Why we need a different container purely for apps - Mark Shuttleworth (Canonical)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 жов 2016
- Fast, secure and reliable third-party Linux apps that run efficiently on any device from the RPi to the mainframe - with "snap", a new universal Linux package that works from Arch to Xubuntu thanks to a clever twist on standard container techniques.
Neither Docker nor LXD are specifically focused on "the app", they both create machine-like entities that require integration through the network. What if you just want a database?
Snaps are a new kind of container that explicitly shares stuff with other containers on the host machine through nicely defined secure interfaces. So fast, much fun, very delicious.
Mark Shuttleworth did crypto, went well, gave a load away, went to space, saw the world, founded Ubuntu, world went wild, founded Canonical, saw the world again from a plane, designed Unity, world went nuts, designed LXD, all was forgiven, designed snaps, let's see what happens next. - Наука та технологія
I must say that a company whose CEO knows and still remembers how to operate a terminal makes me feel confident.
i know Im asking the wrong place but does anybody know of a trick to get back into an instagram account??
I stupidly forgot the password. I appreciate any help you can offer me!
@@omarzakai4905 write to support
@@omarzakai4905 if you have 2FA then you can get the account back
unfortunate last 4 letters of the youtube URL
yusiCOCk hahahaha
U C COCk
*Last 8
@@AnkitRajpoot yusiCOCk
LMAO
I am so happy that this is coming into the current thought process of Linux. I used to hate having to do updates, then have problems and conflicts. This will SIMPLIFY THINGS EXPONENTIALLY. I like Docker, but Snaps give even more simplicity.
Mark Shuttleworth does it again
Very interesting talk.
this video makes me want to more about docker and snap.
Офигенно Great idea and stuff!
Ok love the hammer vs malet analogy
Excellent work. When IPO?
Amazing. I hope Flatpak and Snap goes default way of apps shipment under GNU/Linux soon.
Leandro Cavalcante please no. I prefer the way it works today, you don't have all that duplicated dependencies, it's more efficient to stay with things like they are right now.
If a change will be made, I'm not against Flatpak or Snap, they will be useful to deploy new software from upstream to the distributions, or even software that's been working in linux for a long time to distributions with less resources that will be graceful with this (like Solus). I like the fact that they bring a way to directly connect the deployment of software with the developers of that software, but in the major distributions this new technologies will have to work in parallel with the old software management tools like apt-get, pacman, dnf, etc.
The only technology that i would like to see everywhere replacing everything is Nix or Guix, because they work in a similar way, but are very efficient and don't duplicate dependencies.
@Dmitriy Getman You clearly don't understand windows.
@@joaquinjuliarena2110 Flatpack actually gives you the option to include packages or use external packages. Since I'm mostly on ubuntu, my hope is that snap will also adopt such features.
@@roottmp: Snap has that and has had that for years now. For instance, if you have a Windows application, you can package it as a snap and ask it to use the wine-platform snap. So the Windows app won't distribute its own wine, but use a common one. This is what the Notepad++ snap does.
The same way, a Gnome application doesn't have to distribute its Gnome dependencies, but can instead use the appropriate Gnome platform. So if you have three apps built for Gnome 3.26 and five for Gnome 3.30, then they would use the gnome-3.26-1604 and gnome-3.30-1804 snaps respectively.
@@joaquinjuliarena2110 For me it's ok if it stays "open source" ! If these new technologies (apps into containers, docker, podman, snap, oci,..) become "closed source", then we should have a problem ! Innovation is not an issue at all if it stays "open source" ! But I understand that there are pros and cons (even if it's open source). The biggest pro is the immutable/isolation part of it. Installing an app and avoid a mess in the filesystem is in my opinion not a bad idea. But disk usage, duplicated dependencies fact is a big point..
So, the point of all this contraption is to avoid "polluting the host system with applications"?
I think its more like avoid polluting the host system with specific application environments and dependencies
@@Jonasmelonas it makes slightly more sense like this, but still looks like a taxi passenger bringing his own chair to avoid polluting the cab. I would argue that on-host chairs (environments) are an advantage. Problems with the dependencies are traditionally solved by statically linked binaries (passengers bring their own booze).
@@dmitriminaev I think its more like the taxi driver prefers clients to bring their own plastic seat cover. Yes, theres overhead, but easier to clean up when the client shits himself mid ride 😊
Before docker, before bsd jail there was OSGI Long Live Java !
And before computers there was the Acabus, so what? Get over of grieving the past...
Past ? OSGI is still in use .
ebu zer Doesn't mean it's better than the current solution, indeed the newer approaches should be informed by OSGI's short comings.
Did you mean kotlin? ;)
java is built on terrible slow dev practices of layers and layers of crap - java is fast by itself
What is the value of snap over all docker/kubernetes/oci/...etc other than being a canonical vendor lockin?
The entire video is devoted completely to answering your question. Did you not watch it?
@@andysisinger8967 my bad, i should not use question mark! In my opinion kubernetes is a clear winner. I would choose a docker image over a snappy package any day.
@@muayyadalsadi Is that because you need the extra overhead? ;)
Having said that, I mostly use docker, but seriously starting to consider to migrate stuff to either flatpack or snap.
@@roottmp flatpak for desktop (ex. can control desktop notification permission)
Podman to run docker images for non-desktop services.
Podman vs. docker vs. snapd overhead, in that case podman is the winner hands down.