Furthermore, the file sizes of the different snaps are also comparatively very large compared to the app sizes of the packages made using AppImage." Questionable press releases and other marketing efforts from Canonical and the “central” and closed app repository are also widely criticized aspects of Snappy. The sandboxing feature, a very important one indeed from a security standpoint, is flawed in that the sandboxing actually requires certain other core services to run (such as Mir) while applications running the X11 desktop won’t support the said isolation, hence making the said security feature irrelevant. Most of the commits to the project are by Canonical employees or contractors and other contributors are required to sign a release form (CLA). ![]() "On the flip side of things, snaps are widely criticized for being centered around Canonical’s modus operandi. criticizes Snappy, including when it comes to security. I have been leaning towards snap, because I would expect cannonical having more resources for providing a secure solution.Ĭanonical does not have more resources than Red Hat, which now belongs to IBM. ![]() The problem is: the Snap Store does not only serve free software and there is no way to setup an alternative server that would have a "only free software" policy. ![]() But it is not a free software matter, because free software is about the license of the software running on your computer. I would prefer had the server software been free software. I know the snap server software is non free.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |