• Vincent@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m very excited about how the Linux community generally seems to be moving towards various approaches to immutable systems - all of them having in common that system updates are going to be a lot less likely to break. The future is looking good!

        • anothermember@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Using Fedora Silverblue has gone a long way to dispel that concern for me. It goes out of its way to be much more user-centric than that. I can’t speak for the others yet.

        • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “like Android/ios”

          is pretty vague. Do you mean locked down, with features like SafetyNet which locks people in to Google Services? Or do you mean locked down in the sense that installing packages doesn’t just directly change the files in / ?

          Systems like rpm-ostree still allow modifications to the OS, it just requires other steps. OpenSUSE MicroOS even allows for arbitrary modifications to the root fs through transactional-update (it even allows for dropping in to a transactional-update shell, so it’s not necessary to prefix each command with transactional-update).

          Especially OpenSUSE MicroOS feels more like OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, compared to Fedora rpm-ostree’s limitations compared to Fedora dnf.

        • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Having distro maintainers decide a rigid partition structure for you would be a really bad approach, so I really hope not.

        • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes except it’s all open source and if you’re unhappy you can fork. Good luck forking iOS.

  • Patch@feddit.ukOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I know this thread is likely to quickly descend into 50 variants of “ew, snap”, but it’s a good write up of what is really a pretty interesting novel approach to the immutable desktop world.

    As the article says, it could well be the thing that actually justifies Canonical’s dogged perseverance with snaps in the first place.

    • V ‎ ‎ @beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I appreciate that they try, and as much as I dislike some of snap’s design choices I think it has a place. Flatpak appears to be the winner in this race however, and I feel like this is Unity all over. Just as the project gets good they abandon it for the prevailing winds. I’ve been told the snap server isn’t open source, which is a big concern?

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Snap makes a lot of sense for desktop apps in my opinion. There’s a conceptual difference between system level packages that you install using something like APT, and applications. Applications should be managed at the user layer while the base system should provide all the common libraries and APIs.

      It’s also worth noting that this is a similar approach to what MacOS has been doing for ages with .app bundles where any shared libraries and assets are packaged together in the app folder. The approach addresses a lot of the issues you see with shared libraries such as having two different apps that want different versions of a particular library.

      The trade off is that you end up using a bit more disk space and memory, but it’s so negligible that the benefits of having apps being self-contained far outweigh these downsides.

      • ShiningWing@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The problem here is that for that purpose, Flatpak is better in nearly every way and is far more universal

        I think Snap makes the most sense for something like Ubuntu Core, where it has the unique benefit of being able to provide lower level system components (as opposed to Flatpak which is more or less just for desktop GUI apps), but it doesn’t make sense for much else over other existing solutions

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Ordinary desktop and server Ubuntu aren’t going anywhere, and the next release, numbered 24.04 and codenamed Noble Numbat as we mentioned last month, will be the default and come with all the usual editions and flavors.

    Nor is this a whole new product: it is a graphical desktop edition of the existing Ubuntu Core distro, as we examined on its release in June last year, a couple of months after 22.04.

    Ubuntu Core is Canonical’s Internet of Things (IoT) distro, intended to be embedded on edge devices, such as digital signs and smart displays.

    Most of the major Linux vendors have immutable offerings, and The Reg has looked at several over the years, including MicroOS, the basis of SUSE’s next-gen enterprise OS ALP.

    Former Canonical staffer Alan Pope demonstrated a Steam Deck running Ubuntu Core at the event, and his lengthy blog post about the experience contains some interesting details about how well the developer preview already works.

    Compression of Flatpak apps is a key reason that Fedora now uses Btrfs, although it’s worth noting that, as of yet, Snap doesn’t include any form of deduplication between separate packages.


    The original article contains 1,052 words, the summary contains 189 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!