I wonder whether the snap obsession affects all of the Ubuntu derivatives in the same way. Those discussions seem to be focused on the standard Ubuntu Desktop edition.
In any case, snap is already present in 18.04 LTS, but at least with Ubuntu MATE, I've had no problems in completely ignoring snap.
My sense is that the blog guy is overreacting just a bit. Suppose that Ubuntu decide to offer certain (not all) applications (e.g., Chromium) only in snap form. (Is this really the case?) Okay, not great, I agree, but ultimately, if Ubuntu want to place an emphasis on snap technology, then that's their choice. If one really doesn't like this, there are other options.
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
I wonder whether the snap obsession affects all of the Ubuntu derivatives in the same way. Those discussions seem to be focused on the standard Ubuntu Desktop edition.
In any case, snap is already present in 18.04 LTS, but at least with Ubuntu MATE, I've had no problems in completely ignoring snap.
My sense is that the blog guy is overreacting just a bit. Suppose that Ubuntu decide to offer certain (not all) applications (e.g., Chromium) only in snap form. (Is this really the case?)
I've just checked, and since Ubuntu 19.10, chromium-browser is linked to chromium snap:
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
I've had quite a few issues running different snaps in a Ubuntu LXC (on a Debian host). This could be(come) interesting ... Would maybe have to move that one to KVM (and use some PCI/USB passthrough).
Just when I thought Ill give 20.04 a try I saw the same link about snap obsession. No thanks, Ill skip. I cant see one good reason as why should I be forced to use snap instead of regular .deb - and thats the issue already as mentioned elsewhere that chromium on ubuntu software store is packaged as snap only already. Oh, and even on the fastest SSD snap is a joke with its boot times.
@serv_ee said: Just when I thought Ill give 20.04 a try I saw the same link about snap obsession. No thanks, Ill skip. I cant see one good reason as why should I be forced to use snap instead of regular .deb - and thats the issue already as mentioned elsewhere that chromium on ubuntu software store is packaged as snap only already. Oh, and even on the fastest SSD snap is a joke with its boot times.
Snap (the technology) was first introduced in 16.04, so it's not so much that snap is new but rather that certain applications (e.g., Chromium) are now packaged only as snap applications.
But I find that the bigger worry is that only the snap client is open source -- the snap server (snapd) is proprietary.
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
Yes I know snap itself is nothing new. Just the obsession on 20 LTS is too much for me. And quite frankly their "excuses" on their forum for this behavior is nothing less than dumb. "We want users to stay safe with automatic updates" - eh? So apt update/upgrade wasnt safe enough or...?
I'm the 85%. Also Elon likes memes hence he's an idiot.
I don't really 'get' Ubuntu as a server OS though, it's like 2x the footprint of a base Debian install. I guess the 5 yr LTS is nice, but Debian seems to be going in that direction anyways with their LTS team (my Jessie boxes are still getting security updates). ?♂️
I don't really 'get' Ubuntu as a server OS though, it's like 2x the footprint of a base Debian install. I guess the 5 yr LTS is nice, but Debian seems to be going in that direction anyways with their LTS team (my Jessie boxes are still getting security updates). ?♂️
The 20.04 LTS is popular as a server distro precisely because it has a 5 year LTS, has the option of support contracts, and has a lot of value-added cloud/server management services by Canonical (i.e. Landscape). There's no reason to use Debian in a production environment if it's for anything long-term.
I don't really 'get' Ubuntu as a server OS though, it's like 2x the footprint of a base Debian install. I guess the 5 yr LTS is nice, but Debian seems to be going in that direction anyways with their LTS team (my Jessie boxes are still getting security updates). ?♂️
The 20.04 LTS is popular as a server distro precisely because it has a 5 year LTS, has the option of support contracts, and has a lot of value-added cloud/server management services by Canonical (i.e. Landscape). There's no reason to use Debian in a production environment if it's for anything long-term.
Not to mention that the whole snap controversy affects the Server edition less because one is less likely to want to run (e.g.) Chromium on a server.
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
@Emmet said: The 20.04 LTS is popular as a server distro precisely because it has a 5 year LTS, has the option of support contracts, and has a lot of value-added cloud/server management services by Canonical (i.e. Landscape). There's no reason to use Debian in a production environment if it's for anything long-term.
The reason I prefer Debian in a server environment is precisely because it lacks the extras. I'm sure I could rip a lot of stuff out of Ubuntu to streamline it, but that's more work than starting off with something lighter. Bare minimum I've gotta rip netplan out, lol.
Also the Debian cycles are 5-ish years now anyways with their LTS teams. https://wiki.debian.org/LTS Still getting security updates until next month on a couple boxes I have still running Jessie (think all the vz6 providers I use have finally moved to vz7 or kvm, so those are due for a reinstall).
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
Yes. I definitely do not want applications I use 24/7 like FF/Chromium to be be in a slow sandbox like that. (since I already paid for the SSDs)
FWIW, I do currently use Snaps on 18.04 to stay on top of syncthing and keepassXC stable releases. I can tolerate the extra 2-3s startup time for one-off utilities like that.
@angstrom said: and snap list shows the prominent snap applications available.
Sorry, this should be snap find !
