Slashdot Mirror


PSA: Spotify Now Available As a Snap For Linux (betanews.com)

BrianFagioli shares a report from BetaNews: Speaking of Spotify, the most popular streaming music service in the world has long supported Linux-based operating systems. Installing the official app was not an easy affair, however. Today this changes, as installation gets much simpler. You see, Spotify is now officially available as a Snap for easy installation on any Snap-supporting operating systems such as Ubuntu and Linux Mint. Canonical, the creator of both Ubuntu and Snaps, explains, "Snaps are containerized software packages designed to work perfectly and securely in any Linux environment. As well as supporting all major Linux systems from a single build, snaps can be also updated or rolled back automatically to ensure that users are always benefiting from the latest version of the application. Since their launch last year, close to 2,500 snaps have been released by developers as they adopt the format for its reliability and security."

Jamie Bennett, VP of Engineering, Devices & IoT, Canonical says, "In launching their own snap, Spotify has ensured that their users in the Linux ecosystem are now able to enjoy the latest version of their leading music streaming application as soon as it's released regardless of which distribution they are using. We're glad to welcome Spotify to the snaps ecosystem and look forward to unveiling more leading snaps in 2018."

66 comments

  1. Shared libraries were a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now when a vulnerability is discovered in widely used code I can wait for all of the maintainers of all of the snaps to update instead of just updating the library myself. Yep, WAY more secure.

    1. Re:Shared libraries were a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. And not only that, but if I _want_ to containerize something, it's quite easy to do by myself. I don't need or want that pre-decided for me.

  2. Steaming music service? by zaft · · Score: 1

    Guess it's pretty hot :p

  3. AD: Spotify Now Available As a Snap For Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you and fuck spotify

  4. PSA: Stop calling stories PSAs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Stop calling stories PSAs. It wastes headline space and looks silly. Just use the normal headline.

    1. Re:PSA: Stop calling stories PSAs by Guybrush_T · · Score: 0

      Yeah, plus, I have no idea what PSA means.

    2. Re:PSA: Stop calling stories PSAs by flaming_bird · · Score: 1

      Public Service Announcement.

    3. Re:PSA: Stop calling stories PSAs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Payed Slashdot Advertising.

      FTFY

    4. Re:PSA: Stop calling stories PSAs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paid Slashdot Advertisement

    5. Re:PSA: Stop calling stories PSAs by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, plus, I have no idea what PSA means.

      Prostate-Specific Antigen
      https://www.cancer.gov/types/p...

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    6. Re:PSA: Stop calling stories PSAs by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, plus, I have no idea what PSA means.

      Prostate-Specific Antigen.
      According to Wikipedia, PSA is a member of the kallikrein-related peptidase family and is secreted by the epithelial cells of the prostate gland. PSA is produced for the ejaculate, where it liquefies semen in the seminal coagulum and allows sperm to swim freely.

    7. Re:PSA: Stop calling stories PSAs by steveha · · Score: 1

      Clearly this was a joke yet it was moderated as "Informative". Moderation humor?

      I am pretty sure that "PSA" in this context means Public Service Announcement.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    8. Re:PSA: Stop calling stories PSAs by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Clearly this was a joke yet it was moderated as "Informative". Moderation humor?

      I am pretty sure that "PSA" in this context means Public Service Announcement.

      Yup. It was intended to be humorous.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  5. IT's all about trust. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's getting harder to avoid these people and their marketing wank.

    If you can't package for my distribution I don't think your my kind of people.

    If you could just put systemd in a snap where it belongs I might think it had a use (snap not systemd).

  6. Re:Yay by Guybrush_T · · Score: 1

    Nice troll.

  7. Re:Christopher Reimer, dead at 48 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and why, did you not
    report the sad announcement
    in a haiku form
     

  8. Static Binaries by Etcetera · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Congratulations, guys, you've re-invented static binaries. I'm glad you're happy. I look forward to what we have in the smartphone ecosystem now, with vulnerabilities out the yin-yang, and 25 apps getting updated when some weird library has a flaw in it, and your other 75 not getting updated at all and remaining vulnerable even though you don't realize it.

    Everything old is new again. Woot.

    1. Re:Static Binaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Millennials strike again!

    2. Re:Static Binaries by Volanin · · Score: 4, Informative

      While I get your (sarcastic?) point of view. Snaps can be considered static binaries 2.0 in a way, and since technology is supposed to advance, this is very welcome indeed (ELF binaries got a bad reputation in some circles, reinventing a.out back in the day)...

      Moving beyond the limitation of static binaries, Snaps can better hold non-executable data in directory structures, instead of embedding everything in a huge executable. They are similar to Apple's App packages, but are also mounted and executed in a chroot environment *by default*, improving security. And are much easier to distribute and manage; heck, many "n00b" friends of mine quit linux because it didn't have easy program installers...

