Slashdot Mirror


Plex for Linux Now Available as a Snap (betanews.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Today, a very popular app, Plex Media Server, gets the Snap treatment. In other words, you can install the media server program without any headaches -- right from the Snap store. "In adopting the universal Linux app packaging format, Plex will make its multimedia platform available to an ever-growing community of Linux users, including those on KDE Neon, Debian, Fedora, Manjaro, OpenSUSE, Zorin and Ubuntu. Automatic updates and rollback capabilities are staples of Snap software, meaning Plex users will always have the best and latest version running," says Canonical.

61 comments

  1. Fixing Snap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any chance that snap will fix that minor bug that prevents snaps from running if /home is on a different volume than /?

    1. Re:Fixing Snap by Baki · · Score: 1

      works for me

  2. Stop Trying To Make Snap Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just not going to happen.

    1. Re:Stop Trying To Make Snap Happen by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      But.. but... dpkg -i plex is so hard without SNAP!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Stop Trying To Make Snap Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      especially on non-dpkg platforms...

    3. Re:Stop Trying To Make Snap Happen by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You think that's bad, try loading the SNAP on non-SNAP platforms.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Stop Trying To Make Snap Happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been a Unix/BSD/Linux system admin off and on for a few decades. I started with SunOS 4.1. I have written scripts and programs in more languages than I can recall. Now I only use Linux on my home file server that runs a few utility programs, like Plex.

      I just want stability and reliability. I don't want to have to check for updates manually. I don't want to have to manually download a pkg file when those updates occur. I don't even want to have to write custom scripts to automate all that, because the scripts themselves will have to be updated when the provider changes the URL their file releases from, or the name format changes, or whatever.

      Your sarcastic snipe really just says to me that you don't care about your personal time, or you're very inexperienced, or both.

    5. Re:Stop Trying To Make Snap Happen by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Right, I'm sure there is a big use-case for enterprise usage of Plex.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Stop Trying To Make Snap Happen by basecastula+ · · Score: 1

      Zing

  3. Only LUDDITES use snaps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Modern app appers use apps that app other apps, not LUDDITE snaps!

    Apps!

  4. GNU plus LINUX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you really just running Linux? Or are you running GNU plus LINUX?

    GNU + Linux -- a winning combination!

    1. Re:GNU plus LINUX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 pedantic

      Also, alcohol + night swimming is a winning combination.

    2. Re:GNU plus LINUX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html

    3. Re:GNU plus LINUX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Also, alcohol + night swimming is a winning combination."

      I'd like to add cross burning to that combo: alcohol + night swimming + cross burning, now that's a winning combination.

    4. Re:GNU plus LINUX by vbdasc · · Score: 1

      -Also, alcohol + night swimming is a winning combination.

      Indeed, it's a good way to win the Darwin award.

  5. App... by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Remember when we had the time to type out the full word? Pity we're all so busy now....

    1. Re:App... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are so busy apping with our apps on our appity app phones that we can no longer write long words. I remember being happy about "prog" never really catching on. Good times.

    2. Re:App... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      In my day, we called them "programs".

      "Software Application" sounds like marketing fluff.

    3. Re:App... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LAWL people have always used shortened versions of words or even acronyms to communicate something that is otherwise known to all or to popularize a word or phrase in order to communicate with those not as like-minded.

      short version: things change, get over it.

    4. Re:App... by ichthus · · Score: 2

      In my day, we called them "programs".

      Wait. Are you a... USER?

      --
      sig: sauer
    5. Re: App... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Greetings, apps" just does not sound right.

    6. Re: App... by ichthus · · Score: 2

      Yep. "App" should definitely be used as a pejorative term in the next Tron movie.

      --
      sig: sauer
    7. Re: App... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Master Control App. Just doesn't have the have ring to it.

    8. Re:App... by youngone · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the "prog" reference is in relation to Emerson, Lake & Palmer.

    9. Re: App... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Get off my lawn.

      We use apps.

      Australians have truckies.

      It's English. Get over it. Changes.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    10. Re: App... by quenda · · Score: 1

      In English, we have programmes. Stop the bloody yankee spelling mate.

      Or applications, or app's if you must. But don't forget the apostrophe.

