• pkill@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Why are they even still pushing that nonsense when flatpak at least somewhat gets closer to getting bwrap implemented right?

      • Tobias Hunger@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        To be fair: snaps can work for all kinds of things all over the stack from the kernel to individual applications, while flatpak just does applications. Canonical is building a lot around those abilities to handle lower level things, so I guess it makes sense for them.

        IMHO flatpak does the applications better and more reliably and those are what I personally care for, so I personally stay away from snaps.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Canonical could have done a lot better with the explanation message here. The idea is to push apps towards XDG compliance and the use of things like Portals.

    That said, unlike Wayland, portals really aren’t there yet from a UX perspective, especially for an app that is heavy on file transfers.I prefer what Flathub does where it puts a nice green checker beside your app for XDG compliance - it’s an encouragement, but not an enforcement.

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Having worked with Unix and Linux for 29 years, some of it deep in os security, I strongly believe

    • canonical is good at hiding the fact they’re evil as hell
    • snap is a bag o shite

    Cheers to this guy.

  • adr1an@programming.devM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    This post title is misleading. The developer was working with Snap until Canonical didn’t allowed it anymore. He’s pissed with the policy enforcement which is strictly speaking commercial and as bad as Apple’s afaik…