- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Timothée Besset, a software engineer who works on the Steam client for Valve, took to Mastodon this week to reveal: “Valve is seeing an increasing number of bug reports for issues caused by Canonical’s repackaging of the Steam client through snap”.
“We are not involved with the snap repackaging. It has a lot of issues”, Besset adds, noting that “the best way to install Steam on Debian and derivative operating systems is to […] use the official .deb”.
Those who don’t want to use the official Deb package are instead asked to ‘consider the Flatpak version’ — though like Canonical’s Steam snap the Steam Flatpak is also unofficial, and no directly supported by Valve.
You must log in or # to comment.
I’m sure Canonical’s neverending death march towards Snap, along with the OS running outdated packages, is why Valve no longer uses Ubuntu for SteamOS development. The greatest April Fools was Ubuntu dropping Snaps because so many people were saying how they could go back to using Ubuntu again…then they noticed it was a joke and the sadness set in.
That’s gotta be the funniest backfire for an April Fools’ joke I’ve seen in a while lmao
And still is, as Google still has it on the first page of results for “Ubuntu without snaps”.
I was certain you had to be joking in this post, holy shit.
Why do people hate snap over flatpak? I feel like I’ve read a thread or two about it, but I haven’t seen an answer that was particularly satisfying (almost definitely for a lack of trying on my part, to be clear).
-
Proprietary on the server/distribution end
-
Controlled 100% by Canonical
-
Worse performance, particularly in terms of app startup times
-
Snaps are mounted as separate filesystems, so it can make things look cluttered in your file explorer or when you’re listing stuff with lsblk
-
Canonical often forces users to use Snaps even when users have explicitly tried to install with apt. e.g. you run sudo apt install firefox and it installs a Snap
-
It hasn’t gained traction with other distros like Flatpak has, and Canonical’s insistence on backing the “wrong” standard means Linux will continue to be more fragmented than it would be if they also went along with what has become the de facto standard
There are however benefits of snaps. It works for better for terminal programs, and Canonical can even package system stuff like the kernel as a snap - as you can imagine, this might be a very powerful tool when it comes to an immutable version of Ubuntu.
Proprietary on the server/distribution end
Zoinks!
Snap startup times are awful, tens of seconds to open a simple text editor, even on an nvme ssd…
edit: Also it doesnt bother following XDG specifications, further cluttering our home folders.
-
Canonical’s SteamSnap is Causing Headachesfor ValveI don’t even want to hate on Snap, I just think Flatpak is probably superior in almost every way and it’s probably not great that there are three competing formats for “applications with dependencies included”. It was supposed to be “package your app to this format, dear developer, so everyone can use it no matter the distro they use”, now it’s a bit more complicated. Frustrating, as this means developers without that many resources will only offer some formats and whichever you (or your distro) prefers might not be available.
I know that you can get every format to work on every distro (AppImages are just single binaries you can execute), but each has their own first class citizen.
By the way, the unofficial Steam Flatpak has been working well for me under Fedora 39 KDE Spin, but an official one would be great to have.
Snap isn’t a standard actually. It’s closed off.
Just tell the billion dollar company to allow people to download the games on their browser. The Client only exists as a means to DRM and analytics, there’s no actual reason for games not to become standalone.
That’s pretty unfair. Before Valve’s efforts, the first thing we PC gamers asked eachother about a new game was always “could you get it running?”
Three bad old days were quite bad, and they started getting better in lock step with Valve’s improvements to Steam.
Correlation/causation and all that. But for a lot of us Valve earned a lot of goodwill simply by allowing “request a refund” on games that run poorly. (Edit: which was apparently forced on Valve by a government. Valve got lucky there!)
As someone who was during those times, your Zgen knowledge is very incorrect. The games did work, including Crisis (original). As to why the myth you hear from fellow Zgen gamers; it’s because graphics cards were invented. Brand new, no one knew what they were doing with them. The companys Renzen and Nvidia started sponsoring games, it’s how they became popular, their logos were part of the game, Metal Gear Solid revengeance is proof of this.
Steam had no part in gaming history, they were not the first online platform. Dell made wild target before Valve Corporation was founded. Lootbox was invented before Steam launched it, Yahoo games (anyone remember them) in japan had the concept down to almost todays standards. Valve had nothing to do with gaming history, they are just known for their lawsuits and anti competitive behavior.
Steam had no part in gaming history, they were not the first online platform.
