Hacker News Reader

Comment by snovv_crash | Hacker News Reader

You only get a single duplicate of the library no matter how many things depend on it. That is the whole point of snaps over just statically linking.

Well, that and the sandbox features, so that they can't interfere with the rest of the system.

View on HN

You only get a single duplicate of the library no matter how many things depend on it.

Huh?

If a snap includes version 1.0.0 of libxyz, and another does the same, you have two copies. If a third snap comes along and uses version 1.0.0 libxyz, you now have three.

Snaps do not automatically de-duplicate today.

That means two copies of the library living on disk and in memory at run-time.

That would be the same with any platform that does not use some kind of explicit linking/sharing of resources. Snaps have a sharing mechanism called interfaces but yes, the software author has to declare they want to use it, no magic there.

Snaps have a sharing mechanism called interfaces but yes, the software author has to declare they want to use it, no magic there.

So, they've reinvented dependencies (though, to their credit, they gave them a different name), one of the very things snaps were intended to alleviate?

Look, don't get me wrong, snaps have some interesting advantages (sandboxing being the one major selling point, IMO). But, again, they're no panacea.

Snaps are apps in a container. Why bother with docker containers to run services while you can install everything together on a single computer? Each docker replicates the same rooted again and again.

Just like docker, snaps make sense even if there is some duplication of the libraries. Other benefits outweigh the extra size.

The advantage is that there are no dependency collisions. With apt/yum I can't have multiple versions of the same library installed at the same time. Snaps fix this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com