• qaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Fun fact: there used to be an Authy flatpak that just installed the snap inside

    • renzev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      Oh, what the fuck!?

      TBH I wouldn’t mind it that much. The whole point of flatpak is that the developer can do whatever demented satanic rituals they want inside of the sandbox, and it won’t contaminate the rest of the system.

      • wax@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 month ago

        Yo dawg, I herd you like containers so I put snap in yo flatpak, so that u can sandbox in your sandbox

      • lengau@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Flatpak has long had the ability to dump the contents of a snap into it, because snaps had already solved many of the build issues flatpaks were struggling with and they used similar runtimes for their sandboxing. It’s also a convenient way to convert apps over, since many apps got packaged as snaps before flatpak was really usable.

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yep. I’m selfhosting it now. Works great but selfhosting isn’t straightforward yet, still the best Authy/Google/Microsoft Authenticator drop in replacement with sync.

  • NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Unpopular opinion: snap is not so bad and genuinely useful for many things

    I would rather have a snap than building from source or use some tar.gz archive with a sketchy install script

    • m4m4m4m4@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      some tar.gz archive with a sketchy install script

      I just can’t… like maybe I’m too old and that’s why I still can’t wrap my head around how we went from “./configure && make & make install scripts are almost the de facto way to install software in linux” to “a sketchy install script”. We’re living interesting times at Linux

    • babybus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I would rather have a snap than building from source or use some tar.gz archive with a sketchy install script

      I agree, but that sounds like false dichotomy to me because snap competes with flatpak.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I never presented this as a dichotomy. You know, people prefer things in a certain order, right? I prefer Flatpaks and native packages over snaps and I prefer snaps to building from source.

  • udon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Once you discover you can just install the nix package manager with one command and then install everything with another, snap is out of the game. Even if you just use nix for like 2 packages, it’s already much better