Linux Mint drops Ubuntu Snap packages - <AUTHOR> https://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/825005/6440c82feb745bbe/ <comment><USER2> From the linked announcement: [https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3906](https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3906)

> Applications in this store cannot be patched, or pinned. You can't audit > them, hold them, modify them or even point snap to a different store. You've > as much empowerment with this as if you were using proprietary software, > i.e. none. This is in effect similar to a commercial proprietary solution, > but with two major differences: It runs as root, and it installs itself > without asking you.

This is a great summary of why people rightfully feel nervous about Snap. People run linux because they want visibility and control into what is happening on their systems. Canonical seems to want to take away that visibility and control from their users.

<comment><USER3> Is there no way to sandbox these packages - "have you cake and eat it too?" I'm a noob to modern Linux.

Edit: Are snaps images? ...like containers?

Edit 2: answer:

> mounted dynamically by the host operating system, together with declarative > metadata that is interpreted by the snap system to set up an appropriately > shaped secure sandbox or container for that application

<comment><USER4> The main (and better supported) competitor is Flatpak, which at least doesn't have the terrible marketing.

<comment><USER5> All containerization is just the fever to the sickness that is the futureshock from extremely fast rate of development of major libs like c++$year, glibc (no matter what they say about having stable endpoints), and the like. You can't run a program written today on the system repo libraries from 5 years ago.

Containers try to mitigate this problem but like a fever they often end up making things worse.

<comment><USER6> I don't run any APT based distribution right now but I understand the issues... I think the biggest problem I see is Canonical developing what looks like a very useful tool but holding it proprietary.

If Canonical provided the snap creation and hosting tools to the community I imagine it would be judged on its technical merits.

As it is, I see more and more reports that Canonical is trying to gain more and more control and that's exactly what I don't like to see.

Would have tried Ubuntu but they've poisoned that well. I'll have to recalculate.

<comment><USER7> As far as I can tell, snapcraft[0], the tool that allows the creation of snaps is open-source and on github. However the hosting server-side code is closed source.

[0]: [https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft](https://github.com/snapcore/snapcraft)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Snaps are super laggy. GNOME calculator on Ubuntu runs in a snap and it is baffling that whoever made the decision to package it in a snap by default was OK with the fact that it takes 2 seconds to launch a basic calculator on a 2017 laptop (edit: re-tested, it took 5 seconds).

To top it off, a couple months ago my calculator disappeared. For some reason I have been having problems with snap applications disappearing for a while now, even though I have made no configuration changes. How fun it is to discover that such a basic tool just no longer exists on your machine, way to fuck up a morning.

I get that snaps make application distribution easier, but please don't do it at the expense of the user. I've had more success with Flatpak and AppImages, but not enough experience with any of them to judge which is best.

<comment><USER9> I think it's because they extract compressed rootfs tar each time to be mounted in LXC container. Even with a beefy computer, it takes considerable time.

<comment><USER8> What is weird to me is that apparently there has not been someone in a position of power in this project that would go "Wait guys, this is not good. Any other ideas? How can we improve?"

No, just roll on with it.

There was a period of time, around 2010-2015 when I really felt that computers were fast. SSDs were getting more affordable and that was a huge improvement, every action was immediately responsive. In 2020, that has somehow been undone. It takes 5 seconds to launch a calculator. Software guys really like to undo all the advances that the hardware guys are doing.

<comment><USER10> Somebody somewhere is probably running a calculator as an electron app that takes 10 seconds to open.

<comment><USER11> You don't even need Electron. The "modern" Windows 10 calculator takes a dozen seconds to start on my laptop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's interesting in that I quite like the idea of snap packages, just not their implementation. I recently purged snaps from my Ubuntu Mate machines after a few years of use because of the realization of only using two:

1\. The micro terminal editor.

2\. Chromium, because it was forced.

Well, #1 was packaged for 20.04 so I didn't need it any longer. That left Chromium. For that single package, I had to tolerate my system being spammed all over:

\- Multiple irrelevant loopbacks cluttering my mounts list

\- Dedicated folders in filesystem: /snap ~/snap

\- Very slow startup, for chromium.

\- Lots of disk space taken

\- An always running daemon! (Wasn't it root too? Can't remember). apt doesn't need a daemon.

Sheesh! That's not even mentioning the store issues which others have described already.

Sorry, but a few newer packages here and there are not worth all that. I'll handle it myself, thanks. What snap does isn't actually that hard. I'd keep it around if it wasn't so obnoxious at putting itself in front and center of everything.

<comment><USER13> ~/snap is really just wholly unacceptable, how did that even become a thing? Do the people who develop this software never use their own systems?

<comment><USER14> I have no nice words about the person who thought that folder is acceptable to use. Seriously, what the fuck even?

<comment><USER15> Well ~/snap is pretty terrible but I am almost as annoyed with something like ~/.tmux.conf and no support for the XDG Base Dirs Spec or setting the config path.

With tmux it seems like this is finally possible with version 3.1 or by compiling it yourself but I remember being annoyed about this years ago.

I dislike a home directory cluttered with dotfiles just as much as that snap folder choice because when do we actually ever not list the hidden files?

<comment><USER14> There are way more offenders here. But snap is the most egregious one because it's not hidden.

Name and shame:

* docker (~/.docker)

* Arduino IDE (~/.arduino15)

* GNURadio (~/.gnuradio)

* IPython (~/.ipython)

* FreeCAD (~/.FreeCAD)

* HPlip (~/.hplip)

* IntelliJ and others (e.g. ~/RubyMine[year])

* Cargo (~/.cargo)

* Audacity (~/.audacity-data)

* PGAdmin (~/.pgadmin)

* ELinks (~/.elinks)

* NPM (~/.npm)

* sqlmap (~/.sqlmap)

* ZAP (~/.ZAP)

* GNUPG (~/.gnupg)

* crashlytics (~/.crashlytics)

* Android Studio (~/.android)

And so so so many others just crap all over home when they could just crap in .config if it's config and in .cache if it's cache. Lazy devs.

<comment><USER16> Quite a lot (npm, cargo, docker, ipython, elinks, gnupg, freecad, ...) already support XDG or may be configured with environment variables [0]:

        export ELINKS_CONFDIR="$XDG_CONFIG_HOME"/elinks

[0] [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/XDG_Base_Directory](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/XDG_Base_Directory)

<comment><USER14> It should be the default that my home folder isn't cluttered. I have tens and tens of pieces of software, it's very impractical to keep track what does what and if I have to get them to behave somehow.

That export list required got me weary, plus look at how many in that list are hardcoded :/, the situation is rather bad.

<comment><USER16> You can patch it all.

If world does not match your view it may be you who is outlier. I quite like current convention - hidden files in $HOME belong to applications. There is value in $XDG_CACHE_HOME - it can be safely removed (like /var/cache).

You force your view on open source community, _that_ is rather bad.

<comment><USER14> > You can patch it all.

As I said, impractical, not a solution.

> If world does not match your view it may be you who is outlier.

Looking at the amount of software that does follow the base directory specification, actually you're the outlier insisting on obsolete conventions.

You and a bunch of other developers insist on those things, in reality _that_ is the actually harmful behaviour for open-source.

Interestingly but yet non-surprisingly, that insistence very often goes in hand with the stubborness to stay on obsolete mailing lists, ugly user interfaces, insecurity by-default, git-email, buggy issue trackers, 80-column commit messages, obsolete security standards and practices and so much more.

> I quite like current convention - hidden files in $HOME belong to > applications.

The future is now, home folders aren't to be filled with trash. Move on or stay behind, seriously.

<comment><USER16> Lets check. I tolerate both versions, use workarounds in my .bash_profile and share them, actually tried to patch and have written article [0].

You shame software, half of it has workaround, see patching as impractical.

XDG Base Directory Specification [1] is not about your home folder. It is about default storage, separation of cache, user data and config, a way to provide another config, so one can:

* remove entire config when stuck with a problem

* remove cache, think /var/cache

* `ssh -F foo` would be `XDG_CONFIG_HOME=foo ssh`

Everyone has a pain point, everyone has a workflow, there is no One True Way. Please stop shaming authors, they quit, sometimes post it here about mob. Patching folder structure is the simplest thing. If you can't do that who is going to fix actual bugs?

[0] [http://sergeykish.com/openssh-config-in-xdg- directory](http://sergeykish.com/openssh-config-in-xdg-directory)

[1] [https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir- spec/basedir-...](https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir- spec-latest.html)

<comment><USER14> > Please stop shaming authors, they quit, sometimes post it here about mob.

If one feels that talking about a bug in their software is "shaming" them, then maybe they should quit or alternatively, just quit pretending they want feedback or to write FOSS. Same applies to teams writing software.

Not to mention how harmful it is to think that everyone who picks up FOSS is actually good at it. Thinking people as infallible is actively harmful for the end users.

> Patching folder structure is the simplest thing. If you can't do that who is > going to fix actual bugs?

Incorrect folder structure _is_ an actual bug. It might be simple to patch for the end user, but you're ignoring the maintenance burden, annoyance and cumbersomeness.

> Everyone has a pain point, everyone has a workflow, there is no One True > Way.

There are paths more correct than others, some workflows are obsolete and stupid, and should't be catered to. It's wilful ignorance to ignore that.

[https://xkcd.com/1172/](https://xkcd.com/1172/)

> half of it has workaround

Bwahahaha, you may think that's fine, but I don't.