      Everything old is new again, indeed.
      But with a solid promise of improvement!
      Those who want more information, https://docs.snapcraft.io/snap...

      --
      If I clone myself, can I call it a thread?
      If a girl winks to us, can I call it a race condition?
    3. Re:Static Binaries by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 1

      The point is, we don't want static binaries 2.0. Just like Linus was saying "there's no way to do CVS the right way" (or something like that), the same way, there's no way to do static blobs the right way either.

      By the way, why on earth isn't Spotify simply providing a source tarball, and let distributions pick it up and package it? The value of Spotify is in the service they do, not on the source code they write.

    4. Re:Static Binaries by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Experience suggests that shared libraries don't work either, I can't count the number of times dependencies have been updated breaking applications or resulting in flaky behaviour.

    5. Re:Static Binaries by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      >there's no way to do static blobs the right way either.

      Just compile with the -S flag.

      A static program pops out. You can then load it onto a computer and run it, regardless of the installed libraries. I use it all the time for test code, because of the stripped down linuxes we run on new silicon.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    6. Re:Static Binaries by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      While I get your (sarcastic?) point of view. Snaps can be considered static binaries 2.0 in a way, and since technology is supposed to advance, this is very welcome indeed (ELF binaries got a bad reputation in some circles, reinventing a.out back in the day)...

      Moving beyond the limitation of static binaries, Snaps can better hold non-executable data in directory structures, instead of embedding everything in a huge executable.

      Hi! Welcome to 1998. It's really nice here. Britpop is on the rise, 56k modems are awesome and Tony Blair is promising that things can only get better.

      Seriously though you've been able to untar an binary (static or with its own .sos bundled) with a bunch of files into a directory for ages. I've shipped stuff like this. I really don't understand the meal people have been making of it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Static Binaries by ewhac · · Score: 2

      ...heck, many "n00b" friends of mine quit linux because it didn't have easy program installers... [emphasis mine]

      Are you kidding me?

      apt-get install kdenlive

      How fscking easy did they want it?!?!!

    8. Re:Static Binaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they want it the 'Easy Windows Way':

      Search for $program in web browser
      Select relevant looking result at random.
      Download installer.
      Run installer.
      Enjoy application *and* bonus packaged malware.

      It's the easy way to get the application *and* bonus malware installed in one go!

      Linux will never be ready for the desktop until it can install and run the wide variety of malware that windows supports in one easy operation.

    9. Re:Static Binaries by sad_ · · Score: 1

      i guess much more prefer chasing applications all from different sites with sources of questionable trust instead.

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    10. Re:Static Binaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they're a closed source project, and even if they wanted to they probably do not own the licenses to all of the code.

      Spotify does provide .deb and .rpm packages, and most distributions have no problem converting those to run (Arch, Solus, etc). The snap is just another way to do it.

    11. Re:Static Binaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because this is more of a mix of shipping the archive and using a package manager? Easy to install and remove (like the archive or a package manager), but also easily kept up to date without having to code some weird suid update process (unlike the archive).

    12. Re:Static Binaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you "snap install spotify" and it downloads it from the repo...

    13. Re:Static Binaries by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see an official spotify rpm, but they only provide a deb, which some people have converted to a poorly performing rpm that doesn't work on my system. (OpenSuSE)

  9. Yay! Exactly what nobody wanted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This reads like an ad for whatever the fuck a "snap" is and whoever is behind that.

    If you can't give us a source tarball, then we don't want it.

    1. Re:Yay! Exactly what nobody wanted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This reads like an ad for whatever the fuck a "snap" is and whoever is behind that.

      It was originated by Canonical, but It's an *open* format *anyone* can use and it's supported by all the major distros.

      You might as well say that mentioning html is an advert for a particular browser.

      Twat.

    2. Re:Yay! Exactly what nobody wanted! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what does Canonical have to do with my Slackware install?

      html is an ad for that twat Tim Berners Lee (I invented the internet hurr durr). I prefer gopher.

      So yes, this is an ad for "snaps by Canonical", no matter what you think.

  10. Help me out here... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    ...so what exactly is a "snap"?

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    1. Re:Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's one of those new package management system that put all dynamic libraries in one package, so you can't update them system-wide any longer. The same as an "app" bundle on MacOS.

    2. Re:Help me out here... by jrumney · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a way to turn 100kB Linux packages into 200MB self contained downloadable installers like WIndows users get to enjoy.

    3. Re: Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention, before, your system only needed one copy of a library for say, 100 Apps using that library. If you use snaps, your system would need 100 copies of the library, taking orders of magnitude more disk space.

    4. Re: Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disk space is pretty cheap these days.

    5. Re: Help me out here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? It is still finite...
      The same is said about CPU cycles, memory and network bandwidth. Look where it got us...

  11. Firefox. by markdavis · · Score: 1

    I have been using Spotify with just their web-based stuff, under Linux (Mageia) and Firefox for a very long time now (years) and it works great. Maybe there are some advanced things it can't do, but it does everything I need and I have been impressed. Pretty easy to use, excellent sound quality, and has never crapped out on me.

    1. Re:Firefox. by zenbi · · Score: 1

      I have been using Spotify with their official Ubuntu/Debian package for years. Native "apt-get install spotify-client" seems far cleaner than a Snap for .deb based distros.

      The Linux interface looks pretty much identical to the Windows interface (minus a bit of high DPI support) and lets you download the songs for offline listening. Desktop notifications (for new song, etc) even work in my XFCE environment.

    2. Re:Firefox. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I've had shit luck getting the .deb running on OpenSuse. :(

  12. Re:Yay by fisted · · Score: 3, Funny

    I copied the snabb to /c/Program\ Files\ \(x86\)/Snapname but it doesn't work. Help?

  13. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's a Spotify?

  14. 3 clicks and a failure by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Installing the official app was not an easy affair, however. Today this changes, as installation gets much simpler.

    So I tried this. I followed the link which took me to some place that explained what "snaps" are. That contained a link that told me to click on it to grab the snap.

    But that only took me to another page (form Canonical) which, again, explained what a "snap" was and told me to click another link to download the snap.

    But no! That just took me to another link on snapcraft with (yet another) link to install it. When I clicked on that link Firefox croaked up an error message to say it didn't understand and that I might have to install some other software.

    So I went back to a terminal and typed apt install spotify-client, created an account (disposable, of course) logged in and now I have music playing.

    Can someone please explain how snaps make the installation process "simpler"?

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:3 clicks and a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was trickier in SuSE: we had to build an rpm from the apt package. There was a script to do that, though.

    2. Re:3 clicks and a failure by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      dnf install SuSe should work on Fedora to get the SuSe apt rpm to install.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    3. Re:3 clicks and a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone please explain how snaps make the installation process "simpler"?

      Because now its a "snap"?

      Is that a thing with a name? Where you name something to hijack existing associations with the term?

    4. Re:3 clicks and a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What version of Ubuntu are you running? I'm on Ubuntu 17.10, and clicking the install link here launched the Ubuntu Software center page for Spotify, where I proceeded to click 'install' and watch it successfully add Spotify to my system. I then clicked 'launch' and everything worked as expected. It seems very smooth, even better than downloading random executables.

    5. Re:3 clicks and a failure by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      If it's really that easy malware authors are going to love this.

      So while other operating systems are trying to wall off indiscriminate software installation, Ubunutu is trying to undo one of the things that makes linux more secure. FACEPALM

    6. Re:3 clicks and a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another .io site. I wish that trend would cease. I don't like going to a country code for a US Air Force military base.

    7. Re:3 clicks and a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With snaps you usually don't click a link to install the software. You just open your distro's software manager, search for "spotify" and click the Install button. I

    8. Re:3 clicks and a failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's that easy right off the bat because snapcraft is the default repository. If you have snapd installed (on any distro), you can also type "snap install spotify" and it will pull it from the same source.

      Malware creators already love many distros because it was already that easy. If you click on a .deb or .rpm it graphically prompts the user to install it, and you are able to add additional repositories through that package. Spotify already does this with their Debian package. So does Google with Chrome and other Linux packages.

  15. Re: Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can provided you have the right attachment.

    Also u r ghey

  16. I'm Holding Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm waiting for all snaps to support Up in Z Formation.

  17. Re:Yay by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 3, Funny

    What's a Spotify?

    RTFS. A Spotify is a Snap.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  18. Re: Only LUDDITES use snaps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because this was the apps troll guy doesn't mean ALL his posts need -1.

    Seriously, "apps, snaps" come on, you know you chuckled at least a little.

  19. ...OK? by Shogun37 · · Score: 1

    It's nice to see Linux getting some new support, but...music streaming? Take the legal route and hit flea markets and second hand music stores and score all the good music you want. Or hoist the Jolly Roger and scoop up anything that catches your eye. That way, the music sits on my hard drive, and I can listen to it how I want (optional goal, educate all the neighbors about the joys of my taste in music.)

    1. Re:...OK? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... or just stream with Spotify. And Spotify has been available for linux for several years with .deb repository, only the snap package is new here.

  20. Really? by MeneM1978 · · Score: 1

    "Installing the official app was not an easy affair, however" Really? This is not way easier?: https://www.spotify.com/nl/dow... Any and all updates are automatic...

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apt-get: command not found.

      Someone must have confused "Linux" with "Ubuntu". Please tell those Windows-loving companies that telling Linux users to run apt-get is like telling PC-users to open Lenovo Control Centre.

  21. What's with all the updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get modern apps like the Spotify client. They have a simple task to do, they always look the same, yet they update practically every time you want to run them. It might as well say "downloading bloat and feature creep" for all it's worth.