[chomp]

There's pros and cons. It helps developers because they aren't restricted to the distro's shipped library versions, they can build against what they need. It also confines the app to a sandbox. The downsides are that the packages end up larger because they ship with all of the necessary bundled libraries (which can also increase memory usage of the application because it can't share the libraries loaded in RAM by the native operating system), and there's a lack of trust that the developer can keep up with bundled library security updates.

[larntz]

Also I think snap is an Ubuntu thing vs flatpak and appimage which are more distro agnostic. That's my issue with it/Ubuntu. They are doing good things, but at the same time I don't feel they are as "open" as other linux distros.

Also, snapd is installed by default on their servers and it's not as to remove as it should be.

This is one of the reason that I will always choose a different distro if I have the choice.

[xet7]

Snap is available for many distros https://snapcraft.io/docs/installing-snapd

It's great Canonical pays all the huge costs of Snap servers and bandwidth. I could not afford to host all that myself.

[curt15]

Does its sandbox work yet on distros that don't use apparmor? Last time I checked, snap apps were essentially unconfined on Fedora, and sandboxing is one of snap's most important selling points.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

You have skipped quite a few downsides. Anyway, the biggest one is that what was previously an app is now a separate environment that is sometimes hard to control. If I wanted to run an app in a sandbox, I would have run it in a sandbox. People have run into all possible problems with snaps in the past, it has been discussed on HN ad naueseam [0] [1].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24383341

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24129208

[rlpb]

> Anyway, the biggest one is that what was previously an app is now a separate environment that is sometimes hard to control. If I wanted to run an app in a sandbox, I would have run it in a sandbox.

I see sandboxing as a major upside. Users expect sandboxing by default nowadays. Some game they downloaded shouldn't be able to intercept your online banking browser session. Yet, in the traditional Linux desktop model, they can.

Having app sandboxing by default is long overdue. Not having it makes the environment a second class citizen for user safety and security when compared to iOS and Android, for example.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

In theory, if snap was mature software and had no other issues, this could work well. In practice, many people have problems.

[rlpb]

> The downsides are that the packages end up larger because they ship with all of the necessary bundled libraries (which can also increase memory usage of the application because it can't share the libraries loaded in RAM by the native operating system), and there's a lack of trust that the developer can keep up with bundled library security updates.

This has basically been happening with browser debs anyway. Browser upstreams bundle their libraries, and distributions have increasingly been unable to unbundle them.