Welcome!
Important information
-- Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities
-- Change in MX sources

News
-- MX Linux on social media: here
-- Mepis support still here

Current releases
-- MX-17.1 Final release info here
-- antiX-17 release info here

New users
-- Please read this first, and don't forget to add system and hardware information to posts!
-- Here are the Forum Rules

Snap/Snappy... Flatpak & the future?

Message
Author
User avatar
manyroads
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:33 pm

Snap/Snappy... Flatpak & the future?

#1 Post by manyroads » Tue Nov 20, 2018 7:46 pm

Just curious but... have others noted that Canonical producer of Ubuntu seems to have embarked on an extensive communication effort with respect to Snappy/Snap?

* https://goo.gl/6S4XMF

Thoughts on this? What do you think Snap/Snappy (or Flatpak for that matter) means to 'other' distros like ours? :popcorn:
Pax vobiscum,
ManyRoads (Mark Rabideau)
http://many-roads.com
MX-18b1_x64 Continuum
Platform: Dell Latitude E5470
CPU: Dual Core Intel i5-6300U (-MT MCP-)
Mem: 8GB SSD: 978.09 GiB
Reg. Linux User #449130
:bagoverhead:

User avatar
richb
Administrator
Posts: 17503
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:17 pm

Re: Snap/Snappy... Flatpak & the future?

#2 Post by richb » Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:15 pm

Don't know about snaps but I stay away from flatpacks. They just bring in too many libraries. An option for flatpacks was added to MXPI for convenience. Our packagers are very good at re-packaging newer app versions for our repos. I prefer that model. Opinions will vary.

More on snaps in MX.
The problem: Snap packages, or more specifically the snapd daemon which manages Snap packages, relies on systemd.
And as you know MX defaults to sysvinit.

https://mxlinux.org/wiki/applications/s ... ages-mx-17
Forum Rules
Guide - How to Ask for Help

Rich
SSD Production: MX 17.1
AMD A8 7600 FM2+ CPU R7 Graphics, 16 GIG Mem. Three Samsung EVO SSD's 250 GB, 350 GB HD

User avatar
manyroads
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:33 pm

Re: Snap/Snappy... Flatpak & the future?

#3 Post by manyroads » Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:41 pm

H richb, No for whatever reason I did not know. Is that true for flatpak as well?
Pax vobiscum,
ManyRoads (Mark Rabideau)
http://many-roads.com
MX-18b1_x64 Continuum
Platform: Dell Latitude E5470
CPU: Dual Core Intel i5-6300U (-MT MCP-)
Mem: 8GB SSD: 978.09 GiB
Reg. Linux User #449130
:bagoverhead:

skidoo
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:56 pm

Re: Snap/Snappy... Flatpak & the future?

#4 Post by skidoo » Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:45 pm

ManyRoads, although I've read "no, technically, flatpak does not require systemd" I've repeatedly worried that debian's implementation might, or soon will.

Hey, can check easily enough. I did so just now, from an antiX17 system. Launch synaptic, click mark-for-installation flatpak, apply...
...its installation would add only 2 additional dependent packages ("libostree", and "bubblewrap") occupying 3.5Mb additional disk space.
So, nope, flatpak does not require systemd

User avatar
richb
Administrator
Posts: 17503
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:17 pm

Re: Snap/Snappy... Flatpak & the future?

#5 Post by richb » Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:52 pm

skidoo wrote:
Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:45 pm
ManyRoads, although I've read "no, technically, flatpak does not require systemd" I've repeatedly worried that debian's implementation might, or soon will.

Hey, can check easily enough. I did so just now, from an antiX17 system. Launch synaptic, click mark-for-installation flatpak, apply...
...its installation would add only 2 additional dependent packages ("libostree", and "bubblewrap") occupying 3.5Mb additional disk space.
So, nope, flatpak does not require systemd
That is correct no systemd for Flatpak. But when I installed Audaciuos and an icon theme via Flatpak I ended up with an extra 2 GB.
Forum Rules
Guide - How to Ask for Help

Rich
SSD Production: MX 17.1
AMD A8 7600 FM2+ CPU R7 Graphics, 16 GIG Mem. Three Samsung EVO SSD's 250 GB, 350 GB HD

User avatar
manyroads
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:33 pm

Re: Snap/Snappy... Flatpak & the future?