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
@vimalware said: Yes. I definitely do not want applications I use 24/7 like FF/Chromium to be be in a slow sandbox like that. (since I already paid for the SSDs)
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
Comments
It seems like there is quite a big fuss about snap in 20.04:
HN: Ubuntu 20.04 LTS’ snap obsession has snapped me off of it
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23052108
https://jatan.blog/2020/05/02/ubuntu-snap-obsession-has-snapped-me-off-of-it/
MetalVPS
I wonder whether the snap obsession affects all of the Ubuntu derivatives in the same way. Those discussions seem to be focused on the standard Ubuntu Desktop edition.
In any case, snap is already present in 18.04 LTS, but at least with Ubuntu MATE, I've had no problems in completely ignoring snap.
My sense is that the blog guy is overreacting just a bit. Suppose that Ubuntu decide to offer certain (not all) applications (e.g., Chromium) only in snap form. (Is this really the case?) Okay, not great, I agree, but ultimately, if Ubuntu want to place an emphasis on snap technology, then that's their choice. If one really doesn't like this, there are other options.
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
I've just checked, and since Ubuntu 19.10, chromium-browser is linked to chromium snap:
https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=all§ion=all&arch=any&keywords=chromium-browser&searchon=names
(So this didn't start with Ubuntu 20.04 LTS.)
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
I've had quite a few issues running different snaps in a Ubuntu LXC (on a Debian host). This could be(come) interesting ...
Would maybe have to move that one to KVM (and use some PCI/USB passthrough).
Just when I thought Ill give 20.04 a try I saw the same link about snap obsession. No thanks, Ill skip. I cant see one good reason as why should I be forced to use snap instead of regular .deb - and thats the issue already as mentioned elsewhere that chromium on ubuntu software store is packaged as snap only already. Oh, and even on the fastest SSD snap is a joke with its boot times.
Oh well, Suse it is.
I'm the 85%. Also Elon likes memes hence he's an idiot.
Snap (the technology) was first introduced in 16.04, so it's not so much that snap is new but rather that certain applications (e.g., Chromium) are now packaged only as snap applications.
But I find that the bigger worry is that only the snap client is open source -- the snap server (snapd) is proprietary.
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
Yes I know snap itself is nothing new. Just the obsession on 20 LTS is too much for me. And quite frankly their "excuses" on their forum for this behavior is nothing less than dumb. "We want users to stay safe with automatic updates" - eh? So apt update/upgrade wasnt safe enough or...?
I'm the 85%. Also Elon likes memes hence he's an idiot.
For what it's worth, it looks like this churd might natively support this damn XPS13. It came with 18.04 as a preinstall-possibility.
My pronouns are asshole/asshole/asshole. I will give you the same courtesy.
Pop!_OS 20.04 working quite well on the ThinkPad
I don't really 'get' Ubuntu as a server OS though, it's like 2x the footprint of a base Debian install. I guess the 5 yr LTS is nice, but Debian seems to be going in that direction anyways with their LTS team (my Jessie boxes are still getting security updates). ?♂️
🦍🍌
There is no docker for this, yet.
I don't really 'get' Ubuntu as a server OS though, it's like 2x the footprint of a base Debian install. I guess the 5 yr LTS is nice, but Debian seems to be going in that direction anyways with their LTS team (my Jessie boxes are still getting security updates). ?♂️
The 20.04 LTS is popular as a server distro precisely because it has a 5 year LTS, has the option of support contracts, and has a lot of value-added cloud/server management services by Canonical (i.e. Landscape). There's no reason to use Debian in a production environment if it's for anything long-term.
Not to mention that the whole snap controversy affects the Server edition less because one is less likely to want to run (e.g.) Chromium on a server.
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
The reason I prefer Debian in a server environment is precisely because it lacks the extras. I'm sure I could rip a lot of stuff out of Ubuntu to streamline it, but that's more work than starting off with something lighter. Bare minimum I've gotta rip netplan out, lol.
Also the Debian cycles are 5-ish years now anyways with their LTS teams. https://wiki.debian.org/LTS Still getting security updates until next month on a couple boxes I have still running Jessie (think all the vz6 providers I use have finally moved to vz7 or kvm, so those are due for a reinstall).
🦍🍌
So, this snap bullshit presumably doesn't affect server daemon packages like nginx, pgsql?
It would make no sense to invest in expensive ssd, if snap overhead ate up the cpu /io time.
I won't be upgrading desktop until 12mos down the line anyway. Or even wait 2yrs.
No, it's not yet that bad
You can see which snap installations are installed on your system with
snap list, andsnap listshows the prominent snap applications available.I think that with a few exceptions (Chromium being the most notable), it's still possible to ignore snap applications altogether.
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
Yes. I definitely do not want applications I use 24/7 like FF/Chromium to be be in a slow sandbox like that. (since I already paid for the SSDs)
FWIW, I do currently use Snaps on 18.04 to stay on top of syncthing and keepassXC stable releases. I can tolerate the extra 2-3s startup time for one-off utilities like that.
Sorry, this should be
snap find!"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)
So far, Firefox is spared
"A single swap file or partition may be up to 128 MB in size. [...] [I]f you need 256 MB of swap, you can create two 128-MB swap partitions." (M. Welsh & L. Kaufman, Running Linux, 2e, 1996, p. 49)