  6. Linux packaging standards by xack · · Score: 2

    TAR.gz RPM Deb PPA flatpak Snap AUR ebuild tar.bz2. configure make make install. It's all fun in the Linux packaging factory.

    1. Re:Linux packaging standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is ridiculous, we have way too many packaging formats. We need to come up with a new standard packaging format to replace all those.

    2. Re:Linux packaging standards by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      TAR.gz RPM Deb PPA flatpak Snap AUR ebuild tar.bz2. configure make make install. It's all fun in the Linux packaging factory.

      Meh.

      Windows: .zip, .exe, .msi, DLL hell, .ini files, registry, user profiles, "would you like that installed in this bizarrely named program pseudo-directory, or that one?", etc.

    3. Re:Linux packaging standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems that despite being open source, the biggest distros are still aiming for vendor lock-in.

      It's not as if Linux has a massive adoption problem or can't afford this kind of fragmentation

    4. Re:Linux packaging standards by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      I like Plex.tar.gz as a standard package format.

      To install, you'd type:

      tar -xzvf Plex.tar.gz
      cd Plex
      make config
      make
      make install

    5. Re:Linux packaging standards by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      license costs, sometimes confusing license requirements, adware, malware, ride-alongs, hijacking settings, leaving trial versions and nagware, etc.

      I'll deal with apt and adding the occasional 3rd party repo or working with a tarball... seems much more sane.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    6. Re:Linux packaging standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then someone wants to use autotools instead so it becomes:

      tar -xzvf Plex.tar.gz
      cd Plex ./autogen.sh ./configure
      make
      make install

      And then someone wants to use meson instead and it becomes

      tar -xzvf Plex.tar.gz
      cd Plex
      mkdir build
      cd build
      meson ..
      ninja

      And the someone wants to use cmake
      And then someone is making a java application
      And then...
      You get my point

    7. Re: Linux packaging standards by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      I said something about a standardized package. Not a dilettante package.

  7. Bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a friend that used Snaps right when they were in beta. Last I used his PC I saw he had like 300 "Snaps" and about 70 of them were Firefox all in different containers. And Snaps don't share any files or libraries at all. So you get the bloat of one application duplicated over and over again. Like having the curl library on one computer over 500 times.

    1. Re: Bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats not bloat. Bloat is when you have something you dont want and its not used. These duplicate libraries are all used. They are separate from the other so if one gets updated it does screw up the other one thats not been updated and needs the old version. and when you want to remove one snap you can just delete the folder its in and its completely gone. Windows method is by far the worse. It keep multiple versions of dlls and theyre not kept in the same folder as the prgram so when you uninstall a program and the dlls are still there you have nfi if you can safely remove it or not. This causes real bloat and the only way to safely clean it up is by fprmatting the hard drive and reinstalling everything from scratch.

    2. Re: Bloat by Hizonner · · Score: 1

      They're separate so you can be sure to forget to fix the security bugs in at least one of them.

  8. Is Plex open source - why Snap? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know what Plex is, but I have a general question. Would anybody want an open source project to be distributed as a snap? I installed Skype on my kubuntu 18.04 system, and it insisted on it. But Skype isn't open source, so okay - it's easier for them to package it once and have it work everywhere. But in the meantime, I see that the snap has set up a loopback filesystem. In fact that conflicted with an encrypted filesystem I used to map using /dev/loop0, until I changed that. But do I really want extra filesystems showing up in the 'df' command just because I've installed a bunch of apps that come as Snaps.

    Okay. Plex seems to be a server app, so maybe. But Skype - easy for them, pain in the ass for me.

    /dev/loop0 /snap/skype/54
    /dev/loop1 /snap/core/5548
    /dev/loop2 /snap/skype/51
    /dev/loop4 /snap/core/5145
    /dev/loop3 /snap/skype/57
    /dev/loop5 /snap/core/5328

    I recently went to install the Atom text editor to give it a whirl. That also wanted to install as a snap. Luckily there was a regular deb available and I installed that instead. But seriously - any open source project ought to be included in the distro's repository and kept up to date there. I guess snaps could be handy for things you can't afford to keep up to date - to prevent breakage. But there are ways to prevent taking repo updates for individual apps. I guess snaps can protect you from library updates breaking things too, but seriously - open source desktop apps ought to be either less mission critical or more backward-compatible than the kinds of things that snaps are useful for. Wishful thinking?