<comment><USER16> Your words

> Name and shame

> they should quit

That's why I've called it harmful - choice between your complains and people writing code is obvious. Fork it, patch it, there is no burden - if people care maintainers would switch, if switched enough patch would get in upstream. Or provide own repository with patches, that's FOSS way. If not by yourself than sponsor.

How much do you _actually_ care? How much would you pay? Is it free as speech or free as beer?

<comment><USER14> > Your words

Without the rest of the context and no, criticism is not harmful. If it is a "sin" like you say, should we look at things you've said about FOSS projects?

> Fork it, patch it, there is no burden

Either you're delusional or you haven't done either of the things.

> if people care maintainers would switch, if switched enough patch would get > in upstream or provide own repository with patches, that's FOSS way.

Yeah, and it'll take the next decade, being optimistic. GPU acceleration in Chromium and Firefox on Linux is a _perfect_ example how absolute shit that "way" is.

> How much do you actually care? How much would you pay? Is it free as speech > or free as beer?

Feel free (as in freedom) to just type out your arguments instead of asking rhetorical questions.

<comment><USER16> So the answer is no, you will not pay.

Question was not rhetorical - it is realization of freedom 1. You answer implies there is a fork with GPU acceleration and no one cares (or does not answer my post). Ah, "criticism is not harmful":

Name and same:

* Avamander

<comment><USER14> > So the answer is no, you will not pay.

No, I won't pay to devs that ignore conventions. That's like having someone take a s __* on my porch and me paying them for not doing so. Plus, demanding payment is the thing not really in the spirit for FOSS.

> Ah, "criticism is not harmful":

That's just naming, without listing the reason. In addition to that, I listed projects, not people. Shows that you've totally missed the point of the original list.

<comment><USER16> This is not yours software, you are just allowed to use it, that's you who are taking other peoples software on your porch (and naming it s*). No one demands, ever heard of bounty, sponsorship? Do not want to support original developers - fine, 3rd party.

Out of principle I can implement XDG Base for ssh client. Just like my work - implementing features I am not that interested in, providing support. I hardly believe any reasonable man expects complains to work in that case. So how much would you pay?

Your account may be group of people (and may be not). Project may be group of people (and may be not). Shows that you've totally missed the point.

<comment><USER14> > This is not yours software, you are just allowed to use it,

Oh but keep in mind in some cases I'm not given a choice. If I could not use snap for example, I would not. But it was forced upon me. So I have every right to be annoyed at someone figuratively taking a shit on my porch.

Anyways this discussion has depleted itself, you have no good arguments protecting that nonstandard behaviour.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Snap sounds to me like the latest of many decisions by Canonical that are more like what you'd expect from a commercial vendor than a FOSS one. This is Microsoft-level coercing people into your own ecosystem.

I don't doubt for a moment that it makes business sense for Canonical, but I really wonder whether there's a market for this - the huge majority of people who don't care about this kind of thing are on Windows or Mac, or even just working happily away on their phones and tablets.

Linux' selling point for me was always that I was in control and could make the system work the way I wanted to; people more ideologically pure than me have slogans like "free as in freedom" or "binary blobs are bad".

I really don't see the market for "linux, but with commercial vendor practices". I switched from ubuntu to mint a while ago and I'm really happy about that right now.

<comment><USER18> I'm not sure I see how it even makes business sense. Trying to compete with with Apple and Microsoft by eliminating your strengths to focus on your weaknesses isn't a good play. Gnome and Ubuntu are not and will never be as smooth and integrated as MacOS, and that's okay because that's not why people use them. Take away the openness and you have a slower, uglier Mac with a worse app store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If desktop Linux is ever going to be mainstream there needs to be an easy to use "app store" where users can use a GUI to install apps which need to be sandboxed like on a mobile phone with defined permissions. Snapcraft is way ahead of Flatpak on this and the current Ubuntu setup works well. On Ubuntu you can go to the Ubuntu software app (gui) search for software and it blends apt results with snap results. This really seems like the best way to do things, common packages can be installed through a traditional package manager while more niche ones can be installed with snap. A lot of people are mad at Canonical for not open sourcing the backend but no one seems to be offering to build one. Anyways the really important part of snap is having a unified executable for Linux (which Canonical has made open source).Snap makes it really easy for developers to target Linux with a unified executable which they won't do otherwise due to Desktop Linux's small market share.

<comment><USER20> > _If desktop Linux is ever going to be mainstream there needs to be an easy > to use "app store" where users can use a GUI to install apps which need to > be sandboxed like on a mobile phone with defined permissions._

Curious... do you think that the world has moved on from the "download from website and run installer" model? Obviously that has serious drawbacks from a security perspective, but up until less than a decade ago, that was the only way to get software on Windows and macOS, and they were perfectly mainstream.

I think the majority of users out there don't understand sandboxing or permissions models or why they are useful. While I think those are the users that probably benefit from them the most, it doesn't follow that we need these things before average users will embrace a particular platform.

> _A lot of people are mad at Canonical for not open sourcing the backend but > no one seems to be offering to build one._

You mention Flatpak and then two sentences later claim this?

I think maybe you're just missing the point. I have been using Linux as my daily driver for a good two decades now. I don't care one bit about Linux being a mainstream desktop distro. Sure, if it was, new (and even not-so-new) hardware would get better support, and that would be a win. But getting that is not a fair trade off if what we have to accept in return is a closed- source, walled-garden software delivery model. Hard pass, no thanks.

For the most part, the only people who _really_ care about "the year of the Linux desktop" are people trying to build a business around desktop Linux. Those aren't the sorts of people I want making decisions like this, but, unfortunately, they're often the kinds of people who have the ability to force these things on the community.

<comment><USER21> >For the most part, the only people who really care about "the year of the Linux desktop" are people trying to build a business around desktop Linux

As another long time Linux guy, I have a feeling most of those obsessed with Linux becoming a mainstream desktop platform are Mac or Windows users.

<comment><USER22> Same. I'm running Linux as my primary desktop and server operating system for ~16 years, and I don't really care if it's becoming more mainstream on desktops anymore. It's already working perfectly fine for my needs, so I don't even want it to change much.

<comment><USER23> But it should at least continue to grow on the same rate as Windows and Mac. Losing market share is gonna be disastrous, as it would mean less software supported, and companies give less time to ensure quality of software supported.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've been kind of disappointed by Snap. It seemed like it was a way to always have the latest version of software you care about available, but in practice, nobody updates their Snaps. I used it to get a newer version of Go, and while it is more recent than what comes with Ubuntu, it's still not the latest version. Apparently Some Guy updates it on a volunteer basis when he remembers, so it's nearly useless.

Even if people do update the Snap, it's clear that it provides too many features. It has some sort of isolation model... that every Snap I've ever installed requires you to disable.

It's also surprisingly expensive to run something in a snap. For example, getting the name of my current k8s context with "kubectl config current- context":

        $ sudo execsnoop.bt
        Attaching 2 probes...
        TIME(ms)   PID   ARGS
        7603       29266 kubectl config current-context
        7612       29272 /usr/sbin/apparmor_parser --preprocess
        7614       29266 kubectl config current-context
        7626       29280 /snap/core/9436/usr/lib/snapd/snap-seccomp version-info
        7630       29266 /snap/core/9436/usr/lib/snapd/snap-confine --classic snap.kubectl.kubectl /snap/core/9436/usr/lib/snapd/snap-exec kubectl config current-context
        7632       29266 /snap/core/9436/usr/lib/snapd/snap-exec kubectl config current-context
        7634       29266 /snap/kubectl/1561/command-kubectl.wrapper config current-context
        7635       29266 /snap/kubectl/1561/kubectl config current-context

This adds 32ms of latency before the app runs for absolutely no good reason.

<comment><USER25> Some will argue that 32ms is negligible, but I don't believe it is.

<comment><USER26> And that's just for command line programs. GUI programs packages as snaps have much greater startup costs. It takes the Ubuntu calculator 4-5 seconds to launch. It takes Mumble 12 seconds to launch. The latter launches in 2 seconds as a native package, and the former, well, is a calculator app - I don't have access to a non-snap version of the Ubuntu calculator anymore but is should launch virtually instantly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The reason for why the backend for the snap store hasn't been opensourced has been explained multiple times. Namely that it would be expensive to open source it with little benefit in return.

Canonical already spent a large amount of investment opensourcing launchpad and nobody other than them operate it. Mainly because the majority of the costs are for operating an instance which most other distros aren't willing to spend. Not even Mint operate run or operate their own launchpad infrastructure. They experienced large backlash back then, open sourced it and nobody contributed.

The same problem applies here. Snap store specifically from what I gather is a bunch of operational machinery that doesn't make sense without also operating launchpad. Such a cost operating would benefit nobody but Canonical because nobody else is bothering footing the bill to run an instance.

Second aspect that they wanted to avoid was the same pitfalls that they experienced previously with ppas and now being experienced with flatpak. Namely they want one location to find software, and one location to serve software. If users have to use the command line to add a external repo that has unfetted access, then that defeats any usability gains. That and the whole aspects of malware/trust goes out the window.

I will remind people that the most popular PPA to this day is a Java PPA being run by some 3rd party that doesn't offer Java. That PPA has root access to thousands of machines.

<comment><USER28> > Namely that it would be expensive to open source it with little benefit in > return.

Would you describe exactly what will be expensive in releasing the source code to software that was developed in house? Does it have lots of dependencies on proprietary software? If so, why?

> Namely they want one location to find software, and one location to serve > software.

And this, is the killer. This is exactly what the people at Linux Mint do _not_ want. This is why F-Droid exists on Android. Yes, free software can be distributed on the snap store or on Google Play, but ultimately these are proprietary platforms controlled by one corporate entity whose interests may not be aligned with those of the community. Users of community Linux distros demand choice in where they obtain software.

