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.