On Thursday 16 Jun 2016 21:25:01 J. García wrote: > El jue, 16-06-2016 a las 19:40 -0400, José Maldonado escribió: > > That is possible, but the goal is to serve Snap container for > > applications that can be downloaded and used by the user, down a > > single > > binary that will have all the dependencies in that binary. Docker and > > LXC obviously can do this, but its scope and possibilities are much > > larger and are not addressed within the scope of normal user of a PC. > > > > > > Docker doesn't get the applications down to a single binary, it's a > package containing everything. A single binary would be something like > what Go does by default, as it compiles every source package imported > into the final binary, that's why even a "hello world" takes ~2MB. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [AFAIK, Flatpak's for GUI apps accessed via Gnome Software so it's > > > not > > > quite a Snap competitor.] > > > > > > > > They say it's not a GNOME thing only, but born in the GNOME project, > Quote from their FAQ: > > "Is Flatpak tied to GNOME? > > No. While Flatpak has been developed by people with a long involvement > in the GNOME community it is not tied to any desktop. In fact, it was > designed with the explicit goal of allowing it to build applications > using any library stack or programming language an application author > might want." > > I would say is the implementation of something that Lennart P. wrote in > his blog a while back[1](I don't know to what extent is 'his' idea, or > if it just happens that he wrote about it after discussing it with > others), but it seems that he didn't write code for it(I looked at the > contributors in GitHub) > > > Flatpak and Snap, have GUI and command-line. In addition, Flatpak > > packages weigh less than their counterparts Snap, and right now > > several > > free software projects officially support it, including LibreOffice. > > > > > > The flatpak packages take less space because there's a separation > between runtimes and applications, with the runtime(s) containing many > of the libraries/packages required by an application, and intended to > be used by many of these, and the application package only containing > the remaining required libraries, or maybe only the app, so it could > reduce but not eliminate the problem previously discussed of > dependencies being left unmaintained and not upgraded with security > fixes. IMHO Flatpak seems a better option than Snap, and certainly > reducing file system and device access is a good thing about both, but > with these advantages some other problems are created, so it's a trade- > off. > As Andrew Savchenko said previously Snap seems like C:\Program Files > for Linux, but I would add 'with sandboxing' and other security > features, and that certainly makes it better than than Windows to be > fair. > Maybe we will see Snaps/Flatpaks of popular proprietary software that's > only available for Windows and MacOS right now that has no real FOSS > competitor e.g. AutoCAD and family, I often hear the excuse of these > vendors not supporting Linux because of the many distributions. Getting > LibreCAD to the level of AutoCAD would take a decade or more at the > pace it is going, right know it reminds me of AutoCAD 2004, and it > isn't even a that level. Trying to be optimistic maybe we'll see a new > wave of users in Linux as a result of these new packaging systems, and > in the long run if the GNU/Linux user base grows and learns about the > Free Software philosophy and get tired of having to pay large sums of > money to Autodesk and other companies for a yearly permission to use > their software, they would contribute to the FOSS alternatives with > money to get people working full time on these, and we could see them > grow to be real competitors. > That said I hope upstreams don't start bundling libraries into their > software as a result of this(at least not more than some already do > now), that's really annoying and it could create a nightmare of the > likes of java(I mean most java developers seemingly putting every jar > they come across in their 'source' trees and then forget about it for > the rest of their lifes, or at least until Oracle breaks them, after > years and years of deprecation). > > [1] http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-syste > ms.html >
How does Nix compare to flatpack, docker, snap, et al. from a gentoo perspective? https://nixos.org/nix/about.html -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