> That and the whole aspects of malware/trust goes out the window.

Malware has already been successfully pushed to the Snap Store. The idea of "trust" here is also antithetical to open-source and software freedom. Rather than trusting software because it has verifiable source code, we now trust software because it came from a store that removes well known malware.

<comment><USER29> > Would you describe exactly what will be expensive in releasing the source > code to software that was developed in house? Does it have lots of > dependencies on proprietary software? If so, why?

If all you're doing is taking an internal repository and hosting it externally, then it takes no time. But if you make sure licenses are being used correctly throughout the code, audit to make sure no internal secrets accidentally made their way into the internal repository (this happens as much in closed source as it does in open source), and you try to remove any problematic code, commit messages or references from the code, it takes time.

<comment><USER30> Isn't it a bad look for Canonical, a major open source company, to not have developed core software for their major open source product in an open source friendly manner?

<comment><USER31> Why should they do everything open source? To keep happy a few bored FOSS maximalists, who have neither real interest, nor use for the code?

We develop open source applications ourselves, and the amount of jerks who drop in from time to time and teach us how to do what (without contributing any code or donations, of course) is overwhelming. They don't care how you pay your bills and how much effort it takes to make things happen.

<comment><USER32> IDK where you work but isn't it possible that many FOSS has significantly less resources than Canonical?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This seems like a problem:

> Snap packages are effectively black-boxes; they cannot be reproduced > independently as the packaging data is controlled by the package maker > alone.

One of the nice properties of debian packages is the ability to `apt-get source` and build it locally. Would be a shame to lose that.

Maybe Nix and Guix can provide the best of both worlds here: self-contained software but reproducible builds too.

<comment><USER5> Any distro where you have to write a little haskell-ish 30 line script to set up an environment just to be able to start compiling (or even running!) things is not going to be widely popular for desktop use.

<comment><USER34> For desktop use, any shortcut icon on a desktop would just be a wrapper script for `nix-shell -p <package> \--run <package-binary>`

<comment><USER5> I was thinking more things you find on the internet and then do a bit of ./autogen or mkdir build;cd build;cmake ../;make; and the like. Without a file system you really do have to write that script and manually pull in the relevant libraries, and you have to figure out what those are. No autotools will be capable of doing it automatically because no global filesystem exists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> > _The Linux Mint project has made good on previous threats to actively > prevent Ubuntu Snap packages from being installed through the APT package- > management system without the user 's consent. This move is the result of > "major worries" from Linux Mint on Snap's impact with regard to user choice > and software freedom. Ubuntu's parent company, Canonical, seems open to > finding a solution to satisfy the popular distribution's concerns — but it > too has interests to consider._

An excellent and succinct summary of the issue in the first paragraph. I have to hand it to LWN for excellent synopsis/summary paragraphs in the articles. This is a lost art in today's clickbait headline where the lede is buried in the center of the Earth.

</comment><comment><USER36> I haven't been impressed with snap as a user.

The jetbrains stuff keeps several versions around by default, which eats disk space. I'm sure there's a way to change that, but I haven't cared enough to dig.

The other day I ran `apt install chromium-browser` on a brand new install; it chose to install via snap (grr) and then snapd promptly crashed ("Waiting for restart" \-- [https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/installing-the-chromium-snap- in...](https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/installing-the-chromium-snap-in-test- environment-results-in-snapd-being-oom-killed/13864)), but apt's wrapper wasn't notified. I ended up ctrl-Cing, which left dkpg (somehow involved) in an inconsistent state. Took several iterations of dkpg reconfigure and apt update to recover. I've been on linux for 20 years, so not a big deal for me, but my experience has been that snap is less newbie friendly than apt.

<comment><USER37> By default, snapd keeps three copies of older versions of a snap package. It does so, so that you can revert easily to a previous version if the latest version does not work. You can disable this feature by setting the appropriate key to `1`.

There is a negative sentiment around snap packages. Even if you are an experienced Linux user, you fall into that negative sentiment and even if an issue is small, it is a deal-breaker for you.

The "chromium" issue has been explained in 2019. Ubuntu 20.04 does not plan to package "chromium" as a deb package (too difficult to maintain properly), therefore there was a need for a backup plan if users were trying to install it.

<comment><USER36> > Even if you are an experienced Linux user, you fall into that negative > sentiment and even if an issue is small, it is a deal-breaker for you.

I don't think that's fair. Apt/deb is solid, battle tested, and works. Introducing snap with this kind of instability is the source of the negativity.

> The "chromium" issue has been explained in 2019.

And the fact that it still crashes in 2020, on a flagship package on a modern laptop, is really really bad. In fact I had the same crash happen during a dist-upgrade on another laptop(!) which locked up the entire dist-upgrade.

If apt is going to call snap, it needs to be rock solid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I immediately thought of Linux Mint Debian Edition when I saw this. They describe it as something they are developing just in case, you know, "Ubuntu was ever to disappear." Well, excepting for some kind of Microsoft acquisition of Canonical ("we will be shifting our focus to developing Ubuntu for WSL"), I don't think Ubuntu will disappear, but it certainly might become so unfriendly to downstream distros that they have to move off of it.

</comment><comment><USER39> Canonical's decision to abuse the power of apt packages to make it some "universal installer" is kinda gross. I get the thought but I would consider is surprising that, say, installing python-* actually installed pip and ran pip install.

This is totally going to break Gnome Software's UI since it has plugins for snap, flatpack, apt, dnf, pacman, etc.. and making it so that Chromium from apt is doing a run-round with snap makes it really confusing to the user.

<comment><USER40> > Canonical's decision to abuse the power of apt packages to make it some > "universal installer" is kinda gross.

This is a mischaracterization. "chromium-browser" is a transitional package that installs the chromium snap for one reason: it is to provide an upgrade path for users of Chromium in previous Ubuntu releases to the latest Ubuntu release without breaking Chromium.

I use an example of where Debian does the same thing: on the latest Debian release, install "mysql-server" and you'll get MariaDB, not MySQL. Granted this doesn't bridge across from a deb to a snap, but the mechanism is the same and the technical reasoning is the same. It is to stop users from ending up with a regression in available software following an upgrade.

There is no "to make it some "universal installer"" going on here.

You may not like the decision, but please do not make it out to be for reasons that do not exist - at least without providing the facts to allow readers to decide for themselves.

(I work for Canonical but don't work in an area related to the Chromium snap, Snap Store, this decision, etc. I speak for myself, and not Canonical).

<comment><USER14> > it is to provide an upgrade path for users of Chromium in previous Ubuntu > releases to the latest Ubuntu release without breaking Chromium.

Are you seriously, unironically claiming this?

You broke a massive amount of native plugins. The snap auto-update mechanism fucks up Chromium's data each time because Chromium gets no warning that it suddenly can't write to the disk. Its launch time is also way worse. On top of all that, Chromium just vomits all over syslog due to incomplete/bad confinement. You even made the damn switch when a massive CVE was found in Chromium, delaying a __critical __security update for a week due to the switch.

What a massive load of bullshit.

<comment><USER40> > Are you seriously, unironically claiming this?

Yes - because when I say "without breaking Chromium", I mean that Chromium wouldn't work at all because it wouldn't be installed following an upgrade, as opposed to some things you don't like about how the Chromium snap works but don't apply to the majority of Chromium users.

Edit: you seem to be conflating your disagreement on Ubuntu's choice to move to shipping Chromium as a snap with a technical detail on how the upgrade path for users was achieved. I understand you disagree with the former. The claim that this is about "make it some "universal installer"" is entirely false, and I'm simply pointing out why. Downmodding me for disagreeing with the former is doubly inappropriate here.

<comment><USER14> > I mean that Chromium wouldn't work at all because it wouldn't be installed > following an upgrade

Because you don't ship it as a normal package any more, which is caused by you. Calling it something you did "for the users for the sake of not breaking it" is really rather nasty.

> you seem to be conflating your disagreement on Ubuntu's choice to move to > shipping Chromium as a snap with a technical detail on how the upgrade path > for users was achieved.

Oh I disagree with both, there's no conflation there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I think the LWN article misunderstands what Ken VanDine meant by "pressure" in the following quote:

> By shipping such a key application as a snap it will continue to keep > pressure on to ensure we keep improving the experience while also reducing > our maintenance burden for the LTS and future releases of Ubuntu.

The article takes the quote to mean that "Canonical … is using [Snap] to apply pressure where it wants to see change" and implies that Canonical is trying to pressure distros like Linux Mint to support Snap. But I think VanDine meant only that using Snap in a high-profile package puts pressure on _Canonical_ to make Snap easier to use in _Ubuntu_.

That's a less controversial goal than the one implied by the article. Of course, whether Canonical's actions are truly motivated by that goal is a separate discussion topic.

</comment><comment><USER42> I've been wondering for a while whether the concept of "open source" and its connection to freedom are becoming meaningless.

Source code has been a dynamic thing for a while, and I think that's part of the reason the GPL (at least v2) is not very popular any more. I mean, nobody really even wants source code, it's just a maintenance headache.

Even after complexity started to take over, there was still the argument that you could audit your computer if it was doing something funny, or ask a different company to maintain it for you, instead. But that seems less and less practical as time goes on. The company that wrote the software is really the only game in town to keep it useful.

Snaps are a logical extension of this phenomenon. They cross a line in the sand, perhaps, but basically just continue a trend already going on.

