288
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 6 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 40 points 6 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 6 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 6 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

18232 readers
1605 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