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    1. Re: Is Plex open source - why Snap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snaps are useful for projects that depend on software of a different version than is installed in the OS. Like a more recent or an older version of boost (especially for those pesky OSes that do not provide statically linkable versions of boost, or static libraries not compiled with -fPIC). For larger projects it's simply avoiding a lot of maintenance issues. Same thing with docker and flatpak.

    2. Re:Is Plex open source - why Snap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is off-topic, but I just noticed you talking about Atom. I used it for a few months, but I found the performance to be terrible. I switched to Sublime Text, which has a free trial version, and found it to be much better. This is totally a naked plug for Sublime Text, but I'm not affiliated with either business in any way.

    3. Re:Is Plex open source - why Snap? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      But seriously - any open source project ought to be included in the distro's repository and kept up to date there. I guess snaps could be handy for things you can't afford to keep up to date - to prevent breakage. But there are ways to prevent taking repo updates for individual apps. I guess snaps can protect you from library updates breaking things too, but seriously - open source desktop apps ought to be either less mission critical or more backward-compatible than the kinds of things that snaps are useful for. Wishful thinking?

      Well, the main reason is you need something configured in a specific way for the system to work, and configuring said item may require pages of instructions. Or it also may include changes to a core library to include a feature the distro doesn't. Now you have a problem - you need to get the upstream owner to reconfigure the distro package to include the feature you need, before you can go and upload your package. Repeat this for a few more non-trivial libraries and it can be a headache and a mess (what if the upstream owner says no, or that they believe that feature is a security risk, etc).

      Basically Linux has reached the point in its life where it's impossible to satisfy everyone - what if you configured the system one way, and and application you want to use requires your system configured another way? Or what if two programs need some library configured in a mutually exclusive fashion?

      And it's always nicer to have something set up and all ready to run rather than something that needs 500 pages of documentation describing how to configure each and every dependency properly

    4. Re:Is Plex open source - why Snap? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Switch to KDE Debian 9. That's what I did a year or so ago and I've never been happier. Most things that work on Ubuntu 18.xx work on deb 9 with little to no work. And the rest is Linux. Ubuntu is turning into Windows 10. Fast. Ditch it while you can!

    5. Re: Is Plex open source - why Snap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      relying on an old version of anything is not a reason to use a Snap. Pick a version of Linux to target (e.g., Ubuntu 18.04) and target those libraries.

      It's one thing for an academic project to need some arcane combination of libraries (which is probably whatever the PhD student started to use his first or second year, with specific upgrades as needed) but a project that people are expected to use should be kept up to date. It's like a Windows program being packaged with a VM for Windows 95. It's ridiculous.

    6. Re:Is Plex open source - why Snap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that Snap is a great project and it works well, but I really wish they wouldn't mount a bunch of squashfs filesystems like this. It's ugly and it clutters the system.

    7. Re:Is Plex open source - why Snap? by Narcocide · · Score: 0

      Would anybody want an open source project to be distributed as a snap?

      I'm glad you asked. It's basic "NIH" syndrome. Anyone using snaps has an unresolved grudge against existing distributions. By trying to shoehorn a competing package management system into all of them, they can intercept user's package installation requests while doing an end-run around the authority of the distro maintainers. This is the "extend" phase of Microsoft's famed "EEE" strategy.

    8. Re:Is Plex open source - why Snap? by Narcocide · · Score: 0

      (And in case anyone was wondering, the unresolved grudge is usually about refusal to carry their trash spyware.)

    9. Re:Is Plex open source - why Snap? by youngone · · Score: 1

      The one time I have tried a snap was NextCloud on Ubuntu server, and it breaks smb client.
      It seems to be known about but is not going to be fixed, which seems odd.

    10. Re:Is Plex open source - why Snap? by uulbri · · Score: 1

      This is the exact reason why containers exist !
      When dealing with installing software somewhere you have many ways to install it, from building from the sources to running a full blown VM.
      The "standard" way being installing from a package made for your distro (or from marketplaces on proprietary OSes). When it comes to server software, the preference is now the container which abstracts a lot of the hassles leaving basically nothing but the port management to the admin. This is very convenient, and easy to manage.
      I don't see really what snaps bring to the picture. This is as heavy as a container because it solves most of the dependency hell but still "pollutes" the system and interacts with it in a privileged manner. For me this is the useless level between system packages and containers... Looks a lot like the desperate attempt to stay in the loop for the server side management at Canonical.
      Please do not hesitate to tell me if you feel I'm wrong.