Also, the unix security model seems fundamentally bad. The idea that any code you execute can delete everything in your home directory is insane. It imposes a huge burden of trust on your software distribution system for the most trivial things. That reduces the practicality of using third-party sources.

I'm not really defending snaps and I will probably avoid them as long as I can. But I sort of feel like the battle might already be lost.

</comment><comment><USER43> I wonder if it is finally time for me to give Arch a try. It's a shame that all my lab's machines run Ubuntu; although I find it solid, this sort of controlling behavior by Canonical seems against the spirit of FOSS.

<comment><USER44> You might like Linux Mint or Pop OS, both of which are re-spins of Ubuntu without snaps.

Or for that matter, regular old Debian probably has 99% of what you need.

<comment><USER20> Adding a vote for regular old Debian. My strategy is to run Debian testing, and then 6 months or so after it's promoted to stable, switch back to the new testing branch. This way I get a reasonably stable experience (Debian's view of "testing" is at least as stable as many other distros' view of "stable"), avoid the large churn in testing right after a new stable series is released, and still get to use all the newest stuff.

The only thing to watch for is testing isn't covered by the Debian security team, so you need to pay attention to security advisories and make a call to keep or uninstall if a package you use has a security issue, as testing often doesn't get security fixes until a week or so after stable does.

<comment><USER45> Been using debian for a few years and loved it. Ubuntu calling their own website on every shell login is a serious problem

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> It's very funny that this article is two places above the article about how Canonical is bringing Flutter to Linux via the Snap Store. Some choice quotes from that article:

> Flutter's native cross-platform story is growing rapidly and Canonical > wanted to be at the vanguard.

> By making Linux a first class Flutter platform, Canonical is inviting > application developers to publish their apps to millions of Linux users and > broaden the availability of high quality applications available to them.

> Canonical will continue to collaborate with Google to further improve Linux > support and maintain feature parity with the other supported platforms.

</comment><comment><USER47> Is it time to switch from Ubuntu to Mint? Does Mint have enough repositories that work? I'm at Ubuntu 18.04 LTS, and Ubuntu 20 seems to have a host of unwanted Canonical-oriented features. I'd appreciate comments.

<comment><USER48> > _" Ubuntu 20 seems to have a host of unwanted Canonical-oriented features."_

I'm curious, what "Canonical-oriented" features are you referring to? (besides snap)

After the move to Gnome, I've found Ubuntu to be less and less "Canonical- oriented"... which is good

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Just today I switched from Ubuntu to Pop_OS (I hate that name). Unity was giving me some trouble as it's starting to conflict with all the newer stuff so I had to make a decision.

I dislike Gnome Shell. It's clean and fast but the GUI is "locked" to the main monitor and I can't even switch windows without looking at it.

But I love how the distro is made focusing on a good user experience. To give you an example, the shop (software center) allows me to choose between deb packages and flatpak if available. Sounds like something obvious, but after having snaps shovelled down my throat when I was thinking I was installing deb packages, this means I can finally trust my distro again.

Now the only thing I need is a good DE. Maybe the next decade.

<comment><USER50> [https://support.system76.com/articles/desktop- environment/](https://support.system76.com/articles/desktop-environment/)

I don't use Pop!_OS, but I recommend Plasma.

<comment><USER49> I know Plasma, I can't stand the inconsistency and the ugliness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Use Flatpak.

It just another bad move from Canonical in a long list of terrible failures, which weakend Linux fundamentally: * Upstart vs Systemd * Mir vs Wayland * Snap vs. Flatpak * Unity vs. GNOME and Gtk * Ubuntu Phone vs. you should have teamed up with Nokia and Maemo before...

Looks like they don't learn. The fork and fight against the others and always lose.

Nowadays Ubuntu is upstreaming usefull patches to GNOME, again. Thank you! But imagine what GNOME and Gtk could be look like already, when Ubuntu had "helped" them earlier. I could be already a lot of better years ago? Mutter, Gtk, Terminal and Nautilus. GNOME is healthy! But they could so much better years ago.

Forking is good thing, when it aims initially for a merge.

</comment><comment><USER52> I'm unclear why ubuntu needs the chromium package in apt. Seems like they should just stop publishing apt packages for chromium, only publish in snap, and steer users into using snap for installs and not apt. Seems less confusing and wins or loses on its merit.

<comment><USER53> On latest LTS (Ubuntu 20.04 LTS) the apt version is simply a transitional package. It installs the snap for you.

It says so on the description directly next to the name: "Transitional package - chromium-browser -> chromium snap"

There only for people upgrading, so they are not suddenly surprised seeing their browser gone.

<comment><USER52> Just seems like an unintended consequences confusing situation. I think a pretty rational policy would to _never_ have an apt package install a snap package. Moving to snap is a breaking change, effectively, so you have to bite the bullet at some point.

Mixing your distribution systems with references to each other seems like a recipe for confusion and anger. And it looks like they got the expected outcome.

<comment><USER54> Then people get stuck on old insecure versions of chromium. Or it simply disappears. Do you really think that doesn't create confusion and anger?

<comment><USER53> > Or it simply disappears.

Worse. Because when you then search the "software store", and install chromium, all your bookmarks, history, forms and other state is lost. At least the "apt package" migrates that for users.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> You can avoid snaps by using Synaptic Package Manager. I learned this the hard way after installing Xubuntu 20.04 and finding every piece of software I installed from Ubuntu Software Center was either a slow, buggy or completely broken snap image.

</comment><comment><USER56> My only brief experience with Snap packages was installing golang (on Ubuntu). I was just dabbling, and the snap package seemed to be a lot more recent than the apt version, so I went for it.

A week or so later, I guess the snap package auto-updated itself, because my go installation broke with an error about how the go tool version no longer matches the currently running version of go.

That pretty much ruined Snap in my mind, particularly for system software.

</comment><comment><USER57> This snap business is what we get when commercial interests try to warp the concept of FOSS distributions. That's what we get for letting companies such as Canonical and Red Hat control so much of the distribution space (and I mention Red Hat because of systemd, which has made its inroads much more successfully).

And snap is bad not just because you can't patch, or pin, or set up a snap mirror etc. The whole concept is bad.

That

</comment><comment><USER58> I dislike how snap clutters up my df listings. I have to pipe them through grep to get rid of the noise:

      df -h | grep -v /snap

An option to ls to suppress all loopback mounts might be a nice option.

<comment><USER59>
      alias df='df --exclude-type=tmpfs --exclude-type=devtmpfs --exclude-type=squashfs'

<comment><USER12>
        sudo apt autoremove --purge snapd  # ;-)

<comment><USER60> && sudo apt-mark hold snapd

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Suse has been around just as long as RedHat, put out a great suite of products, went for-profit, and seems to do well in the EU market. They've never generated as much buzz - good or bad - though. Is that just my perspective from being in the American linux bubble? Centos, RHEL, Debian, Ubuntu, Arch even; I hear about those players all the time.

</comment><comment><USER62> Installed ubuntu 18.04, purged snapd. It was back after `do-release-upgrade` to 20.04

<comment><USER63> I installed 18.04 a couple of weeks ago, after software I needed didn't work for 16.04. I don't need snaps and want to continue using .debs (which so far I'm doing, but some snap apps come preinstaled).

What is the cleanest way of ditch the snap system and its preinstalled apps? I'm assuming this won't break anything important.

PS: I'm not planning on installing 20.04 any time soon. At least not until the dust really settles. I don't see the point of running the absolutely latest version until there is a strong, evidence-backed consensus on its strong and weak points.

<comment><USER64> sudo rm -rf /var/cache/snapd/

sudo apt autoremove --purge snapd gnome-software-plugin-snap

rm -fr ~/snap

From: [https://askubuntu.com/questions/1035915/how-to-remove- snap-s...](https://askubuntu.com/questions/1035915/how-to-remove-snap-store- from-ubuntu)

\---

..Or..

sudo apt purge snapd

rm -vrf ~/snap

# following may not be required as apt purge already removes them

sudo rm -vrf /snap /var/snap /var/lib/snapd /var/cache/snapd /usr/lib/snapd

# trying to install some package like chromium-browser will bring back snapd

# make sure snapd is not installed as a dependency anymore

# downside is that some package installation might fail because of dependecy on snapd

sudo apt-mark hold snapd

From: [https://www.kevin-custer.com/blog/disabling-snaps-in- ubuntu-...](https://www.kevin-custer.com/blog/disabling-snaps-in- ubuntu-20-04/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm hoping they will switch their base to Clear Linux. I have been using Clear Linux on my personal laptop, and it's been a fantastic experience so far.

<comment><USER38> What's been fantastic about it? I'm genuinely interested. My only real familiarity with Clear is that I see it dominating those Phoronix benchmarks, but I didn't know it was a complete end-user distro.

<comment><USER25> I've been using it for a few days now, and it's solid. My personal laptop is getting older, so it's hard to comment on perfomance, but i was able to install a steam video game "path of exile without touching the terminal or file manager.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I haven't used Snap much, but I would like to add this: The Ubuntu Software Center (and debian packaging in general) is not gen-pop friendly. There are library packages, support packages, metapackages, and when you search, the results are shaky, non-existent, or overwhelmed by results no end-user would be interested in installing standalone.

There is also the issue of dependencies, and there is some elegance in the design philosophy of "package everything for a program and install it standalone" vs. having shared libraries.

So I see the benefit in an app-store. Someone below said "snap is horrible" because it's lock in. It isn't! Ubuntu hasn't taken away apt.

But simple, easy package distribution to nontechnical users, for the benefit of stability and ease of use, is a noble one.

