Not the first time this has happened, but recently the Snap store from Canonical hosted a scam bitcoin app that claimed to be Exodus wallet that caused a user to lose money.
  • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
    843·
    6 months ago

    Proprietary software platform makers should always be held accountable for what happens on said platform.

      • inetknght@lemmy.ml
        351·
        6 months ago

        Disabling a systemd service won’t prevent it from starting. For example, if another service depends on it then it will start anyway.

        You have to mask the service which redirects the service files to /dev/null so that the service effectively has zero directives.

        systemctl mask --now snapd

        It also means that anything which depends on snapd will likely fail. That is absolutely an improvement since we obviously don’t want anything that depends on snaps.

        • Oisteink@feddit.nl
          10·
          6 months ago

          What’s wrong with just removing snap? When ever I am forced to install Ubuntu I will remove snap and the “advantage-tools” (the part trying to sell you support)

          First I’ll snap remove —purge all snap packages Then apt purge —auotoremove snapd ubuntu-advantage-tools

          • caseyweederman@lemmy.ca
            9·
            6 months ago

            Leaves behind a bunch of stuff. You have to manually remove each Snap individually, plus the snapshots they take and then hide, and then use Snap to remove itself (it doesn’t let you), then you can apt purge snapd.
            There’s several levels of “we know better than you so we’ll just keep this here for when you inevitably change your mind” and it is exhausting.
            I don’t even know if the above would also clean up all the dev/loop cruft. It was an unpleasant surprise to discover that apt remove alone didn’t at least disable all the systemd .mount units.

            • Oisteink@feddit.nl
              1·
              6 months ago

              There’s like one directory left after my uninstall - I don’t do this by hand though so I’ll have to look up the playbook.

              My first line was the snap remove

              Might need an autoremove —purge at the end to clean up.

      • Vilian@lemmy.ca
        715·
        6 months ago

        they are needed, linux need universals package manager, building for every single distro is a waste of time

          • coolmojo@lemmy.world
            104·
            6 months ago

            A bit of history. The first universal packaging format was snap by Canonical and used to be called Click apps and it was made for the Ubuntu mobile OS and later to the Ubuntu desktop. Red Hat in response to that created the FlatPak format. The AppImages are community effort.

              • dan@upvote.au
                3·
                6 months ago

                almost every time Ubuntu goes off and does its own thing, not including the rest of the Linux community in its decisions, it ends up designing stuff that never gets adopted

                This is something I like about Debian… They don’t make changes unless it’s really necessary. I run it on all my servers, except an Unraid server. Network config is still in /etc/network/interfaces in the same format it was in 20 years ago. When they adopted systemd, they still had full backwards compatibility with SysV init, and even today I think you can still uninstall systemd. It just keeps working.

              • lengau@midwest.social
                1·
                6 months ago

                Remember Upstart?

                Yeah, the worst implementation of it I had to deal with was a CentOS 6 system.

                The best implementation I’ve used is probably my Chromebook.

            • Bezier@suppo.fi
              101·
              6 months ago

              I don’t think that matters at this point. Flatpak is widespread and Canonical can’t possibly expect the linux crowd to choose the proprietary alternative. I could see snap being the one, had they just handled it differently.

            • leopold@lemmy.kde.socialEnglish
              101·
              6 months ago

              AppImages long predate Snaps, but yes, Snaps do predate Flatpaks by a few months. There’s also Nix packages, which predate all three. Of course, this all matters very little compared to the merits of all four technologies. The heavy dependence on proprietary technology for repositories makes Snap clearly unsuitable to become the universal Linux package format.

          • Vilian@lemmy.ca
            11·
            6 months ago

            true, appimage is not exactly a package manager, so we have flatpaks so win in the end btw supporting flatpak and snap is 10x easir than old .rpm .deb and support more distros

  • onlinepersona@programming.devEnglish
    412·
    6 months ago

    I don’t think you understand, it’s closed-source for your safety! If it were opensource there would be many more malicious apps. Only we can hold those at bay and only we know which improvements to implement as we know better than everybody else. Trust me, you’re safer this way /s

    CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    21·
    6 months ago

    sudo snap remove * && sudo apt purge -y snapd && sudo apt install -y gnome-software-plug-flatpak

    until you feel like hopping

        • piracysails@lemm.ee
          2·
          6 months ago

          If you game, definitely Fedora. If its mostly work, it doesn’t really matter…

          FYI is going to include opt out telemetry in the near future if the proposal ends up passing. (If its not already decided)

          You could also check out Opensuse Tumbleweed, since it’s future proof and requires zero maintenance unlike arch. However, Arch is definitely one the most minimal distros.

