• Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think they would care if they knew the benefits of not having snaps.

    There’s little to no advantage in having them, so why have them?

        • RmDebArc_5OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s confusing if there are more than one version of an app and the fact that the command to install one installs the other doesn’t make it better

          • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s already more than one version without snap, it’s already a confusing mess. Not all distros are compatible with the exact same binaries. And people probably don’t want to compile everything form source.

            Snap could potentially unify things, and remove all of that confusion.

            • RmDebArc_5OP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And then Canonical would control Linux apps, sounds like a good idea

        • rambaroo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Flatpaks are just as easy to use without the drawbacks of snaps. There’s no reason to use snaps excet for Canonical pushing them on end users.

          And frankly snaps frequently don’t work well, that’s the entire reason people hate them.