</comment><comment><USER66> Between VLC, Snap and Ubuntu I'm seriously considering installing Windows - last time I did was Windows 98.

Given up trying to compile VLC thanks to usual the usual python mess (ImportError: No module named 'nasm')

VLC don't bother distributing debs any more, just these shit snaps.

In years gone by distributions used to do a good job of keeping systems healthy.

They no longer seem to care about the old way of doing that though, things like debs and make just aren't cool any more. Instead you have 160 different package managers all fighting each other, which you then install to update your build environment to install another package manager to build a new build system to eventually dig down to generate some shitty python crap which runs a gcc command.

</comment><comment><USER67> One of the first things I do on any Ubuntu-based box is remove snap completely.

</comment><comment><USER68> For me, flatpaks are a better user experience in just about every way. The one feature they are missing is that there is no equivalent to the snap --classic confinement. That means that for applications like vscode the flatpak experience is very poor. You cannot easily access command line tools from the editor. For instance using the anaconda python distribution from the vscode flatpak is a pain.

</comment><comment><USER69> To call Ubuntu snap a security disaster would be a tremendous understatement.

</comment><comment><USER70> > The problems with Linux Mint came to a head when Ubuntu moved Chromium to > Snap distribution in Ubuntu 19.10. On the surface, that isn't a problem in > and of itself — the Linux Mint project can always start providing its own > Chromium APT packages. The problem was the decision to change the Ubuntu > chromium-browser APT package itself upstream in Ubuntu. Previously, that > package would simply install Chromium directly. With the change, it would > instead install the Snap package-management tools first and then install the > Snap equivalent of the Chromium package — without making it clear to the > user what was happening.

I don't have any issues with this behavior. I find it really annoying when I find a package I am looking for on apt and install it, only to realize that it's way out of date, and I'm supposed to install it via snap or some other means to get a reasonably up to date version. Pointing apt at the snap store is a nice convenience in my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER71> The fact that you have to post on a forum and argue with people why you need permission X for your snap package was enough for me to abort publishing on this platform. I should ask permissions from the users not from the platform publishers on a forum post.

<comment><USER72> This is exactly the issue I have with it. It feels like an attempt to control app distribution on Linux. No thanks.

I'm so sick of the app store model. The app stores usurp control of distribution from developers which adds risk which reduces willingness to invest and the result is that app stores attract low effort, low value apps unless they're coming from a huge company. Everyone loses except the app store owners, big platforms like Facebook and Spotify, and spammers / scammers.

The app store model is one of the worst things to happen to tech in my lifetime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> yesterday I finally decided to investigate why gnome-calculator was so slow at starting up in my ubuntu-based xfce desktop.

It's a snap. instead of just launching a stupid binary (it's a f-ing calculator for christ's sake) somebody decided it was better to use a snap, mount a filesystem, add a cgroup and everything.

For me that was the last straw: I eradicated all the snaps in my system, uninstalled snapd and everything gnome-related that I could. Jesus christ.

Again, it's a f-cking calculator.

I don't need a snap for that.

That's what get people hating snaps.

For the record, I'm now using xcalc. It's less pretty but it starts IMMEDIATELY.

</comment><comment><USER74> I usually go with Ubuntu on cloud platforms because it's one of the defaults.

Any suggestions on what's a good alternative distributor go with that is widely supported and easily available on the variety of cloud platforms?

<comment> john-shaffer I'm very happy with Debian. I mostly like Ubuntu, but I can't have snapd restarting things whenever it feels like it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> snap vs flatpak vs appimages once again shows the fragmentation within the linux desktop ecosystem. as a user, it makes me sad, cz I can't have one good solid experience. snap, updates might break, flatpak is not fully supported.

And my strong belief, is Microsoft is going to eat Linux Desktop. WSL to run your server apps and coding environment. windows for user apps. as someone who hasn't used windows in over 10 years, day by day seems windows is gonna be the future. sad to say, but true.

<comment><USER48> > _" snap vs flatpak vs appimages once again shows the fragmentation within > the linux desktop ecosystem."_

A common misconception about the FOSS ecosystem is that many similar projects is "wasted effort". In reality, diversity is what allows for progress and flexibility. Otherwise you end up with a single package manager which nobody can change AKA mono-culture.

> " _Microsoft is going to eat Linux Desktop. WSL to run your server apps and > coding environment._ "

Only if Microsoft make their OS free, otherwise you're buying windows to run a translation layer of Linux (WSL) on top of it... doesn't make sense to a lot of people...

<comment><USER76> > A common misconception about the FOSS ecosystem is that many similar > projects is "wasted effort".

From a developers and users perspecive, it is a wasted effort. Users still keep wasting time 'choosing' a distro. There's 1 form of Windows and macOS to choose and support. For a software vendor, you need to 'define support'. I can support all Windows and macOS users, but I can only target a certain amount of Linux users on some selected distros which isn't all Linux users.

Perhaps the reason the Linux desktop has failed is because of the lack of a standard desktop or common SDKs other than the Linux kernel itself.

> In reality, diversity is what allows for progress and flexibility. Otherwise > you end up with a single package manager which nobody can change AKA mono- > culture.

Just look at the tons of distro configurations that a software vendor needs to test for which is why many companies place some Linux distros as under having 'unsupported' status and have to target a select few, unlike Windows and macOS.

The best "Linux Desktop" to support is WSL.

<comment><USER48> > _" From a developers and users perspective, it is a wasted effort."_

My point is that, the perceived "wasted effort" is actually learning and re- thinking the desktop. Many novel approaches to simpler OS's and package managers have risen, due to the diversity of the FOSS ecosystem.

Just like Darwinian evolution, many projects spawn into existence, only the fittest survive. The projects/distro's that don't survive were not a _waste_ , they serve to prove which ideas work/don't work. Making all projects better off.

> _" Just look at the tons of distro configurations that a software vendor > needs to test for"_

True there's many distros, but there's no reason to support them all, only the biggest. It's similar to translating books into other languages, you would translate a book to [1] Dumi, as it's the least used language on Earth.

Most Vendors only support the top OS's which are probably Windows, MacOS and Ubuntu.

> _" Perhaps the reason the Linux desktop has failed is because of the lack of > a standard desktop or common SDKs other than the Linux kernel itself."_

This is a real point, and is something snap, flatpack etc. are trying to fix. Maybe one day a Linux desktop will unify on a standard...

[1] [https://www.daytranslations.com/blog/rare-languages- spoken/#...](https://www.daytranslations.com/blog/rare-languages- spoken/#:~:text=Dumi%20is%20the%20world's%20least%20spoken%20language%20and%20one%20of%20the%20rarest).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Lately i've been using flatpak to install many applications and then `flatpak- override` to remove any unwanted permissions from those apps. Usually i try to completely sandbox them by only giving them access to a specific folder on disk.

However, here on HackerNews i've seen many articles about how "flatpak is dangerous" lately. Is there any real concern? If yes, what would be another option? Appimages? I definitely don't want to rely on snaps now...

</comment><comment><USER77> I did find it particularly annoying when I upgraded to Ubuntu 20.04 and seemed to duplicate applications. Adding a snap version side by side with my old applications.

</comment><comment><USER78> Why do they base it on Ubuntu instead of Debian anyway?

<comment><USER79> To derive substantial value from software which is packaged specifically for Ubuntu but not Debian?

To have relatively up to date software without running unstable?

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> The Ubuntu podcast has a very recent episode about this: [https://ubuntupodcast.org/2020/06/25/s13e14-ace-of- spades/](https://ubuntupodcast.org/2020/06/25/s13e14-ace-of-spades/)

The conversation around snaps starts at 5:20.

It sounded to me that they genuinely tried to put themselves in both side's shoes.

</comment><comment><USER81> Actually Canoncial employees claim that many things claimed here are false. I.e., you can set up your own back-end and you can set-up proxies of to block/allow snaps that from entering an organization. You can also provide patched snaps that are presented from a store proxy that are not visible outside the organization for example.

Source: The Ubuntu podcast Telegram channel

</comment><comment><USER82> Also see here for all the snap-specific bugs in chromium (bugs that only exist in the snap version, and not with the normal one) [https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chromium- browser/+...](https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chromium- browser/+bugs?field.tag=snap)

</comment><comment><USER83> Seems like Canonical is taking a page from the old Microsoft playbook: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Will this stop them before step 3?

</comment><comment><USER84> I am still running Ubuntu 18.04 because of snap. Is there some way to upgrade in-place to something that doesn't force snap upon me?

</comment><comment><USER85> I've been putting off my next OS reinstallation, but I think I'll be moving away from Ubuntu and over to Mint this time.

<comment><USER86> Pop!_OS is another choice to consider. Apparently they are sticking with Ubuntu but are stripping the Snap stuff before pushing any updates.

<comment><USER87> I've been using Pop!_OS on a System76 laptop since February, and like it quite a bit.

I use plasma desktop on all of my other systems, but left this one with the defaults.. so far I really like it, but I have a problem with gnome-shell leaking memory over time, since I tend to not shut down or log out over long periods of time. If I don't restart / log out, /usr/bin/gnome-shell eats up more and more memory (as the gdm user). I let it get up to about 7GB before I updated some firmware and rebooted the laptop.

I mean, I put 32GB of RAM in the thing in an attempt to future-proof it, but this is kind of bonkers.

<comment><USER88> Going to fire this up in a VM now and give it a go, maybe replace Ubuntu 20.04 with it.

I just tried out Mint but it installs SO much rubbish. It installs mysql?!?

I don't mind it installing some useful software but Mint goes overboard.

