I see these things as being disrespectful about snapd (happy to be proven wrong):
- apt install firefox and other packages actually install via snap on Ubuntu. My intent was to install via apt. It should prompt me instead of silently using a different tool with different implications. For example, my firefox profile was silently copied to another folder with zero notification, causing issues with my tooling.
- they're only now adding the ability to pause updates (an experimental feature!), after aggressively pushing snapd for years. Work arounds included telling the OS the Internet connection is metered, which sounds familiar. https://snapcraft.io/docs/keeping-snaps-up-to-date#heading--...
I feel disrespected when a tool imposes its own schedule on me and fights to enforce it. I appreciate that they added the Hold feature, but I feel the way we got it was due to continual, years long community push back. Reasonable defaults are fine. Let me edit them without fighting me.
- proprietary server implementation, only canonical gets to run one or modify behavior. Distros can't run their own. I get that this might reduce fragmentation. To me the disrespect comes from not giving me a choice.
To me it's fine to aggressively push a tech. What I take issue with is the apparent intent to reduce end user control. If my impression is wrong, I'll recant. At least snapd seems to have slowly improved, my nfs mounts actually work in most snap apps now...
- apt install firefox and other packages actually install via snap on Ubuntu. My intent was to install via apt. It should prompt me instead of silently using a different tool with different implications. For example, my firefox profile was silently copied to another folder with zero notification, causing issues with my tooling. - they're only now adding the ability to pause updates (an experimental feature!), after aggressively pushing snapd for years. Work arounds included telling the OS the Internet connection is metered, which sounds familiar. https://snapcraft.io/docs/keeping-snaps-up-to-date#heading--... I feel disrespected when a tool imposes its own schedule on me and fights to enforce it. I appreciate that they added the Hold feature, but I feel the way we got it was due to continual, years long community push back. Reasonable defaults are fine. Let me edit them without fighting me. - proprietary server implementation, only canonical gets to run one or modify behavior. Distros can't run their own. I get that this might reduce fragmentation. To me the disrespect comes from not giving me a choice.
To me it's fine to aggressively push a tech. What I take issue with is the apparent intent to reduce end user control. If my impression is wrong, I'll recant. At least snapd seems to have slowly improved, my nfs mounts actually work in most snap apps now...