        • sovietknuckles [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
          2·
          7 days ago

          IMO there’s nothing about Arch, or any other distro, that makes it worth using, beyond whatever goals you have. If Arch helps you accomplish that goals, great. If not, pick a different distro that does.

          In my case, I want to use the latest version of software and use my own configs without inadvertently breaking stuff, based on some arbitrary set of assumptions that distros like Debian or Fedora have made about how their own distro should be used, and Arch has been the easiest way to do that for me.

          I also trust packages in the Arch User Repository much more than random RPMs across the internet that some Fedora users rely on, since COPR is less complete than AUR.

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        2·
        6 months ago

        I swore to myself if they ever pulled this microsoft move again id hop, but they seem to have stopped doing it for now.

        • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          Oh that’s good to hear. I hopped to Debian when they installed snap and changed Firefox to snap version in 22.04 or something

  • makeasnek@lemmy.mlEnglish
    21·
    6 months ago

    If you are going to “be your own bank” you need some very basic computer security skills like:

    • Research the reputation of the wallet you are going to use.
    • Don’t download wallets which aren’t open source
    • Download wallets from their official dev site, not some third party repo.
    • Don’t use Facebook search to find a wallet.
    • If you are storing significant funds, use a multi-sig wallet.
    • If you are not 100% confident in the security of a given wallet or system, send a smaller test transaction first before sending larger amounts

    If you can’t be trusted to do that, you need to pick a trusted custodian to manage access to your funds (you know, like banks), preferably somebody who can get an insurance company to under-write your no-opsec-having-ass. Unfortunately, in the crypto world, these trusted custodians few and far between and have a terrible track record with exchange collapses etc. It’s getting better, but it’s still a mess. Hopefully as time goes on and the industry gets better regulated and more mature, this will be an easier thing to do.

  • potentiallynotfelix@iusearchlinux.fyi
    172·
    6 months ago

    I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps I hate snaps

  • Goku@lemmy.world
    9·
    6 months ago

    As someone who has been using Ubuntu for 10 years, I am sad that I don’t know more about the intricacies of Linux.

    I know more than I did 10 years ago… But probably would really be uncomfortable running arch.

    I think I will install Debian 24.04 as my desktop (daily driver) this year and be done with Ubuntu. Hopefully I learn some more and eventually try out Arch on my laptop.

    • Oisteink@feddit.nl
      15·
      6 months ago

      You’d have to wait a while for Debian to reach version 24

      I like Debian - it’s foss and stable

      • Goku@lemmy.world
        4·
        6 months ago

        Lol yeah, what is their release schedule like? Any speculation on when 13 is coming out?

        I just assumed Ubuntu releases were based off of Debian.

        • lilith267@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          3·
          6 months ago

          Ubuntu maintains it’s own package library which is far newer then Debians but less tested/stable. Debian only releases new version when it’s team feels their ready. However Debian does keep up to date with security patches

          If you would like a distro that keeps itself up to date try out Fedora, it’s updated every 6 months and has been super popular lately

          Note that if you use flatpacks they will be up to date no matter what distro you choose, making Debian a very stable option while still getting new features in applications

          Edit: edited to answer the question more clearly

          • dan@upvote.au
            1·
            6 months ago

            However Debian does keep up to date with security patches

            Only if you use the stable version. Debian has a security team that handles quickly uploading patched versions of Debian packages, but only for stable. Debian testing and unstable aren’t handled by the security team and instead require the package maintainers to upload security updates (which can lag behind)

          • Oisteink@feddit.nl
            1·
            6 months ago

            I would not claim that Ubuntu is anything but stable. We run a bunch of Ubuntu lts servers at work and there’s hardly any issues. Found a 16.x the other day with over 500 days uptime driving signage. That was desktop version.

            I use Debian because of the OSS focus, and stability. And because I know the distro fairly well. They’re conservative in choice of tools and for instance only went full systemd a few years back (5?)

            I don’t mind systemd but I don’t mind sysv init either. Even slackwares scripts worked fine. If it’s not broken don’t fix it.

      • dan@upvote.au
        2·
        6 months ago

        I’m considering trying Mint Debian Edition once my new laptop arrives (pre-ordered Framework 16)

    • porl@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      6 months ago

      You can also play with it in a virtual machine. It won’t give you quite the same experience for your specific hardware, but you will get a feel for how it works, especially the package manager etc.