Lmao. This is like saying the iPhone or iPad had no part in smartphone/tablet history, because neither were first to the market. It’s a ludicrous take.
Valve had nothing to do with gaming history
Lol
they are just known for their lawsuits and anti competitive behavior.
I’m willing to bet this isn’t true lol. Valve is only known for anti-competitive behaviour? Come off it.
The Iphone wasn’t part of touchscreen technology either. They were just the first to try heating sensors. It’s still being used in android devices too. The ability to use physical sensors is gone. Apple killed it off.
Valve is in a lawsuit, do your research next time: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/antitrust/valve-loses-bid-to-end-antitrust-case-over-steam-gaming-platform
Lmao
Obligatory xkcd
obligatory reply to obligatory xkcd
The article says that steam showing a notice on snap installs that it isn’t an official package and to report errors to snap would be extreme. But that seems pretty reasonable to me, especially since the small package doesn’t include that in its own description. Is there any reason why that would be considered extreme, in the face of higher than normal error rates with the package, and lack of appropriate package description?
Honestly, that seems like the nicest way to solve the problem. Afaik Valve would be fully within their rights to C&D them from unofficially rehosting their binaries. In any other situation, that would be a blatant security risk.
Who the fuck was asking for a Steam Snap.
JFC
Give up on snaps. It’s not gonna happen. Whatever benefits they claim they could provide could be merged into Flatpak and everyone wins.
Flatpak is not designed to solve all the same problems as snap they have very different scopes and goals. It’s really only Linux hobbyists that see these as comparable technologies.
Also the Steam flatpak is unofficial just like the snap, they would be unwilling to support flatpak issues as well.
Linux hobbyists
Who else has opinions on snaps vs. flatpacks? Are they distinct to the “Linux professional” somehow?
Yes? How is this a question?
Tbh i never found an app that runs better on snap than on deb
Same goes for almost anything like snap
I’m really hoping this all forces Ubuntu out as the face of desktop Linux.
It’s been pretty low tier for years now, and Canonical just proves corporate backing doesn’t guarantee a good distro.
Snap is pretty garbage, default GNOME is horrendous, the repos break every other month, apt is still pretty lame despite being an user upgrade for apt-get, the packages are neither stable nor cutting edge, they change core OS backends like every update which breaks configs and makes documentation obsolete.
I’d like to suggest Fedora as the new goto, but I feel like it’s a bit too privacy and FOSS oriented which may scare away new users.
Debian is great but it doesn’t have latest packages which isn’t optimal as performance upgrades would take time to release or need to be manually installed.
unfortunately, industry loves shit like Ubuntu and RHEL because of their corporate backing. comps love having the insurance of someone to blame or somebody to fix their shit when things hit the fan. I’ve worked for many comps who choose RHEL for that alone. Should we choose the OS built by a bunch of randos in their basement, or something backed by Red Hat where I can just pay them money to handle my support tickets faster if shit blows up? or who tf do I have my cyber liabilities insurance guys sue if the OS has a huge fuckin problem? I want a company behind that shit.
Would be cool if they just straight up supported flatpaks. That’s been my main way of gaming for a couple years now, and it works great. The downside is that the folder structure is confusing so it makes things like modding pretty difficult.
Just to play devils advocate, why don’t they simply officially support the Snap store?
Bc/ they’re already packaging an deb-package. Why should the do that snap thingy?
Because it’s the same story as with Mir or Upstart: it will die, because its half assed and tailored to Ubuntu, this time with dubious non-free parts even
The proprietary parts is what bothers me. Why would you make a foss OS/fork and put proprietary shit in? Its like taking something good and pure and instead of making it better or just different, make it worse.
This is a big issue with Snap. It may be like Flatpak, allowing devs to set their own dependencies for ALL distros, but its poor uptake outside of Ubuntu’s ecosystem means that it’s no different to yet another distro repackaging system.
Flatpak, or even Nixpkgs, are the future because they allow devs to have control over the distribution of their software. Snap being such a closed ecosystem in comparison only means it will replicate many of the problems we’ve found with traditional (re)packaging systems.
I can’t speak for Flatpak as I haven’t tried it but nixpkgs are beautiful to work with and configuration of my system has become completely reproducible in a clean format.
As a dev, you can just distribute a nixpkg with whatever build tool inside. That beats the current system of “native” packages where your software is repacked and then maintained by half a dozen teams for different distros that use different dependencies and update cadences.
