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.