On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 12:49:14 +0100 Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue 06 Apr 2021 at 11:20:58 +0200, Yoann LE BARS wrote: > > > > > Hello everybody out there! > > > > On 2021/04/06 at 01:53 am, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > There's nothing user-unfriendly about .debs. They just don't want to > > > maintain their software and are looking for a "fire and forget" > > > solution. I can't see this as anything but a bad thing, something the > > > world can live without. > > > > Well, I do not like the way Ubuntu uses snaps, but there are some good > > reasons to use something like snaps or flatpacks. > > > > Even with a less careful procedure to integrate and update packages > > than the one of Debian (which I like), create a new package and update > > one take some time. There are several examples when a user needs a bug > > fix or some functionality that packages in distributions do not provide. > > In such a case, without snaps or flatpacks, the user has to compile the > > program, which need some technical skills and can be sometimes really > > tricky. Appimages are less interesting, as you have to update them manually. > > > > Use parsimoniously, packages like snaps or flatpacks are something very > > useful, which improve user experience even for power users. The problem > > with Ubuntu is it uses way too much snaps and I do not think it is a > > matter of laziness. > > I had occasion to install Zoom a few weeks ago;'snap install zoom-client'. > Everything went smoothly and I quite like having this proprietary package > strictly confined. 'apt install zoom_amd64.deb' goes smoothly as well. Confinement is certainly a good thing - I'll have to look into whether the snap route is preferable to the firejail solution that I currently use. Celejar