Re: [opensuse-factory] Snap packages
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Carlos E. R. Gesendet: Do. 16.06.2016 02:53 An: OS-fctry , Betreff: Re: [opensuse-factory] Snap packages
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Content-ID:
El 2016-06-15 a las 19:53 +0200, Manfred Hollstein escribió:
freedom because of mostly being open source? Why should we then compromise for getting *some* proprietary packages by switching to "snap",
Nobody said "switch to snap".
- -- Cheers Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAldh+K4ACgkQja8UbcUWM1ycFQD+I7MYNXHxRZySDeAZ3CUs9l4x HaHQmA2BQtCxNxt/QR8A/if/AItkRIh14QT/05Mi00Ox+0zgs9gqw+74wN4bFpEk =lcy0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----->
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht Ende-----
Carlos. Aren't you underestimating the normative power of the industry and the capital here? If you offer it and (although bringing a higher security risk to the user) if it is easier to prepare packages in this format for all distribution, I will simply not offer anything else anymore. Because it is cheaper and, as a result, I maximize my profit. If there are problems with security as a producer of software it is even better: one blame it on the distribution and on the OS. For me that system has a great future. :-) --- Mail & Cloud Made in Germany mit 3 GB Speicher! https://email.freenet.de/mail/Uebersicht?epid=e9900000450 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 El 2016-06-16 a las 10:16 +0200, stakanov@freenet.de escribió:
El 2016-06-15 a las 19:53 +0200, Manfred Hollstein escribió:
freedom because of mostly being open source? Why should we then compromise for getting *some* proprietary packages by switching to "snap",
Nobody said "switch to snap".
Carlos. Aren't you underestimating the normative power of the industry and the capital here? If you offer it and (although bringing a higher security risk to the user) if it is easier to prepare packages in this format for all distribution, I will simply not offer anything else anymore. Because it is cheaper and, as a result, I maximize my profit. If there are problems with security as a producer of software it is even better: one blame it on the distribution and on the OS. For me that system has a great future. :-)
No, that does not apply to the opensource side of things. - -- Cheers Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAldiZjIACgkQja8UbcUWM1z8wAD/bIgtdta6ZeTCMdOJeb+3wge0 Tvjj55kD8faubVPXMQMA/jWil1yK7/309iUmNg39M8KifKKhwbwDRUR7dTuZopmB =IgyQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2016-06-16 10:16 GMT+02:00
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Carlos E. R. Gesendet: Do. 16.06.2016 02:53 An: OS-fctry , Betreff: Re: [opensuse-factory] Snap packages
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Content-ID:
El 2016-06-15 a las 19:53 +0200, Manfred Hollstein escribió:
freedom because of mostly being open source? Why should we then compromise for getting *some* proprietary packages by switching to "snap",
Nobody said "switch to snap".
- -- Cheers Carlos E. R.
(from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
iF4EAREIAAYFAldh+K4ACgkQja8UbcUWM1ycFQD+I7MYNXHxRZySDeAZ3CUs9l4x HaHQmA2BQtCxNxt/QR8A/if/AItkRIh14QT/05Mi00Ox+0zgs9gqw+74wN4bFpEk =lcy0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----->
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht Ende-----
Carlos. Aren't you underestimating the normative power of the industry and the capital here? If you offer it and (although bringing a higher security risk to the user) if it is easier to prepare packages in this format for all distribution, I will simply not offer anything else anymore. Because it is cheaper and, as a result, I maximize my profit. If there are problems with security as a producer of software it is even better: one blame it on the distribution and on the OS. For me that system has a great future. :-)
This isn't the point from my point of view, and I don't speak as an unexperienced user. Now we have one offered a system of easily deploying software to tenths of distributions (snap) and you want to limit the users of them just to use the native deployment system (rpm/deb). This is the same choice like choosing between Libreoffice and Calligra, or between Gentoo, Fedora or OpenSUSE or whatever. This is not just for the industry, but open source software is included. And it is about installing something extra on the top. Some years ago I dealt also with packing (in this case professional) multi-platform software to rpm's and this could not be used a long time due to the dependency hell, while the computers should be rolled out just for one purpose, using our software as front-end. For luck, we have a Java installer for this. For user-space installations, rpm and deb doesn't fit that well and this is where snap steps in, in my opinion. I'd see it this way: If a distribution offers a "clean" package in your terms it should be installed in the recommended manner (rpm/deb). If it doesn't - no way of using it? Compiling? Not the real world for desktop users, but for administrators of server systems, maybe. Let the users decide and if they will be glad it's just fine. That'll be may be some percent more people motivated using Linux. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Am 2016-06-16 10:16, schrieb stakanov@freenet.de:
Carlos. Aren't you underestimating the normative power of the industry and the capital here? If you offer it and (although bringing a higher security risk to the user) if it is easier to prepare packages in this format for all distribution, I will simply not offer anything else anymore. Because it is cheaper and, as a result, I maximize my profit. This is the point. It is cheaper and maximize my profit. The problems have other.
So i can shortly use Windows. -- Regards Eric -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
2016-06-16 10:49 GMT+02:00 Eric Schirra
Am 2016-06-16 10:16, schrieb stakanov@freenet.de:
Carlos. Aren't you underestimating the normative power of the industry and the capital here? If you offer it and (although bringing a higher security risk to the user) if it is easier to prepare packages in this format for all distribution, I will simply not offer anything else anymore. Because it is cheaper and, as a result, I maximize my profit.
This is the point. It is cheaper and maximize my profit. The problems have other.
So i can shortly use Windows.
