this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
235 points (84.3% liked)

linuxmemes

19849 readers
770 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 21 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Former Unix security chief.

Do not use snaps. Risky as hell.

[–] ASK_ME_ABOUT_LOOM@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Why? I've heard this for years at this point, but as someone who rarely uses snaps because they're the only convenient option for software I'm using, I'm generally ambivalent about them.

People seem to hold really strong opinions about snap but I've never been able to get a straight answer, just a bunch of hand waving.

[–] Verat@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

So that's admittedly not a good look for canonical, but my read of that is that if you're getting widely-known software from a developer who's publishing it to snap themselves, and you're cautious about your usage, snap is fine.

For example, essentially my only use of snap is to install certbot. If I follow the directions from certbot.eff.org precisely, then I'll get certbot installed and no issues.

I certainly agree that (a) the system is ripe for abuse and (b) should be self-hostable to support Free software. Both of these could be fixed by canonical opening it up.

[–] pc36@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

My biggest hit was when they pushed browsers to snaps, and I couldn't do some of my school projects because my school stuff was on a separate disk that the snap was not allowed to access. (Had to use o365, and wasn't installing windows to write my papers)

In short, it messed up my workflow.

load more comments (1 replies)