i have just come back to Zorin pro and i am wondering about snap apps , have heard they are not safe , but i think Zorin has then installed ,
are they safe Y/N
The problem with snaps (and flatpaks) is they are not integral to the system. I usually remove both snap and flatpak post install.
They are safe, just annoying.
It depends on your needs. This is an opinion topic and in asking, you will get opinions. Some will be informed opinions.
Zorin OS comes with no Snap Applications installed by default, but it does contain the means to support and install Snaps.
In this way, the end user can choose.
Snap packages run fully containerized and do not launch, but instead are Mounted to the system. Since they are containerized, they cannot communicate with the system, which means some Snap packages cannot actually operate the way they are supposed to. This is safe as it is not dangerous, but useless to the user.
Because they cannot communicate with the system, they cannot rely on system packages as dependencies, so they duplicate dependencies which is Bloat on a system, taking up much more space than a standard package would that can and does rely on already existing dependencies.
Because Snaps are mounted in an integrated self contained system, removing the entirety of them can feel like pulling teeth.
You can remove a Snap package with one terminal command.
However, to remove more than that, you must unmount it, then remove the mounting process, then remove the parent package. It must be done in the correct order, or it fails.
Which makes many users, self included, shy of its deeply integrated ways that resist user removal.
2 Likes
thank you for all the info , will stay away from them
2 Likes
The two browsers I use and the office suite both come from: snapcraft.io
Allowing for quick updates (--> snapd) and increasing the level of security (--> the container).
In this case, it may also be necessary to consider avoiding: flathub.org
1 Like
Thanks for posting a counter to some of our expressions.
Yes, I am a person that avoids Snap and Flatpak - for well documented reasons.
However, they do have their upsides and having a fair and balanced covering of each is the best way to help someone to make an informed decision.
2 Likes
You don't have to. When Snaps work for You, You an use them. I don't use them because I have made the Experience in the Past of a weak Performance and I don't like how Ubuntu is forcing it. So, I use .deb and Flatpak. But when it runs fine and do what it should do for You, fell free to use it.
Snaps and flatpaks are both fine. I recently decided to prefer flatpaks because there's a lot of snap and flatpak apps that are unverified "wrappers" of other apps. The upside of choosing a flatpak is I can review the wrapper source code before I install the app to be sure there's nothing nefarious in it. Snaps, on the other hand, do not allow you to see the source code.
1 Like
There is one little thing that bothers me about Flathub.
Unlike its British counterpart, I couldn’t find any contact address (--> from real life, not digital).
2 Likes
i have used Ubuntu since Warty Warthog 04.10, i still have the install CD.
but after nearly 20 years with Ubuntu snaps was the last straw
snaps dont work for the user they just get in the way.
Ubuntu seem to enforce there use via the software store
you have to jump through hoops to install an .deb file.
so i went to Windows 11 for a couple of years and just couldn't get on with it
but i was looking for a Ubuntu based system in that time.
i tried linux Mint but i couldn't get to bond with it, something just wasn't right for me
then i found Zorin, more by accident, as it was written about in ZDnet.
i tried Zorin core and when Zorin 18 came out i moved to Zorin pro
i am happy again with a Ubuntu based system but in Zorin flavour
i would also like to express my thanks to Ubuntu as it was the first Linux distro that managed to get me online and i stayed with it for nearly 2 decades, but i also would like to thank Zorin for getting me back onto a Ubuntu based system.
sorry for the long winded story.
best of luck Steve ..
This article attempts to downplay and make excuses for Canonical's decisions and make it sound like the negative feedback is exaggerated.
I say that it is not exaggerated.
Here is the thing... Many companies all experience this same problem. Mozilla is another.
A company can do many good things; but once they do something that deceives the end user; that is a line crossed, not an over-the-top exaggeration.
Canonical specifically promised to not replace apps in APT with Snap, then turned right around and did it.
Canonical promised to not include advertising within the O.S., then turned right around and signed a deal with Amazon, displaying ads in the App Menu.
These are severe breakages in trust. The end users are not unfairly exaggerating 'in vogue hate', they detest being misled and deceived.
And the worst part of Canonical is that they persist. After violating end user trust, they will repeat this decision again, later, when they think it has all blown over.
Would you trust someone that you have established will lie to you again?
1 Like
Reminded me of a fellow biker at our Motorcycle Club wearing a T-shirt with caricature image of Richard Millhouse Nixon with the caption "Would you buy a used car from this person?"
1 Like
Canonical specifically promised to not replace apps in APT with Snap, then turned right around and did it.
In the current snap situation, this is not technologically viable (presence of the old version, physical access to the system, etc...). Except for the office softwares of the GNU/Linux world.
snaps dont work for the user they just get in the way.
The updates and the container, I greatly appreciate.
Examples include Chromium, Firefox, Thunderbird... No one claimed that they replaced all apt packages with Snaps. You threw a red herring out, hoping to shift the goal posts.
Since misleading statements are the crux of the "breach of trust" problem; you making misleading statements in order to bolster support for Snap really does not help.
Switching a package from the standard, without end user consent and without notification can not ever be a viable practice. Especially as only a few commonly installed apps had this done, as it bucks end user expecatations.
For the people I install for, this argument is too technical to be understood... They just want it to work well.
Then you have to look at what audience Canonical is targeting and it doesn’t seem to be the computer scientists.
Since misleading statements are the crux of the "breach of trust" problem; you making misleading statements in order to bolster support for Snap really does not help.
Sorry, but what did I say wrong? Since I’m basing it on my professional experience, I don’t understand the comment.
An authentic problem would be, for example, the software publisher that mentions on its website that it is necessary to use a specific application store and then it no longer updates its software.
a) www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ubuntu.html
--> He is well aware of the problem.
In My experience, we explain this to non-tech and new migrants all the time and they understand it just fine.
What is this I.T. attitude where all End Users are stupid and don't care? It is simply not true.
I pointed out that Snap packages replaced APT packages using a redirect.
You tried to refute this by shifting the goal posts to suggest that claim was that all APT packages had been replaced.
What that tactic does is try to minimize the damage, since it cannot refute it.
Here is the flaw in your reasoning: The average end user does care about the issues of Privacy, Consent and being Informed. They 100% do care.
And having any company break trust and replace packages without properly informing the End User and without acknowledged consent is something the average person does care about.
No one needs to be a "computer scientist" for that.
2 Likes
In My experience, we explain this to non-tech and new migrants all the time and they understand it just fine.
What is this I.T. attitude where all End Users are stupid and don't care? It is simply not true.
So, we obviously do not have the same categories of clients.
Which is perfectly understandable... mine, for example, perfectly understand my argument of physical location versus Flathub.
I pointed out that Snap packages replaced APT packages using a redirect.
You tried to refute this by shifting the goal posts to suggest that claim was that all APT packages had been replaced.
What that tactic does is try to minimize the damage, since it cannot refute it.
English is not my native language (or my first language as they say in Canada).
consequently, some subtleties of language turns may escape me.
So, your comment is strange and off-topic to me!
Because at no time and in no way was there any mention of this redirection... And, moreover, I have never used Ubuntu (and I don’t want to).
Discussing Snap Packages in a topic called "Are Snap Apps safe?" is off topic?
Then you actually agree that they can handle the information and that
is not actually applicable?