288
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by suy@programming.dev to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] pkill@programming.dev 35 points 10 months ago

Why are they even still pushing that nonsense when flatpak at least somewhat gets closer to getting bwrap implemented right?

[-] Dirk@lemmy.ml 41 points 10 months ago

Why are they even still pushing that nonsense

It's a for-profit corporation. They only have one goal.

[-] hunger@programming.dev 27 points 10 months ago

To be fair: snaps can work for all kinds of things all over the stack from the kernel to individual applications, while flatpak just does applications. Canonical is building a lot around those abilities to handle lower level things, so I guess it makes sense for them.

IMHO flatpak does the applications better and more reliably and those are what I personally care for, so I personally stay away from snaps.

[-] pkill@programming.dev 4 points 10 months ago

Fair point. For instance one thing that sucks about flatpaks is that you can't torsocks them

this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
288 points (98.3% liked)

Programmer Humor

19434 readers
138 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS