-UNIX-philosophy ones. There are other modern init systems and desktop environments that do follow the UNIX philosophy, we just see the major distros treat them as second-class citizens, although they're typically superior to systemd and GNOME 3.

2) The point of using a mainstream distro is to get access to the wide community support network and the benefits it brings, including more testing of releases and quicker bug/security fixes.

3) The whole point of using a Linux distro is to avoid having to roll your own! In the past there used to be choice among the major distros. Debian is what you used when you wanted a system that worked. SuSE is where you went if you liked KDE. Ubuntu is where you went if you wanted a Windows-like experience. Fedora is where you went if you wanted to subject yourself to Red Hat-produced shit.

I know you're intentionally ignoring the real problem here: the fact that the major Linux distros have converged to the point where they're nearly identical. Worst of all, they've chosen to converge on software that exhibits a very anti-UNIX approach, such as systemd and GNOME 3.

Today, a modern Linux distro installation is closer to Windows than it is to anything resembling UNIX. The Linux userland has become a cheap imitation of Windows in so many ways, from the GUI down to the init and service management systems.

If you want a Linux distro that doesn't use systemd, you have a lot of options. But your complaint seems to be that that most of the Linux community has moved away from your preference. Well I'm sorry princess that you're not in the majority anymore, so either get comfortable in the minority, get your hands dirty with the majority, or do the work getting things exactly how you want them. But I'm not terribly sympathetic to your complaints if you're sad that the rest of the world isn't 100% empathetic to your desires, sparing you from the work of making your own perfect distro to your preferences.

At least I can understand the systemd complaining, because most distros don't support sysvinit or upstart anymore. But I really don't get the GNOME 3 bitching. I hate it just as much as you do, but literally every single one of the big distros (so that's Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, CentOS, Arch and Gentoo) support alternatives.

Re:You're making up contradictions that don't exis

[mark-t]

Old does not mean bad.

Slackware is old, but certainly not a relic. And boasts a stability track-record that most other distros simply do not match. It not only adopts the unix philosophy, but embraces it so fully that the only comparable distros to it in this regard that I know of are Arch and Gentoo. Gentoo is a bit of a bitch because you have to compile everything, which can take a long time when doing system updates, and Arch is regretfully somewhat less stable than Slackware because it updates its packages so frequently (although if you are willing to risk some stability in the interests of running the bleeding edge versions of all available packages, Arch might be right up your alley).

But slackware is still being actively maintained, despite having longer release cycles than most other distros. Slackware is at a release candidate stage for 14.2 in slackware-current at the moment, and I'd be honestly quite surprised if 14.2 wasn't released sometime this summer or fall.

Re:You're making up contradictions that don't exis

[danomac]

Disclaimer: I've been using Gentoo since 2002/2003.

I agree that Gentoo's build process is cumbersome, especially on slower processors. This is a lot less of an issue now as compared to when I started using it in '02/'03, when I probably had five-year-old hardware then. Larger packages like Firefox and LibreOffice have always had a binary package to install. (On my 2002-era machine libreoffice would take something like 9 hours to compile.) My machine now, which is around 8 years old compiles this same package in a bit over an hour.

However, Gentoo also has another huge benefit, and that is customizing packages to your needs using USE flags. These toggle build-time options, so as an example, when heartbleed came out I was able to remove the offending tls heartbeat component using a USE flag and rebuild the package until a fix was made available.

Another thing I've discovered is if you have similar hardware and similar configurations you can tell portage to build binary packages. If you share this directory via nfs export you can instruct portage to favour binary packages when all use flags and other build-environment options are the same. This has saved my poor celerons on my MythTV frontends quite some compile time.