| [00:27] <valorie> yikes, I use flatpaks! | |
| [00:28] <valorie> snaps have been a disaster for me and I've purged it | |
| [12:52] <yofel> I've made my peace with snaps ever since they got the message that forcing application upgrades while an app is in use might not be such a great idea. These days there's not too much difference between either one looking from a user perspective. | |
| [12:52] <yofel> I do prefer flatpaks, but that's more because of "project background", than technical reasons. | |
| [21:13] <valorie> yofel: the snaps were causing extreme system load | |
| [21:13] <valorie> they might have improved it, but I've already moved on | |
| [21:14] <valorie> I don't see Debian picking 'em up | |
| [21:14] <valorie> not that I'm religious about debs or anything | |
| [21:22] <mparillo> Setting aside the religious debate, if you have loads of memory and a big, fast SSD, snaps are not so bad. But if one of your use cases is running the live USB to (say) access your banking website, the difference between the FF Snap versus non-snap is huge. Maybe 15-30 seconds to load the snap from a live USB. | |
| [21:41] <valorie> and I have the loads of memory and storage | |
| [21:41] <valorie> if the name is snap, I expect it to snap | |
| [21:42] <valorie> not drag like lead wieghts | |