Bottles has gone as far as to demand its fedora package be removed and now shows a warning if you’re not using the flatpak version because repackers just don’t properly test all their software (how can they? there are thousands of apps in these repos!)
Yeah there are some issues with compatibility, I’ve found a couple of apps that error on my Mac.
How does it compare to Flatpak?
nix is a “native” packaging format. Apps are compiled for your host OS and run in that environment with no restrictions, for better or worse.
Flatpaks are containers. They provide a virtual OS to the application such as the file system, and accessing host OS features is done through “portals” which just means you can give/revoke the ability of the app to access your host OS resources such as networking, file access etc.
Flatpaks are therefore much safer in theory. But Nix packages are lower overhead, and can interact like any built-in software binary that you’d have when you spin up a fresh install of, say, debian.
Nix packages are harder to use IMO thanks to their poor documentation and lack of GUI package manager support (not that it’s impossible, just that it’s been a niche system for most of its life) and since most people are accustomed to flatpaks and their permissions system (and the fact it comes preinstalled on most distros) so flatpak is still pretty ubiquitous, even for NIxOS users
Ubuntu used to get a lot of undeserved hate but lately the hate feels deserved. Ubuntu has been the face of the usable desktop Linux for a long time and they just keep tripping over themselves every time they try to move forward.
Their intentions are usually good. A lot of things they propose usually end up being adopted by the community at large (just not their implementation). They seem to just yank everyone’s chain a little too hard in the direction we’re eventually going to go and we all resent them for that.
Off the top of my head, there was Upstart (init system), there was unity (desktop), and now snaps (containerized packaging). All of these were good ideas but implemented poorly and with a general lack of support from the community. In almost each case in the past what’s happened is that once they run out of developers who champion the tech, they eventually get onboard with whatever Debian and Rhel are doing once they were caught up and settled.
Valve’s lack of interest in maintaining the snap makes sense. The development on the Ubuntu platform is very opinionated in a way where the developers of the software (valve) really want nothing to do with Canonicals snaps.
On another note: my favorite thing about the Ubuntu server was LXD + ZFS integration. Both have been snapified. It was incredibly useful and stable. Stephane Graber has forked the project now into INCUS. It looks very promising.
I do think the idea behind snap isn’t all about pushing the Linux platform as such forward, but to specifically gain a market advantage to Ubuntu.
Why else is finding documentation for changing the default store so difficult? And I don’t think you can even have multiple “repositories” there–quite unlike all other Linux packaging systems out there. (Corrections welcome!)
I know the “Arch BTW” meme exists for a reason, but one of the reasons I haven’t been able to drag myself away from Arch-based distros in recent years is that it allows me to always have current versions of my software while also just not having to care about all this appimage/flatpak/snap brouhaha.
I guess it’s somewhat of a “pick your poison” kind of situation, but I find dealing with the typical complaints about Arch based distros to be both less of a problem than detractors would have you believe, and less of a headache than having to pick one of three competing alternative packaging approaches, or worse, to use a mix of them all. Standing on the sidelines of the topic it seems like a small number of people really like that these options exist, and I’m happy for those people. But mostly I’m grateful that I don’t have to care about this kind of thing.
Edited to add: Seeing how this thread has developed in the past 5 hours convinces me anew that “on the sidelines” is where I want to stay on this topic. 😁
I’ve always found the most time consuming thing about arch is having to spend half your life telling everyone you use it.
Nah, it’s repeating the installation process until you finally get enough stuff working to have internet, and then you can bootstrap installing every other bit of software that you need. Thank goodness for rolling release - I can’t imagine having to go through that again.
You can install Arch directly from a UEFI shell over the Internet: https://archlinux.org/releng/netboot/
If your BIOS has a UEFI shell that supports DHCP, HTTP and IPv4 PXE you can load the ipxe-arch.efi over HTTP and start installing.Does UEFI shell have wget?
Depends on the version. All of them (the newer ones with networking) have TFTP. Some even have HTTPS. I think HP Servers even have HTTPS-Boot with client TLS certificates.
None of it works with Wifi though. iPXE has wifi support for some devices but you obviously can’t start it over the Internet. You need to flash a ROM you don’t need or use a USB drive to load it. Then you can boot Linux from the Internet. (That also works if you don’t have a UEFI Shell in BIOS). https://netboot.xyz can also boot other OSes than Arch.
That’s the problem with doing everything yourself.
You also have to maintain everything, yourself.
Fuck snaps 🖕
