Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Snap really so terrible?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Is Snap really so terrible?

    It seems like the various *buntu flavors have taken some heat over Canonical's embracing of Snap as its main installer (see video at end). As far as I can tell, everything I've installed via Snap runs okay. (You can list all your Snap installs on the command line with: list snap.) Some pundits sing the praises of Flatpak, but I have had at least a few problems with that technology. In at least one Flatpak install, the app didn't inherit my Kubuntu's look and feel settings. It did its own thing. It's a long story, but I have two LibreOffice installs, neither of which is the distro's original install. I had some problems with the original, and so I purged it and then reinstalled via the command line. I also have a Flatpak install of LO. I use the Flatpak one for my daily work-from-home job, and the command line one for everything else. I do notice that the Flatpak one runs more slowly.

    That's the complaint by the guy in the video. He claims that all the Snap installs run slower than they should. If Snap really is so terrible, I could conceivably just get rid of it and stay with Kubuntu. I could uninstall every Snap-based install and reinstall via other means, and then uninstall Snap itself. Would it actually be worth it, however? To me it doesn't seem that Flatpak installs perform any better. Am I wrong? It's also possible to avoid both Snap and Flatpak, but that would place big limitations on your system. In some cases, Flatpak may be the only way to install something.

    Some users have Snap-purged their *buntu; others have even switched distros. Do they have a point? Or is the Snap-bashing over-hyped?

    I do notice that my system takes way longer to boot up than I would prefer, but up until now I've considered it a hardware problem, and that I should finally get on board with a solid state drive.

    Thoughts?

    https://youtu.be/pMfqCzbSmQU

    Notes:
    You can list all your Snap installs on the command line like this:
    snap list

    All the Flatpak ones can be listed like this:
    flatpak list --app

    Finally, list all the Apt installs like this:
    apt list --installed
    Last edited by Tom_ZeCat; Jul 01, 2022, 06:18 AM.
    Kubuntu 20.04 (desktop & laptop), Windows 7 (via VirtualBox on desktop PC)
    ================================

    #2
    I'll bite.

    So, here I was going down the same road of bashing it. I still really do not prefer it and all explain shortly.

    As far as my boot up time I see no difference there caused by all the Loop attachments. I see those mounts more low level and systems should be able to do those mounts relatively easily and quickly. Those happen on many other system needs as well. I could be wrong, but none of my systems I've upgraded has suffered boot wise.

    The arguments I've heard about introducing spyware is a non-subject to me as well. Why? Just about any software you install one way or the other can suffer from that. It would be up to the larger communities to keep all of that in check. I'm sure straight software installs, SNAP, and FlatPak are all scrutinized by someone.

    Now to my main point of why I really do not prefer SNAP. On all of my machines that I have SNAP on with Firefox ALL are slow to start FireFox and even when browsing there is slowness. And it has nothing to do with the machine, my ISP or any of that. It is SNAP. How do I know? Well, I have this control PC here that runs current NEON of which has yet to move to that new base. It isn't a fantastical machine either. It boots as I would expect and is comparable to my other machines that have been updated. It is at the FireFox level that I've noticed the issues and all SNAP based installs are problematic. Anyone to argue otherwise is Head-in-the-Sand attitude. Just admit it and state "it is being worked on, we know". At least for me that is all I would need to hear IF they were actually trying to fix that issue. I've done my studies.

    Though I keep hearing this is FireFox's decision to SNAP it. Not sure how much I believe that but I'll continue to study and test.

    As far as other SNAP items, I cannot say. I try not to go that route due to the slowness I do see out of SNAP FireFox.

    EOF
    Last edited by MoonRise; Jul 01, 2022, 06:37 AM.

    Comment


      #3
      It is mostly politically and ethically motivated, with legit, but probably solvable technical issues thrown in.
      Canonical = bad, usually
      But not without some legitimate reasons
      The servers for the software packages ARE closed, and controlled by Canonical.

      On the other hand, it is perfectly OK for RedHat to more or less force its desired stuff into the Linux ecosphere. Systemd, pulseaudio, etc. Wayland and Flatpak, even, if you squint a tiny bit and see Freedesktop as an extension of Red Hat/Gnome.
      I'll ask Jeeves

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by claydoh View Post
        It is mostly politically and ethically motivated, with legit, but probably solvable technical issues thrown in.
        .
        Absolutely!!

        Comment


          #5
          Late to the party......

          My system with an nVME drive performs very well. I have a SNAP for Chromium and Brave and they seem to perform OK. A while back I installed a SNAP for LibreOffice and it was .dog.slow! I would click on an option or type and the response was very noticeably delayed. My preferred install is the AppImage and I was able to find an AppImage for it that was slightly older. Now ,everything is "snappy" again.

          -=Ken=-
          -=Ken=-
          "A man has to know his limitations." Harry Callihan (Dirty Harry)
          DIY ASRock AB350, AMD Ryzen 3 1200, 16 GB RAM, nvidia GT-710, kubuntu 20.04

          Comment

          Working...
          X