With 20.04 I'm constantly sitting at 20-27gb of used memory when doing dev work.

<comment><USER87> One thing which I very much liked about it is that the installer takes care of luks / cryptsetup.

<comment><USER88> OH. Pop!_OS is awesome. Thanks a lot!

<comment><USER87> I'm glad to hear that you're liking it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> When I removed snapd from Ubuntu, all installed snaps and their mount points still remained. Then I reinstalled snapd to remove the snaps. I could not find a command to force remove a snap if other snaps depend on it. So I had to delete each snap one by one manually, taking care of dependency tree.

</comment><comment><USER90> Anyone using Snap to get more up-to-date versions of packages might be interested in trying out Guix package manager on "foreign distro". Has a lot of free (as in freedom) software in latest or close to latest versions ready to install and I find myself using it more and more.

</comment><comment><USER91> [https://globelinfo4u.blogspot.com/2020/07/unable-to- locate-p...](https://globelinfo4u.blogspot.com/2020/07/unable-to-locate- package-kali-linux-2020.2.html)

</comment><comment><USER92> Hate snapd. Statically linking every dependency is a step backwards, I don't need to have duplicates of common shared libraries in every binary. It's the first thing I uninstall with Ubuntu.

</comment><comment><USER93> From the July 2 Mint blog post: [https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3766](https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3766)

> When Flatpak came out it immediately allowed anyone to create stores. The > Flatpak client can talk to multiple stores. Spotify is on Flathub and they > can push towards it. If tomorrow they have an argument with Flathub they can > create their own store and the very same Flatpak client will still work with > it. When Snap came out, it was only a client. The server was behind closed > doors and the client couldn't talk to multiple servers.

and

> Ubuntu is planning to replace the Chromium repository package with an empty > package which installs the Chromium snap. In other words, as you install APT > updates, Snap becomes a requirement for you to continue to use Chromium and > installs itself behind your back.

Yea that seems to me to be a problem.

From the June 1st Mint blog post: [https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3906](https://blog.linuxmint.com/?p=3906)

> ...in the Ubuntu 20.04 package base, the Chromium package is indeed empty > and acting, without your consent, as a backdoor by connecting your computer > to the Ubuntu Store. Applications in this store cannot be patched, or > pinned. You can't audit them, hold them, modify them or even point snap to a > different store. You've as much empowerment with this as if you were using > proprietary software, i.e. none. This is in effect similar to a commercial > proprietary solution, but with two major differences: It runs as root, and > it installs itself without asking you.

If I'm reading this right, Snap is basically trying to fix the problem of software dependencies on older packages by bundling things together (a la flatpack)... but it ALSO replaces the various repositories in different distributions of linux with a closed-source, centralized repository that points towards cannonical, and advertises ubuntu to people using other distros and potentially gives cannonical control over the distribution of sotfware in the linux ecosystem. AND it can do this behind the scenes without the knowledge of the users, who may think they're still using their normal repo system.

The whole scheme seems completely antithetical to the principles of FOSS. You don't have to go full Stallman to see this as a bad thing IMO. From that perspective, Mint's decision to drop support for Snap makes a LOT of sense.

Also, one of the reasons I enjoy running linux (I dual-boot with windows) is that it does what I tell it to do, and ONLY what I tell it to do. There's no BS like Cortana auto-installing or onedrive automatically uploading a bunch of my pictures to the cloud (yes that actually happened). I already have a linux distro that takes that benefit away, but I accept that (for now), because it's a phone. I'm not ok with losing that on my desktop.

</comment><comment><USER25> I am hoping that they switch over to Clear Linux. I just switched over on my personal laptop, and it's been terrific.

</comment><comment><USER94> Is anyone using ubuntu-core and snaps in backend production? Automatic updates seems like a pretty big show stopper.

</comment><comment><USER95> what's in for canonical for backing snap when most can see through the pain points it poses ?

</comment><comment><USER96> Good riddance. This nanny security encroachment got to stop

</comment><comment><USER97> How come Debian can package chromium but Ubuntu cannot?

<comment><USER12> > Google tracks you even in incognito via AdSense. There is an EU case on it. > It's just snakeoil.

(Replying here because your comment I quoted above is dead! Vouching didn't help. Must have made someone mad.)

I don't believe the very few sites (mostly work related) I use chromium with have adsense, but it is possible here and there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> Funny coming from Mint the worst distro security wise.

</comment><comment><USER99> should I just give up and go back to FreeBSD ?

</comment><comment><USER100> Ancient news. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23433794](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23433794)

</comment><comment><USER101> I like the App Store functionality etc. It's good to have a trusted store and all that. It's just that Snap packaged stuff is slower to open than stuff otherwise. A user on lobste.rs[0] showed what it was like and mine is just as bad

Also by `df` and `mount` are unusable with this stuff.

0: [https://lobste.rs/s/aktv9k/problem_ubuntu_20_04_snaps_where_...](https://lobste.rs/s/aktv9k/problem_ubuntu_20_04_snaps_where_your_home#c_fysair)

</comment><comment><USER102> Nowadays I don't know if drops means released (like an album), or stopped supporting. Guess I will have to RTFA. :)

</comment><comment><USER103> Canonical was overdue for cancellation ever since they pulled the "Amazon shopping lens" crap.

</comment><comment><USER104> Thanks god.

</comment><comment><USER105> Can someone explain the need for Linux Mint? It's derived from Ubuntu which is derived from Debian which just sounds ridiculous.

Is Ubuntu considered difficult to install? Does it not support older hardware as well as Mint? Wouldn't Ubuntu be more supported if they just ended Mint and jumped aboard?

<comment><USER106> Originally, it was user interface.

<comment><USER105> Haha, that's like when they developed Pantheon, slapped it on Ubuntu and called it Elementary"OS".

There are people who lack so much ambition that they refer to sets of scripts and preconfigs with an OS branding.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Snap isn't too bad, at least Ubuntu are trying to make it easier for new software to run on older machines... they might even swap it out if they get enough backlash

I've used Ubuntu since 2014 and have been impressed at most of the decisions they've made, mainly:

\- [1] Sticking to 6 month release cycles. Any features not ready, go into the next release. (Windows copied this, but constantly miss release dates)

\- [2] Trying Unification of all applications, across desktop and mobile OS. But abandoning the project when it became clear it wasn't working.

\- [3] Trying their own desktop manager Unity, then abandoning it when everyone was complaining and focusing on better Gnome integration.

I especially like how they try developing a technology and if it's not working or being adopted/liked, then it's abandoned by the core team... which is better than focusing on hated/dead technology...

[1] [https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle](https://ubuntu.com/about/release- cycle)

[2] [https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39490848](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39490848)

[3] [https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2018/05/ubunt...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2018/05/ubuntu-18-04-the-return-of-a-familiar-interface-marks-the- best-ubuntu-in-years/)</comment>


Thomas Jefferson on Patents - <AUTHOR> http://cdixon.org/2011/07/16/thomas-jefferson-on-patents/ <comment><USER2> It should be noted that Thomas Jefferson's opinion on patents changed and he eventually believed that some patents may provide social benefit if only granted for a limited time.

Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson ended up being the first patent examiner of the United States. The first U.S. patent law said that the secretary of state (Jefferson at the time) was to take a lead role in examining patents. Jefferson was a notoriously difficult examiner and granted very few patents.

For more details: [http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and- collections/pate...](http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and- collections/patents)

<comment><USER3> The Supreme Court has long relied, implicitly and even explicitly, on Jefferson's views about patents. The Court provided a nice recounting of the evolution of those views in Part II of its landmark opinion in _Graham v. John Deere & Co._[1] That part of the _Graham_ opinion is definitely worth reading for anyone who has to deal with the U.S. patent system. The Court observed that:

\--snip--

 _[Jefferson] rejected a natural rights theory in intellectual property rights and clearly recognized the social and economic rationale of the patent system. The patent monopoly was not designed to secure to the inventor his natural right in his discoveries. Rather, it was a reward, an inducement, to bring forth new knowledge._

 _The grant of an exclusive right to an invention was the creation of society -- at odds with the inherent free nature of disclosed ideas -- and was not to be freely given. Only inventions and discoveries which furthered human knowledge, and were new and useful, justified the special inducement of a limited private monopoly._

 _Jefferson did not believe in granting patents for small details, obvious improvements, or frivolous devices. His writings evidence his insistence upon a high level of patentability._

\--snip--

(Extra paragraphing added.)

The Court noted that Jefferson clearly recognized the difficulty of "drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not."

These Jeffersonian views have been part of the underpinnings of U.S. patent policy for decades.

[1] 383 U.S. 1 (1966), available at <http://supreme.justia.com/us/383/1/case.html>

<comment><USER4> I think this highlights exactly what is wrong in so many discussions of IP. People get so caught up on the word "right" in "copy _right_ ", that they argue for hours on whether there is a right to intellectual property, whether stealing IP is the same as stealing actual physical goods, despite the fact that no one is deprived of something, etc.

The truth is, that's all more-or-less off-topic. The reason we have copyright and a patent system is very simple: they're optimizations to make society better at producing more new stuff. The big question is, do they work? Another valid question is, even if society creates more new stuff under a patent system, is it worth it considering the other problems a patent system has?

<comment><USER5> > The reason we have copyright and a patent system is very simple: they're > optimizations to make society better at producing more new stuff. The big > question is, do they work?

The simple answer is "no." There is no evidence that any patent or copyright monopoly has led to greater production of knowledge and culture. These laws are optimized for _control_ , not for the expansion of knowledge.