    • yianiris@kafeneio.social
      16·
      6 months ago

      Just last week I was arguing with a bunch of #ubuntu fan boys here about how that system prevents you from learning, how Debian is a tiny bit better, but with arch/based systems you both have a reliable daily runner and be able to learn as much as you can take.

      The more you learn the more aggravating debians (mint-ubuntus) become, forcing their choices on you. Arch respects and rewards people who want to do it their way. They provide the blocks, you build your system.

      @youngGoku @mr_MADAFAKA

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
        82·
        6 months ago

        Arch is unstable and pacman is prone to breakage. That’s not necessarily bad for some people but for people who want everything to be reliable and stable it is problematic

        • yianiris@kafeneio.social
          17·
          6 months ago

          And you are either an ubuntu/debian troll or pretending to know something.
          Can you show us some reference of how/when pacman broke last?

          Arch-testing has been more stable than sid ever was, and it was rare that sid ever broke.

          And I haven’t used systemd EVER, unless that is where ALL the instability comes from, and I missed it, from wheezy to arch-testing

          @possiblylinux127

          • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
            7·
            6 months ago

            Arch uses systemd so you haven’t use Arch if you haven’t used systemd. That probably doesn’t change anything. You are welcome to not use systemd I could care less.

            Arch is unstable because it ships packages that are brand new compared to Debian stable (not sid) that ships packages that have been tested for 2 years. Debian also used to only be free software but that has changed as of recently. (Stability and security are the exception)

            Debian sid is the Debian unstable branch which has little to no testing. Software goes from there into the testing branch before finally making it into stable. By the time that happens its unlikely you will ever find a bug as the vast majority of the bugs have been found.

            On the other hand, Arch pulls the packages as soon as possible as its user base prefers newer packages over stability. That’s fine but to say it is somehow more stable is incorrect. For instance, here are some recent issue on Arch:

            https://archlinux.org/news/openblas-0323-2-update-requires-manual-intervention/

            https://archlinux.org/news/incoming-changes-in-jdk-jre-21-packages-may-require-manual-intervention/

            https://www.tomshardware.com/news/linux-kernel-update-kills-laptop-displays

            My point here isn’t to say Arch is bad. My point is that you can’t just leave Arch by itself for years on auto update without issue. Updating Arch often requires reading of changes and manual fixes. Some people enjoy that, others do not.

          • Shareni@programming.dev
            2·
            6 months ago

            • bad package update, can’t boot (GRUB)

            • didn’t update in a few weeks, update, can’t boot

            • update script on endeavour gave up at some point, and so I couldn’t boot if I didn’t manually mkinitcpio after updating

            I used it for 2+ years on multiple devices, and almost never updated without having a flash drive nearby to arch-chroot. I ran Mint before that for about the same time, it never crashed let alone failed to boot. I’m now on MX+Nix and get the best of both worlds.

  • scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
    2·
    6 months ago

    Apps aren’t even distributed via snap or flatpak. we have the option to install software we need and compile those are snap or flatpak only.

  • AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml
    1111·
    6 months ago

    I don’t understand why people are so hell bent on hating Snaps. The architecture is literally better than Flatpak – and I’m quite sure it’s possible to run one’s own Snap host. Some people say they’re bloated and slow, well not anymore than Flatpak (actually less) and people love that?

    • Domi@lemmy.secnd.me
      203·
      6 months ago

      The architecture is literally better than Flatpak

      Why?

      I don’t understand why people are so hell bent on hating Snaps.

      Every single time I tried snaps in the last years I had a bad time. Either they were slow to start, refused to work (Docker snap) or made my machine boot significantly slower. Granted, I haven’t bothered in a year or so.

      At this point they just released unfinished software that was not ready for production, forced it onto people and are surprised when everybody remembers snap as being partially closed source, slow and unreliable. Even if it’s not now, that’s how the first impression was and it’s going to stick forever.

      • AMDIsOurLord@lemmy.ml
        47·
        6 months ago

        Refer to an earlier post on the downsides of flatpak, Snap basically doesn’t have a lot of those issues other than the fundamental ones regarding a canonical far package

        You may have used Snaps when they used XZ compression. XZ is a stellar compressor, but for static data. It compresses better at the cost of being slower, nowadays Snaps use fast algorithms tuned for faster decompression, so it starts a lot faster.

    • GnomeComedy@beehaw.org
      12·
      6 months ago

      I hate them because they make Ubuntu useless for a desktop in an enterprise environment. Snaps have a bug where they will NOT open with a network home directory, which is common for a business … And now they’ve made Firefox snap only.

      So for a business environment: you can’t even open the included web browser. WTF?

      Do you understand now?