-- Regards Eric
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
I don't agree. The vendor can write a shell script in an archive to install his software (to be launched as root, for instance Oracle JRE). This is even cheaper for him, but even worse than snap for the end user and in common. And the problems for the others remain, it this software is wrongly assembled. This argumentation is already a bit too political, not much open. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Am 16.06.2016 um 10:49 schrieb Eric Schirra:
Am 2016-06-16 10:16, schrieb stakanov@freenet.de:
Carlos. Aren't you underestimating the normative power of the industry and the capital here? If you offer it and (although bringing a higher security risk to the user) if it is easier to prepare packages in this format for all distribution, I will simply not offer anything else anymore. Because it is cheaper and, as a result, I maximize my profit. This is the point. It is cheaper and maximize my profit. The problems have other. Yes. It is brain damage to have an application packaged together with all it's libraries. It wastes space and if there are multiple copies of a library, the snap package providers are responsible for updating them, especially for security updates. Most companies are very lazy in updating. Look at the android update situation. So i can shortly use Windows. I have counted 16 copies of Qt5Core.dll on my Windows machine, for example. Here we see how space is wasted on Windows. Additionally there are multiple copies of runtime libraries of diverse MSVC-Versions and .net-Versions and much more.
If we repeat that on openSUSE systems we and our users will pay, buying faster, larger machines. snap is at best acceptable for very large applications with many dependencies (Office suits, CAD systems and so on). For smaller tools it is overkill. Herbert -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 16/06/16 14:08, Herbert Graeber wrote
Yes. It is brain damage to have an application packaged together with all it's libraries. It wastes space and if there are multiple copies of a library, the snap package providers are responsible for updating them, especially for security updates. Most companies are very lazy in updating. Look at the android update situation.
It is a trade-off and for certain uses this is not a problem.
snap is at best acceptable for very large applications with many dependencies (Office suits, CAD systems and so on). For smaller tools it is overkill.
It is capable of solving the problem of initial software distribution and version updates (more specifically, nightlies). As an open source software developer, I have experienced the pain of getting new software in distributions. It benefits the users if they can get access to it immediately instead of waiting if and when it shows up where they want it to. Distributions can eventually pick it up later on their own, but there is no need to give the middle finger to users in the meantime. In this regard, and there may be other good reasons as well, flatpak and/or snap are immensely valuable, as you only need to package stuff once, as opposed to e.g. OBS where you still have to depend on the presence of all intended target "distributions" and package for them separately. Just my $0.02.
On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 10:16 +0200, stakanov@freenet.de wrote:
Carlos. Aren't you underestimating the normative power of the industry and the capital here? If you offer it and (although bringing a higher security risk to the user) if it is easier to prepare packages in this format for all distribution, I will simply not offer anything else anymore. Because it is cheaper and, as a result, I maximize my profit. If there are problems with security as a producer of software it is even better: one blame it on the distribution and on the OS. For me that system has a great future. :-)
So how many rpm based applications are you using today on openSUSE that are delivered by "the industry"? Or are you afraid that if Snap is available that community openSUSE package maintainers will jump boat and stop building rpms? -Scott
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 El 2016-06-16 a las 18:28 +0200, Scott Bahling escribió:
So how many rpm based applications are you using today on openSUSE that are delivered by "the industry"?
Chrome, java, flash... acroread stopped. - -- Cheers Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAldkFpcACgkQja8UbcUWM1yDGgD/eB+PD9ZwfDjqkPcCwaUiTwOE wRhiCHHb7PYwHXjf1toA/0vJ47LAV5lqunz2VEnM1JzgudLHI6YqZP7kU/Ly01xj =ByEq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2016-06-17 17:26 GMT+02:00 Carlos E. R.
El 2016-06-16 a las 18:28 +0200, Scott Bahling escribió:
So how many rpm based applications are you using today on openSUSE that are delivered by "the industry"?
Chrome, java, flash... acroread stopped.
Which use mostly the other way around - statically linking to get one universal RPM for most distributions. Exactly these packages are examples of their pain (rpm --requires shows up mostly low level libs, but no Qt and similar high-level deps). Another one - look at Skype for Linux where the remained hanging with their support (https://www.skype.com/en/download-skype/skype-for-linux/). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 16.06.2016 18:28, Scott Bahling wrote:
On Thu, 2016-06-16 at 10:16 +0200, stakanov@freenet.de wrote:
Carlos. Aren't you underestimating the normative power of the industry and the capital here? If you offer it and (although bringing a higher security risk to the user) if it is easier to prepare packages in this format for all distribution, I will simply not offer anything else anymore. Because it is cheaper and, as a result, I maximize my profit. If there are problems with security as a producer of software it is even better: one blame it on the distribution and on the OS. For me that system has a great future. :-)
So how many rpm based applications are you using today on openSUSE that are delivered by "the industry"?
I would love to have more choice. There is a lot of cross platform code out there appearing on Mac and Win but not on Linux. The packaging topic is big hurdle for the industry, as packaging is difficult, time consuming and very distro depending. And you have to do it for the minority of your users. For our ownCloud desktop client, we see > 90% downloads of the windows version. As a "industry" vendor you need to 'package' for win and mac anyway. And you do it only once for each. Doing it in a responsible way for Linux is a expensive thing, so it is dropped quickly by the deciders. Any idea that eases this would be great for Linux I think. Any kind of compromise between proper packaging and less complexity and diversity between the distros... I dont know if snap is a good step in that direction yet. Klaas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
participants (8)
-
Carlos E. R. -
Eric Schirra -
Herbert Graeber -
Klaas Freitag -
Premysl Janouch -
René Krell -
Scott Bahling -
stakanov＠freenet.de