this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
448 points (87.3% liked)
linuxmemes
21410 readers
776 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't fork-bomb your computer.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Flatpak can't run CLI apps. Also, they started around the same time. Flatpak in 2015 and Snap in 2016. This is like saying dnf shouldn't exist because apt is a thing.
Why would Canonical abandon their own solution because some people online complain?
The question that I have to ask: what category of CLI apps (or even some examples) exist that are too complex to maintain a few versions simultaneously as native packages but are not complex enough to just use an OCI container for them instead?
Personally I use (and maintain) snaps for several developer tools I use, because the automatic updates through snap means I can have automatically up-to-date tools with the same package across my Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch and OpenSuSE machines.
Install CLI packages with Nix. You don't need a proprietary system
Nix on non-NixOS distributions would be great, if it would support installing apps into the users home directory instead of a global directory (without recompiling everything).
(When I looked into it, it wasn't possible, but if you made it work, please share.)
I found this that might help:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/how-to-use-a-local-directory-as-a-nix-binary-cache/655/13
Snaps predate flatpaks though.
So why would Canonical switch to another technology that came after what they made and doesn't cover their biggest use cases for snaps?
But if flatpak doesn't meet the widest use case of snap, are they really describing flatpak?
Flatpak is not a solution for packaging a large portion of the types of software Canonical packages with snap, such as database servers, kernels and containerisation software like lxd.