Selfhosted @lemmy.world hperrin @lemmy.world 11 mo. ago

PSA: The Docker Snap package on Ubuntu sucks.

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.

34 comments

“PSA: Snap sucks”

FTFY
Friends don't let friends use Snap.
- 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.
  
  flatpak just makes sense imo
  
  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.
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
- 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.
I also like to run my container platform as a containerized application in another container platform.
- Lol. Yeah that was my reaction to the headline as well. "You did what ?"
  
  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.
  
  :)
- Double-NAT anyone? 3 times the fun, 2 times the work
TIL, docker has a snap package, and can't stop laughing. What's next? A flatpak or AppImage?
- A flatpak of the snap, running in a docker container inside a vm for maximum security.
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.
- 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.
  
  This exactly. Because some poor shmuck might spend two hours trying to get Nextcloud to work with it.
- Snap can be improved with this one simple step
  
  sudo apt-get purge snapd -y
  
  There's no improving snap. it sucks -- full stop. just the mount clutter alone makes it garbage.
  
  The solution exists and its called flatpak and it works MUCH BETTER than canonical-only scholck.
  
  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?
- 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.
  
  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
  
  Agreed, it's not user friendly at all.
  
  Does it clearly need access to files outside the /home directory though?
  
  You said your volume mount failed. How about mounting something inside your home folder into the docker container?
Snap is one of those things that shouldn't exist. There's distrobox (podman) or flatpak both of which are more mature and flexible.
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.
- Docker has an apt repo. You can add it to your Debian/Ubuntu and install and update packages normally. No need to use a script install.
  
  https://docs.docker.com/engine/install/ubuntu/
  
  That's essentially what the script does, then installs all the deps and docker, sets up the service.
  
  Is there a difference between the apt and the install script version?
Did you see this already? :)
- That’s a start, but I need access to both /home and /data.
New Lemmy Post: PSA: The Docker Snap package on Ubuntu sucks. (https://lemmy.world/post/10338192)
Tagging: #SelfHosted

(Replying in the OP of this thread (NOT THIS BOT!) will appear as a comment in the lemmy discussion.)

I am a FOSS bot. Check my README: https://github.com/db0/lemmy-tagginator/blob/main/README.md

You've viewed 34 comments.