• @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.