Portability and security of snaps - Was: Question about Snaps

[Oliver Grawert]

hi,
On So, 2016-10-09 at 20:21 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2016 20:04:26 +0200, Oliver Grawert wrote:
> > 
> > you also forgot to change the mailing list, lets please take this
> > to
> > the snapcraft list if you want to go on ....
> 
> No, while I agree that users could use snaps, I guess mentioning on
> this list, that the old faithful official Ubuntu DEB repositories
> have
> advantages over snaps is very important.

well, exactly the opposite is the case, debs give the maintainer of the
package full root access to your system ... while debs from the ubuntu
archive might be trustworthy to some extend for the set of supported
debs, there is the whole universe archive where most packages get just
synced from debian (or even other sources), only snaps solve this
problem in a clean and safe way...

so please stop saying that debs are having advantages. 
while being a different type of fish, they do not have advantages in
many areas (security, dependencies, painful to package, not portable
etc) and a big amount of canonical developers has worked hard over the
last few years to solve these issue by implementing snaps.

snaps *will* replace debs in many high level app areas on Ubuntu,
*especially* on the desktop. 

telling people to not use them is not helpful or constructive, telling
people to use them and file bugs to find remaining possible drawbacks
is though.

ciao
	oli
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20161009/898a02c5/attachment.sig>