#6 Post by manyroads » Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:12 pm

I tried both... of the two, I do like flatpak better; but the overhead for both seems large. I wonder though if the 'marketing' hype (for both) isn't going to become overwhelming. There are security issues as well that seem to be glossed over.
Pax vobiscum,
ManyRoads (Mark Rabideau)
http://many-roads.com
MX-18b1_x64 Continuum
Platform: Dell Latitude E5470
CPU: Dual Core Intel i5-6300U (-MT MCP-)
Mem: 8GB SSD: 978.09 GiB
Reg. Linux User #449130
:bagoverhead:

skidoo
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:56 pm

Re: Snap/Snappy... Flatpak & the future?

#7 Post by skidoo » Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:15 pm

What do you think Snap/Snappy [..] means to 'other' distros like ours?
That's a broad question, and the topic is more suitable for discussion within a distro-agnostic venue.
You'll find plenty of well-reasoned (and no-so-well reasoned, but passionate) commentary here:
https://old.reddit.com/r/linux/search?q ... rict_sr=on
and
ycombinator, aka HackerNews

User avatar
manyroads
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:33 pm

Re: Snap/Snappy... Flatpak & the future?

#8 Post by manyroads » Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:39 pm

Thanks @skidoo, the reddit 'stuff' seems better. None of those seem to truly address how distros "not involved" in the development of these technologies might, or might not, want to "take advantage" of either snap or flatpak.

I was simply wondering if folks here have an approach, plan, disinterest or whatever.
Pax vobiscum,
ManyRoads (Mark Rabideau)
http://many-roads.com
MX-18b1_x64 Continuum
Platform: Dell Latitude E5470
CPU: Dual Core Intel i5-6300U (-MT MCP-)
Mem: 8GB SSD: 978.09 GiB
Reg. Linux User #449130
:bagoverhead:

User avatar
asqwerth
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 3636
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:37 am

Re: Snap/Snappy... Flatpak & the future?

#9 Post by asqwerth » Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:03 pm

Void Linux, which uses runit as init manager, has flatpak. So flatpak is not dependent on systemd. I've tested it and it works. But no graphical management tool so you have to use terminal commands .
Desktop: Intel i5-4460, 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics
Clevo N130WU-based Ultrabook: Intel i7-8550U (Kaby Lake R), 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics (UEFI)
ASUS X42D laptop: AMD Phenom II, 6GB RAM, Mobility Radeon HD 5400

User avatar
manyroads
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 214
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:33 pm

Re: Snap/Snappy... Flatpak & the future?

#10 Post by manyroads » Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:31 pm

I apologize but because we are headed to an MX18 release, bear with me as I hypothesize a bit...

Let's assume we worry about where the Linux world is headed (especially the MX Linux chunk). What happens, when the bulk of our tiny Linux Desktop world:

* expects flatpaks or snaps rather than ‘synaptic’ and its kind?
* and these installs (flatpak & snaps) become pervasive as well as massive opportunity targets for “evil doers”?
* when “these things” don’t get updated/ maintained?

So some strategic questions that come to my mind… (whether we address them or not is up to others and not me)

* Do we (the MX Linux community) have a plan to address the delinquency of flatpak- snap updates?
* Should we warn our users of the risk?
* Should the greater debian community work with the Big Guys (IBM, Red Hat & Ubuntu) to address these issues so we are not blind sided?
* How do we protect our interests?

Or should we just sit back a take what they deliver and live happily ever after? :alien:

Back under my rock I go... :bagoverhead:
Pax vobiscum,
ManyRoads (Mark Rabideau)
http://many-roads.com
MX-18b1_x64 Continuum
Platform: Dell Latitude E5470
CPU: Dual Core Intel i5-6300U (-MT MCP-)
Mem: 8GB SSD: 978.09 GiB
Reg. Linux User #449130
:bagoverhead:

Post Reply

Return to “General”