<comment><USER6> Vote him down but it is true. See: [http://blog.mises.org/10217/yet-another- study-finds-patents-...](http://blog.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds- patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/)

yet somehow people keep repeating this.. He is also right that copyright came out of the desire to censor people. Patents are a relic from the time when state monopoly power was granted to many more things than just inventions.

<comment><USER7> I am surprised that neither of you have befallen downvotes as I had when I explained similar things.

<comment><USER6> I'm a lot more negative now than before I posted. Sorry for pointing out the fact that no proof exists that patents encourage innovation. Keep believing fairy tales kids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Jefferson: "other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."

<comment><USER3> > _it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, > are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices._

Jefferson might well have thought so, but it's very far from being self- evident. The Industrial Revolution happened mainly (albeit not exclusively) in England.

<comment> buff-a And yet the amount of horse-power generated from steam engines pretty much flatlined in England when Watt's patent was granted, while in other countries it went through the roof. When Watt's patent expired, then the real industrialisation took place.

"During the period of Watt's patents the United Kingdom added about 750 horsepower of steam engines per year. In the thirty years following Watt's patents, additional horsepower was added at a rate of more than 4,000 per year."

<http://mises.org/daily/3280#note4>

<comment><USER3> That's definitely a factor to be considered. _Over time_ , I think it's fair to say that England significantly outpaced the Continent in industrialization. It's hard to say whether _overall_ the English patent system facilitated that process, at the cost of imposing temporary roadblocks such as what you describe.

<comment><USER9>
      * Would Watt and his investor have built steam engines without the patent?
      * Did the patent enable Watt to create a market which otherwise did not exists?

To argue that patents were overall beneficial, one has to argue that without the patent, steam engines would not have become popular, and for that two things would have had to be true: 1. Watt would not build engines and 2. Nobody else would build them either. There is an argument that nobody else would have built them because there was no market, and only Watt's patent allowed them to create the market. Except that to believe that, one has to ignore the fact that a) England was undergoing the industrial revolution in all aspects (not just steam engines) and b) there was a huge need for industrial power removed from water wheels. Watt did _not_ invent the steam engine. He invented an improvement, simultaneously along with many others. But only he had the clout to get the government to enforce his patent.

So its not hard to say "whether overall the English patent system facilitated that process": it most certainly did not facilitate that process, and the "temporary roadblocks" you describe were demonstrably the only effect, and a negative one.

To argue "the english had the most dramatic industrial revolution and the english had a patent system, therefore the patent system caused the industrial revolution" is to ignore the political, economic and scientific history of the country.

Edit: this bit is my _opinion_ : England's supremacy is entirely due to its separation from the catholic church: it generated a need for military supremacy and at the same time freed the minds of thinkers to be scientific. Do you think Cambridge scholars had to worry about being locked up by the inquisition like Galileo?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Another illustration of how far we've strayed from founding principles. Sometimes our system feels like a large software project gone wrong. People keep adding line after line without refactoring or bolting on libraries that conflict with initial design or add a head-spinning array of conditionals that make it unrecognizeable.

We have more tools to search for a better way that is equitable to all. If only we had a majority of politicians that could engage in more intellectual discourse and not legislate between campaigning and serving constituents and corporate interests before the people.

<comment><USER11> Legal code and computer code can have more in common than either politicians or programmers usually want to admit... It is some sort of miracle that the USA has lasted this long at all!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This quote seems to fall victim to the Naturalistic fallacy. That which is natural is not necessarily good, and that which is good is not necessarily natural. Whether or not patents have an overall positive effect is reasonable to debate, just don't say that they're unnatural, and therefore wrong.

<comment><USER13> The point is not quite that.

The point is not: they are not natural therefore they are wrong. It is: they are not natural, therefore they are not simply, automatically right -- they can have only a practical justification.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The fact that we managed to get to the point where patents were legislated, while developing all of the necessary technology in the process, without patents proves that patents are not required for progress to occur.

<comment><USER15> While it is certainly true that patents are not required for progress to occur, I don't believe anyone is arguing that.

The question is whether _more_ progress occurs under the current patent system than would without it (or under an altered system). Are inventors more likely to be properly rewarded for their inventions, thereby motivating them to invent? And does the value of this motivated invention outweigh the value of allowing everyone the ability to freely build on others' inventions?

It is certainly a tricky question to answer, but you can look at the problems faced by countries that don't have strong patent enforcement to get an idea of what would happen if we scrapped the system entirely.

It does seem to me that the situation has gotten out of hand, with completely obvious inventions (especially in the software field) being granted patents, but that doesn't mean that doing away with the entire system is the answer - which your argument here seems to imply.

<comment><USER14> The more important question we should be asking is if we really think that sacrificing freedom in the name of efficiency is a good idea. Freedom is equated with happiness, efficiency is equated with a lot of stuff. Have our mountains of stuff managed to solve world hunger? End wars? Do they make us happier? I think that it makes sense to increase efficiency up to a certain point, after which it has negative effects. That point is bringing people out of poverty, since studies have found that those are the only conditions under which money/stuff increase happiness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I thought I was reading something written by Richard Stallman.

</comment><comment><USER17> I couldn't help thinking about software when Jefferson refers to ideas. The thinking power called software...

</comment><comment><USER18> Jefferson was also _strongly_ opposed to creating international debt. Great, you say, we wouldn't have our current fiscal crisis. Except that _some_ debt was a necessary step for the United States to become the financial powerhouse it is, based upon international trade. If Jefferson had gotten his way on debt, we'd be a small nation of rather poor farmers, at least until a richer nation invaded.

So, be cautious in quoting the wisdom of the founding fathers. They were by no means infallible, though selective quoting of their vast writing might lead one to believe that they were.

<comment><USER19> We _were_ a small nation of rather poor farmers, right up until a handful of Canadians (British at the time) beat the snot out of our military and burned our capital in the War of 1812. If the marines hadn't been funded during the First Barbary War in 1800-1805, we probably would have lost the War of 1812. It really put the lie to Jefferson's agrarian utopia.

<comment><USER9> Are you saying that the first barbary war was funded by debt, or that Jefferson was a pacifist, or what exactly?

<comment><USER19> Not a pacifist, but he was against the idea of a standing army. And really, after seeing how Britain's army was behaving at the time, I don't blame him. [http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a- historian/2...](http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a- historian/24671) The War of 1812 made it clear that any mechanized force could just walk all over us, and we needed a mechanized army simply for defense. This would require some industrialization.

Of course the War of 1812 didn't _cause_ the industrialization of America, it was just one huge reason an economy based almost completely on agriculture wasn't going to work for us.

<comment><USER9> Jefferson wasn't against industrialisation, nor was he against a strong army. He just didn't want it to be a "standing army". He imagined that you might end up with an organization that is run by an elite, using canon fodder made up of the poor, that serves its own purposes. Would any of the founding fathers be surprised that we have a standing army and two totally pointless wars?

Instead, he wanted every citizen to be required to do military service, as the swiss and israelis do. He believed that if every US citizen had military training, we would have wiped the floor with the canadians in 1812. I agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> So what if a founding father had a clearly set out view of how things should be, it's not like anyone cares what the right people think, they just take their view, and use their own ego to get it somewhere. Some of them even like to ignore what was written down.

They purely being the crappy politicians. I had some better way to word this in my head.

I've read articles of about that length from about 20 people of that century, his is the hardest to read, sort of double-speak.

<comment><USER20> To be clear, this was an attacking jest at republicans.</comment></comment>


Curiosity and What Equality Really Means - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/curiosity-and-the-prisoner <comment><USER2> Beautiful article. I've loved reading the author's writing for over a decade now and this one lives up to his previous writings.

This sentence, in particular, caught my eye:

>Hospitals are one of the very few places left where you encounter the whole span of society.

As a startup founder building consumer tech products in the valley I find that I easily forget how different most people are from me. Hence I sometimes incorrectly assess relevant market size.

It's one reason I like doing to the DMV because, like a hospital, it treats everyone the same and there you can see a near-perfect representation of society that you don't encounter elsewhere. I hope it gives me the awareness and humility to design better products for society.

<comment><USER3> > DMV because, like a hospital, it treats everyone the same

From my experience, they are much ruder in if you live in a poor area than a rich suburb. They are way more crowded in poor areas. Same with hospitals, post office ect.

> you can see a near-perfect representation of society

You see people who live near you, aka ppl like you.

<comment><USER2> Good caveats, thank you. Sigh, takes careful thought to really get out of the bubble we inhabit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm hesitant to make this comment because this was a great article and this is somewhat tangential, but I hate to see history whitewashed and simplified so I'm going to make it anyway.

From the article:

> [The idea that all lives are of equal worth] is a radical idea, one > ultimately inscribed in our nation's founding documents: we are all created > equal and should be respected as such. I do not think it a mere coincidence > that among the fifty-six founding fathers who signed the declaration of our > independence was a physician, Dr. Benjamin Rush. He was a committed > revolutionary and abolitionist precisely because of his belief in the > principle.

Erm, no. It was not really some idealistic principle that motivated his views. From wikipedia:

> Benjamin Rush (1745–1813), a Founding Father of the United States and a > physician, proposed that being black was a hereditary skin disease, which he > called "negroidism", and that it could be cured. Rush believed non-whites > were really white underneath but they were stricken with a non-contagious > form of leprosy which darkened their skin color. Rush drew the conclusion > that "whites should not tyrannize over [blacks], for their disease should > entitle them to a double portion of humanity. However, by the same token, > whites should not intermarry with them, for this would tend to infect > posterity with the 'disorder'... attempts must be made to cure the disease".