    11. Re:Is Plex open source - why Snap? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a DLNA media server, not open source.

      Basically it's to make watching pirated video easier and more "pretty" on a television.

      You, from a reputable source, download Some.Shit.Movie-1080p-2018-BLURAYRIP-REPACK-PROPER.h264.avi and drop it in some folder, and then Plex figures out what you have there is the 2018 movie called "Some Shit Movie", and downloads a description of the movie, and the theatrical poster image for it, and subtitles for it, and the trailer, and the Rotten Tomatoes rating or whatever, and then adds it to a locally hosted Netflix style menu.

  9. more online tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad you need to log in with the mothership in order to use a Plex Server as anything other than a DLNA source. Once upon a time you could use Plex within your own network without any client device being required to phone home.

    Yes, I know they have free accounts for those who don't want the extra paid features. The trouble is, an account, whether free or paid, is required to do anything, even if nothing you do has the slightest need for online resources.

    I'm sticking with Kodi.

    1. Re: more online tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah I'm frustrated by Plex's switch to cloud auth as well. Now when my interests go down I cannot easily use it within my house, this is a major failure for plex.

      However, I'm not switching back to kodi/mythtv. I stuck with mythtv/kodi for nearly a decade and it was a miserable experience compared to plex

    2. Re:more online tracking by youngone · · Score: 1

      I have Serviio, which is cheap and really easy to install and use.

  10. Well ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In adopting the universal Linux app packaging format, ...

    That may be the Canonical definition of "universal", but not really the canonical definition. Just sayin'.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  11. Used to be good by reetp · · Score: 1

    Until the vulture capitalist bought in. More spyware than you can shake a stick at now. Fingers in ears devs whilst they figure out how to screw you and data mine you for cash. I bought a lifetime subscription to help out in the good old days but regret that. Have a look at Emby. Not perfect, but you are still in control.

  12. Snap, AppImage, etc are a security risk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These "universal" packages are dangerous, IMO. They include their own copies of all the dependencies required to run the app. "Great! That's so much simpler!", you say. But if these universal package formats gain wide acceptance, that could mean that 10 Snap apps could have 10 different versions of a library. What if that a vulnerability is discovered in that library?

    Currently, a distro updates that library once and all native apps on that distro benefit. But with Snaps, each app would have to be updated separately, relying on (potentially) slow upstream response. In the meantime, you're vulnerable.

    And how do you even audit a system that uses Snaps? Again, instead of auditing one instance of a library packaged by the distro maintainers, you'll be forced to check the dependencies included in every installed Snap. On multi-user systems, a conscientious administrator would have to scan every user home folder to do a thorough audit.

  13. Lipstick on a pig. by Narcocide · · Score: 0

    The package format isn't what makes Plex suck, and changing it won't make it suck less. Don't use plex. Don't use snaps. Don't look at this news as a validation of either. They're both traps.

  14. "firejail skypeforlinux" ? by Herve5 · · Score: 1

    At least that's what I do.
    I have read here and there more frowny users that'll firejail *also the installer*, IIRC there is a detailed how-to for Steam, for instance, but at this time I cannot track it back...

    --
    Herve S.
  15. Sheesh by gosand · · Score: 1

    TAR.gz RPM Deb PPA flatpak Snap AUR ebuild tar.bz2. configure make make install. It's all fun in the Linux packaging factory.

    There are other actual package formats you didn't mention.

    You included tar.gz and tar.bz2 and those aren't packaging formats, although they could be used for that (as well as zip). And compiling from source is not a packaging format. Sheesh.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  16. Plex and SNAP.... nah. by gosand · · Score: 1

    I've tried plex and I just don't like it. I have been using serviio as my home media server for many years, and it works great.

    I don't quite get SNAP.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  17. snap is complete garbage by nyet · · Score: 1

    it's written by clueless idiots for clueless idiots. It violates just about every single packaging rule, even the ones easiest to follow.

  18. Plex snap needs systemd as a dependency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With systemd required, plex will not be installable in Devuan, Artix and other distros free of systemd. Pathetic.