• @curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    192 months ago

    One selects a different package, same source repo.

    The other completely changes the installation, invisibly to the user, potentially introducing vulnerabilities.

    Such as what they did with Docker, which I found less than hilarious when I had to clean up after someone entirely because of this idiocy.

    The differences seem quite clear.

    • @lengau@midwest.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      02 months ago

      In both cases, the packages are owned by the same people? (Fun fact: mozilla actually owns both the Firefox snap and the firefox package in the Ubuntu repos.) I’m non sure how that “potentially introduces vulnerabilities” any more than “having a package which has dependencies” does.

      I’m not sure what you’re referring to with Docker. Canonical provides both the docker.io package in apt and the docker snap. Personally I use the snap on my machine because I need to be able to easily switch versions for my development work.

      • @curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        62 months ago

        Because the separate installation means you can actually end up with both an apt installed and a snap installed.

        My comment about docker was a specific example of such a case, where vulnerabilities were introduced. It was actually a commonly used attack a few years ago to burn up other CPU and GPU to generate crypto.

        Yes, canonical provides both. Guess what? They screwed up, and introduced several vulnerabilities, and you ended up with both a snap and apt installed docker.

        The fact that they are both packaged by Canonical is both irrelevant and a perfect example of the problem.

        • @lengau@midwest.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          -12 months ago

          Because the separate installation means you can actually end up with both an apt installed and a snap installed.

          This is something that can happen any time you have multiple package managers or even multiple repositories in the same package manager. Google’s official Chrome apt repo has debs for google-chrome-stable, google-chrome-beta and google-chrome-unstable, quite intentionally.

          My comment about docker was a specific example of such a case, where vulnerabilities were introduced. It was actually a commonly used attack a few years ago to burn up other CPU and GPU to generate crypto

          Can you provide a link to a source about that? I can’t find anything about it.

          and you ended up with both a snap and apt installed docker

          If you installed both the docker.io package from apt and the docker snap, yes you wound up with both. Just as if you install both google-chrome-stable and chromium you’ll end up with two packages of (almost) the same browser.

          The fact that they are both packaged by Canonical is both irrelevant and a perfect example of the problem.

          Then I’m gonna ask that you elaborate what specific problem you’re trying to explain here, because these seem pretty contradictory.