<comment><USER5> Setting aside the centuries of oppression, the experimentation and the complete dehumanization of people based on their ethnicity that still goes on to this day, I find Rush's hypothesis and the thinking that led to it interesting.

If we take a step back from the disease idea, the leprosy and the idea that it could be cured (and I shudder at the implications of that) then the model had the following properties:

\- The darkening of the skin is non contagious

\- That it is hereditary

\- That aside from this darkening, non-white people are (fundamentally) the same as whites.

It seems so close and yet so far away. I understand it was in the 19th Century that Melanocytes were discovered, but I can't ascertain when or who discovered them. The thing that I find interesting is that surely things like Melanocytic Nevi (moles) were just as prevalent then as today and could have led to a significantly better model with some thought.

Does anybody have any ideas where more information can be found on the history of the scientific ideas surrounding Melanin and pigmentation? A cursory search doesn't bring much up.

<comment><USER6> >It seems so close and yet so far away.

In what sense is it even wrong? Dark skin is a non-contagious, hereditary trait. The only thing that distinguishes it from a genetic disease is the lack of negative symptoms, which Rush acknowledged.

I would say that the population size of "infected" individuals would also be an arguement for considering it a natural variate instead of a disease. However, we seem to have no problem calling lactose intolerance a disease, even though it applies to 65% of the populations (and, historically speaking, lactose tolorence is the mutation).

<comment><USER5> > In what sense is it even wrong?

In that it is not hereditary leprosy that causes the differences between whites and non-whites but natural genetic variations. There is no "white" skin underneath. There is no cure, nor should there be any medical reason to seek a "cure."

Disease is a very stigmatizing word that implies defectiveness.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Benjamin_Rus...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism#Benjamin_Rush)

<comment><USER6> So, is your factual complaint that dark skin is not literally a strain of leprosy? Because that seems like a relativly minor disagreement, and certainly would not qualify as being "so far away" from reality.

Further, my interpretation of the quote is that "leprosy" was intended to refer to a specific disease, but rather a syndrome, (which could be caused by multiple diseases presenting simmilar symptoms). Keep in mind that we did not actually identify the leprosy bacteria until 1873 [0], while Rush died in 1813.

>Disease is a very stigmatizing word that implies defectiveness.

This is a reason that we might not _want_ to call it a disease. It does not represent any factual dispute.

>There is no "white" skin underneath.

That depends on how you define "underneath". If you remove the melonin, I believe you will get white skin; so "underneath" seems to me to be a reasonable description. Further, my understanding is that real leprosy does not literally create a new layer of "skin", so "underneath" cannot have the most literal meaning here in the first place.

>There is no cure

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_whitening#Whitening_agent...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_whitening#Whitening_agents)

As far as medical conditions go, dark skin seems far more curable then many other things that we have cured. For reference, to a first approximation, we have "cured" the condition of being male/female in transfolks. I suspect that that is a far more difficuly problem then changing skin color.

>nor should there be any medical reason to seek a "cure."

This is a value judgement, not a factual judgement.

Facts matter. It is important to distinguish between disagreeing on the facts and disagreeing on the interpretation of the facts.

[0] The first bateria identified as the cause of a human disease.

<comment><USER7> Most importantly, dark skin is adaptive at low latitudes. Which is why calling it a disease is completely wrong, though understandable from 19th century point of view.

It is a hereditary adaptation. That it is malpractice at high latitudes means little. Much like sickle cell trait is adaptive where malaria is endemic.

This is why even Caucasians there, especially ones who lived there for generations, are quite brown. (Say, Arabs.) People who aren't dark skinned enough tend to get sunburnt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Very good address, pretty much echoing the points from DFW's excellent speech ([https://www.fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is- wat...](https://www.fs.blog/2012/04/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/)):

"That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing."

Granted, I live my 99% of _my_ life in this despicable state that Wallace described so well, but for brief moments, when I can muster up the will choose what to think, it feels great. Actually, let me tell you exactly what it feels like: it's like that moment in _Matrix Revolutions_ where Trinity pushes their ship above the clouds, and for one very brief moment, before returning to the ugliness, fight, and of course, her death, she gets to experience a gorgeous sun-lit scene. And, for giving me that understanding in such simple terms, I will always be grateful to DFW!

</comment><comment><USER9> IMO "everyone is equal" is fundamentally about _humility_.

It's really about recognizing the depth of our own ignorance and bias, and devising systems and habits to minimize its impact.

That doesn't just apply to comparing individuals, but also more abstract stuff. For example, we seldom know all the tradeoffs present in a given set of genes, and genetic diversity is itself a good thing for the species.

<comment><USER7> But is humility actually good? Or is it just virtue signalling? I think some people construed it as good in opposition to pride, especially excessive, and to arrogance. Probably neither is actually good especially in excess.

Ultimately what matters more is what one does, the actions, not the approach.

There is equality, equal treatment and equal opportunity. None exist in reality since were all different (including genetically) with different backgrounds, and exceptional people can sometimes force the environment to bend to their will.

Equal treatment is the most seductive of those, but in current implementations it just results in wasting potential - and is unnatural way of thinking. People have preferences. Resourceful people have resources to ensure better treatment. It happens all the time. Rich purple can get high level private treatment in terms of medicine. Or education. Or perhaps just housing.

That everyone theoretically can have it does not mean everybody does. And the places open to everyone suffer from the tragedy of the commons and lack of funding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a great article. However, I would like to add that there is a small proportion of the population who are sociopaths and are simply bad.

<comment><USER11> I disagree. This kind of thinking keeps opens the door for precisely the type of thinking the article is trying to counter.

<comment><USER10> No, I said a _small_ * proportion of the population. Which means that if someone is behaving badly, you should assume that is likely for some other reason than sociopathy, and get curious about finding out what it is, which fits the author's message.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > and that a massive and troubling proportion of all of them are mentally ill > or black.

Reword

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm really not sure what the point of this article is. Is it saying people are equal? Because they're not.

"All men are create equal" doesn't mean all people _are_ equal. In fact, we know all people aren't created equal either. Rather, it's the law that must see all people as equal for the purpose of justice.

For the purposes of a doctor, I get what he's saying too, but I would argue that the quality of the patient does matter and that discrimination is good.

Consider, an ambulance roles up to a car accident. The drunk driver that caused the accident killed a mother. The drunk and the woman's 12 y/o child both need emergency care. There is another ambulance 20 minutes out. Who should that first ambulance take to the hospital?

If you say the drunk, I don't want to live in your world.

One more thing. The article states "All people deserve respect". I grew up being told respect is earned, so I can't agree with his sentiment. Perhaps all people deserve a chance to earn respect. That's different.

<comment><USER14> >Perhaps all people deserve a chance to earn respect. That's different.

You're talking about equality of opportunity. On HN, the word "equality" is pretty much always just an abbreviation for "equality of outcome".

<comment><USER15> I'd encourage you to amend "equality of opportunity" to "equality of opportunity under the law". I've seen too many people try to argue that if we want equality of opportunity we still have to actively level opportunity.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: please review my web site - <AUTHOR>

topytalk.com is a twitter talk-oriented timeline. The concept isn't mind-blowing, it is merely a tool to ease your life on Twitter.
http://topytalk.com
Your personal talkline is at http://topytalk.com/<yourtwittername>
Please tell me what you think. Many thanks! <comment><USER2> Hey, that's pretty cool. I've been looking for a tool that can display a full Twitter conversation reliably.

What you have is -almost- there. I'll admit, the remaining 10% is really tough to do, but if you're able to solve it, you'll have one awesome tool on your hands.

Here's an example. Yesterday, John Battelle made the following tweet: <http://twitter.com/johnbattelle/status/13835492925>

Using your tool, I'm able to get all of the replies to his tweet, which is cool: <http://topytalk.com/13835492925/13835492925/>

I expected to see this conversation here as well, but didn't: <http://topytalk.com/johnbattelle/>

Then John replied to one person amongst his set of replies, which doesn't show up on topytalk.com either: <http://twitter.com/pkedrosky/status/13835588801>

And here's the remaining 10% that's tough to get. John ended the conversation with a follow-on tweet: <http://twitter.com/johnbattelle/status/13836063098>

However, this isn't tied to any particular reply. So I can see why it's difficult to know if this is part of the previous discussion or not. I can tell it is, but it would be difficult to discern this programmatically, I'm guessing.

Just my $0.02. I think you've got a neat tool here though! Keep up the good work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, you're right. Currently Twitter doesn't offer the full firehose stream to every developer and I use several less populated streams to get the replies. I think that over time I'll be able to get all the replies.

As for the tweets that aren't chained together, this is really tough to do. I'll think about it.

Thank you for the feedback, really appreciated!</comment></comment>


Twelve Fancy Chrome DevTools Tips - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/twelve-fancy-chrome-devtools-tips-dc1e39d10d9d#.ie25mcy2i <comment><USER2> For (S)CSS there is a nice auto-update function, so you don't need to reload the the page. Very very hand for app-like stuff with complex states that don't provide deep-linking. In Canary you can even save the edits in the source files, but for both mapping to your source files is a bit of a hassle.

Must have for SCSS are of course the source-maps, but I guess that's well known.

If you have an Android phone and USB-debugging enabled, you can inspect your mobile site on the actual device (inspector -> kebab menu dots -> more tools -> inspect devices...)

</comment><comment><USER3> The device frame screenshot is a really nice feature.

A couple weeks ago I found out that using $x in the Chrome and Firefox console lets you select and highlight an element using XPath.

Lot's of cool stuff hidden in the dev tools.</comment>