On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:36:37 -0400 Lennart Sorensen via talk <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 04:54:30PM -0400, Michael Hill via talk wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Lennart Sorensen via talk > > <[email protected]> > > > Well the snap containers do sound interesting. It seems to solve > > > the problem of having the right library versions for a given task. > > > Of course I also wonder if this doesn't create the problem of how > > > to update insecure libraries that distributions tried to solve in > > > the first place by only having oen shared copy of a given library > > > to update. Maybe they have some concept of using system libraries > > > for some things. I haven't checked the details that much on it > > > yet. > > As long as you don't get your information from the press release: > > > > https://www.happyassassin.net/2016/06/16/on-snappy-and-flatpak-business-as-usual-in-the-canonical-propaganda-department/ > Yeah that pretty much matches what I thought was the state of things. > Snappy, nice name sounds like a name for App's and rhymes with Happy, Clappy, Nappy, Pappy and Crappy
Other container application management like Applmage, FaltPak/xdg etc all have boring names.. even though, imho, http://appimage.org/ is philosophically the best of the lot :) Linux (press?) is becoming sooo gentrified --- Talk Mailing List [email protected] https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
