I spent two hours today trying to figure out why Nextcloud couldn’t read my data directory. Docker wasn’t mounting my data directory. Moved everything into my data directory. Docker couldn’t even see the configuration file.

Turns out the Docker Snap package only has access to files under the /home directory.

Moral of the story: never trust a Snap package.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
      19·
      10 months ago

      Proprietary when flatpak exists, and it doesn’t properly address how apps should dynamically request access to things they need. Every time I’ve used either solution I’ve run into some permissions problem.

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          14·
          10 months ago

          For desktop apps maybe. How do you run a flatpak from the cli? “flatpak run org.something.Command”. Awesome.

          Both suffer from not making it obvious what directories your application can access and not providing a clear message when you try to access files it can’t. The user experience sucks.

      • lemmyng@lemmy.caEnglish
        51·
        10 months ago

        The one thing snap does that flatpak doesn’t is provide CLI applications. But then nix also does that, so snap can go pound salt.

  • JustUseMint@lemmy.worldEnglish
    45·
    10 months ago

    I have stopped using Ubuntu because of this and other Canonical nonsense. It used to be the best too. For a workstation, Mint Cinnamon, for a server Debian headless. God speed with the rest of your setup

    • RamdomSlaphead@feddit.ukEnglish
      18·
      10 months ago

      This year I finally snapped (pun intended!), and moved to debian 12 on the desktop (after starting on Ubuntu 6.06). It’s so familiar, but somehow more straight forward. Things “just work”, as opposed to the constant niggles I had with Ubuntu.

  • redcalcium@lemmy.instituteEnglish
    461·
    10 months ago

    I also like to run my container platform as a containerized application in another container platform.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.instituteEnglish
        311·
        10 months ago

        Why does Docker has a snap version in the first place anyway? Did Canonical pester them to do it?

        Edit:

        Nope, it’s just Canonical went ahead and publish it there by themselves.

        This snap is built by Canonical based on source code published by Docker, Inc. It is not endorsed or published by Docker, Inc.

        • thesmokingman@programming.devEnglish
          7·
          10 months ago

          It’s also offered as part of the installation process at least for Ubuntu server. If you don’t know better it bites you real quick.

        • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          1·
          10 months ago

          It’s insane how many things they push as Snaps when they are entirely incompatible with the Snap model.

          I think everyone first learns what Snaps are by googling “why doesn’t ____ work on Ubuntu?” For me, it was Filebot. Spent an hour or two trying to figure out how the hell to get it to actually, you know, access my files. (This was a few years ago, so maybe things are better now. Not sure. I don’t live that Snap life anymore, and I’m not going back.)

  • Samsy@lemmy.mlEnglish
    311·
    10 months ago

    TIL, docker has a snap package, and can’t stop laughing. What’s next? A flatpak or AppImage?

  • krash@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2612·
    10 months ago

    But this is by design, snap containers aren’t allowed to read data outside of their confinements. Same goes for flatpak and OCI-containers.

    I don’t use snap myself, but it does have its uses. Bashing it just because it’s popular to hate on snap won’t yield a healthy discussion on how it could be improved.

    • thesmokingman@programming.devEnglish
      38·
      10 months ago

      The issue here is that Canonical pushed the snap install without warning about its reduced functionality. I don’t think highlighting a wildly different experience between a snap install and the Docker experience people are used to from the standard package install is “bashing it just because it’s popular to hate on snap.” For example, if you take a fresh Ubuntu server 22 install and use the snap package, not realizing that snaps have serious limitations which are not explicitly called out when the snap is offered in the installation process, you’re going to be confused unless you already have that knowledge. It also very helpfully masks everything so debugging is incredibly difficult if you are not already aware of the snap limitations.

      • hperrin@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        6·
        10 months ago

        This exactly. Because some poor shmuck might spend two hours trying to get Nextcloud to work with it.

      • Limitless_screaming@kbin.social
        41·
        10 months ago

        Snap sucks, but not for the reason OP stated. There’s a decillion reasons for why Snaps suck, why make up a reason that applies to other formats that are actually good?

    • hperrin@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      83·
      10 months ago

      Ok then don’t publish an application that clearly needs access to files outside of the /home directory. Or at least be upfront about how limited it is when run as a snap.

      • Big P@feddit.ukEnglish
        62·
        10 months ago

        The Linux community loves to put the responsibility on the user to understand every facet of what they’re trying to do without explaining it

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
    9·
    10 months ago

    Snap is one of those things that shouldn’t exist. There’s distrobox (podman) or flatpak both of which are more mature and flexible.

  • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
    102·
    10 months ago

    Yah, it’s been trash from the start. I tried it 2 years ago and the unpredictable weird shit it did was useless to try to troubleshoot. It was worse than trying to run Docker on Windows, if that can be believed.

    Debian with the Docker convenience script is the way to run Docker.