this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
47 points (94.3% liked)

Linux

5278 readers
423 users here now

A community for everything relating to the linux operating system

Also check out !linux_memes@programming.dev

Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anthony@lemmy.cif.su 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Who even uses Snap anyway? I either use apt (or .deb) or flatpak. Snap is just the worst of both worlds...

[–] myersguy@lemmy.simpl.website 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Lots of people, often unknowingly. If you run apt install firefox on Ubuntu, you're getting the snap version.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 month ago

Only on Ubuntu

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Snaps are the almost the exact same thing as Flatpaks, except for the fact that they're stored compressed on your disk, requiring them to be decompressed before execution, which explains the slow startup time.

The Flatpak version of Firefox has the exact same problems as the Snap when it comes to some extensions. One such example is using the KeePassXC password manager with the browser extension. The extension can't communicate with the password vault app because of sandboxing in either the Flatpak or Snap.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That's not really the case as Flatpak is a totally different architecture. Flatpak uses bubblewrap which runs as a local use and doesn't require the crazy complex thing called snapd. It is much cleaner and way more portable. Also it has more apps as it is way more popular and not tied to a single company.

That's only a few reasons why Flatpak is so much better

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

Ah yeah, you're right. But essentially they achieve the same thing.