Any warning if I remove snapd ecosystem?

I’ll remove the snapd ecosystem.

Is there any issue If I do that, apart the need to reinstall snap packages?
many thanks

snapd is a recommended package - not a dependent package. So it can be removed without issue.

Budgie Welcome/Budgie Applets/Budgie Theme are provided through a snap.

Hi, thanks

So I’ll lose also applets than…that I like!

Not good.

I don’t like the strict confinement.

My system has 4 family users, 3 drives, many mount points and directories.

For istance, using Firefox snap is a pain:

  • no preview of files (url handler doesn’t work), even of a simple pdf
  • download saves the file somewhere away down to /snapd/…
  • no access to files I want to upload

any clou?

For clarification, you will not lose any applets. What David had meant was that there is a snap package for the welcome screen, the applet management aspects within welcome, Etc. You can still install applets through apt, and still manage them through budgie settings.

Ah ok!,
perfect, so I can get rid of snap and still have my customized applet!
many thanks

You can also install snap packages without strict confinement from the terminal.

I believe the command is snap install --classic <package>. I had reinstalled a number of packages that way before I moved all available packages to flathub.

Good clou, many thanks!

The documentation says:

Snaps using this fully open security policy are manually reviewed in the Snap Store and are only allowed on systems where snapd is installed on top of a traditional Linux distribution, as opposed to system booting from an Ubuntu Core image.

If I list the snap packages I have Ubuntu Core, Firefox and Gimp.

Is then Budgie running as an Ubuntu Core image?

It is not. None of the desktop (Ubuntus) uses snappy core.

We just leverage snapd to provide snap installation features.,

Beware not all snaps offer --classic confinement, it’s up to the maintainer of a snap package to provide, or not, such ability.

Snap app’s require to manage their permissions.

On UBudgie 18.04, you’ll find those in « software »
⋅ search for your installed Firefox,
⋅ click the « permissions » [ or authorizations, not sure of the word ]
⋅ here a list of available permissions will pop up with on-off switches ( access to home, to removable-media, camera and so on )

On UBudgie 20.04, you’ll also find those in « settings » in the section « applications »
⋅ here is a list of all your applications,
⋅ click on one to manage its available permissions.

One or the other way, you should be able to give Firefox acces to
⋅ your personal folder ( home as /home/$USER )
⋅ removable-media ( hear what may be found in /media, /mnt or /run/mnt )
⋅ probably devices like camera and microphone and other things…

Whatever options you enable a snap app will never have access to
⋅ hidden files
⋅ the root partition /
⋅ differently worded, snap may access to visible files only in /home, /media, /mnt, /run/mnt depending on the permissions you granted it.
And note also personal configuration files for snap app’s are stored in ~/snap/app
so your actual Firefox profiles are stored in ~/snap/mozilla or ~/snap/firefox
and not as usually in ~/.mozilla

In case you want to remove all snap app’s - before doing that, you may do a copy of your different snap app’s profiles. Removing a snap app will remove everything concerning that app, personal profiles included.

If you go that route, you may later install Firefox as a .deb ( and not snap ) from Ubuntu’s repositories, and re-use your previously saved profiles in it.

…and once again @bashfulrobot snap are not enough self-explanatory to the users, not warning them about permissions and then users think snap are « limited » which is not true but is what happens because of lack of information.

Snaps can have access to config files if you request the personal-files interface and author appropriately. You are correct, up to the author to do this correct.

I just did this on a snap I’m working on and gave it access to ~/.gitconfig>

But you are absolutely correct in the fact that snaps store their data in a different location.

The permission mechanisms do require some management, however, a good portion of this can be mitigated and automated - depending on how the author builds the snap.

The information does need to be more user accessable.

That’s why when I find something that’s not intuitive, I’ll post about it on their forum to make it better. It also provides a lot of insight as to why things are done the way they are. The devs are super helpful.

Love them, or hate them, they are likely here to stay in some capacity. We leverage them, and they have been insanely helpful from a developer point of view. And for me personally, I almost can’t live without universal packaging anymore. I finally have all the software I ever needed. and to me that’s a far bigger win than the few inconveniences that I have experienced. I know full well, that overtime it’s only going to get better. And I’m doing my best to help with that.

All I can suggest is: if you find something frustrating and are willing to take the time to give constructive feedback, do so. It is the only way it will ever get better.

People always ask me how to get involved in open source… This is a great example that provides value to the larger communities.

[ this is a bit out of topic ]

I know. I try. You know. But that particular topic of « non-friendliness » or not enough « self-explanatory » side of snap has been, is already often discussed. Sometimes awkwardly, any side.

Improvements are real. Now we have a central place to deal with permissions, at least in 20.04 ( but is in fact a gift from Gnome to manage their flatpak, isn’t it ? ).
Now snap app’s at their first launch should also tell users how / where change them if needed.
( isn’t it like this on mobile OSes ? )

And it may not be snap dev’s fault after all. Integrating snap into a distro / a DE demands a broader « building » I think.

Oh and as always, thank you again, I discovered another snap interface… yet damn I’ve read many times the doc ! Maybe could help in Gimp as a snap ⋅ no thumbnails for .xcf files in Nemo, gThumb… or this one ?

User-friendly did we say ?

[ end of out of topic ]

1 Like

Firefox isn’t installed as snap, is it? On 19.10 Budgie comes with Firefox installed, but not as Snap package.

No - firefox isnt a snap on any UB version

I don’t use Ubuntu Budgie, I added budgie DE to Ubuntu. so what is installed by default in Ubuntu Budgie might differ from my system.

But for what it’s worth I completely apt purged snapd a long time ago (it was forced on me at some point in Ubuntu) and I can live very well without it, either on Gnome or on Budgie. I might not have budgie-welcome but budgie desktop settings is a better fit for me anyway.

I even managed to install Chromium through debian repositories (beware, this is not recommended though as it can break your system).

I came to Linux among many reasons for the way it mutualizes resources in an efficient way, I will certainly not go back to the experience of bundled packages (almost) each using a different version of the same library. This is Windows all over again. I am aware of the burden in maintenance it implies for apt dependencies (and for each different package managers throughout distros) but it is a much better structure in my opinion.

I don’t want to start a debate, I’m just explaining my reasoning and relaying my experience of non snap/flatpak user to someone who asks if he can. Yes, please, move ahead.

Indeed. Problem here is the app-store, a.k.a. software. For years now, that thing :
⋅ shows for each app one entry per type of packaging, [ so 2 or 3 gimp, 2 or 3 Firefox… ]
⋅ without mentioning the type of packaging in this first front list, [ first pernicious trap ]
⋅ and puts snap app’s on top of the list. [ second insidious trap ]

Most users click on the first Firefox, or Gimp or whatever, hence they end up installing a snap package in total unawareness. And then this is how users discover snap : because their app can’t access /home or /media or have wrong theming, no translations and so on.

If snap app’s pointed users towards « permission » window at first launch there would be much less disappointment.

« Advanced » users may prefer command line where they know what they’ll get - apt install or snap install. But beware as of 20.04 sudo apt install chromium-browser will actually install its snap package. No choice here. And third trap.

Snap have qualities. For dev’s mainly. But how they are « sold » towards users is rather questionable.