Snap apps size, this is ludicrous

Thoughts & Feedback
#1

I just did a disk usage analyses and realized that snap apps are something ludicrous when it concerns size:

This goes above the 'are you for real' kind of situation, it's a straight 'are you kidding me' situation. 2.7 gb in five apps???
Those five apps should be taking up to 200 mb tops, not 2.7 gb.

If snaps are the future, I'm guessing that the future system requirements for UM are:

  • Pentium 3 processor;
  • 512 mb of ram
  • 10 TB hard disk!!! :smiley:

Can someone please tell to whomever it may concern that snaps right now are a problem and not a solution?

4 Likes
#2

That almost looks like snap packages are more or less dragging the bulk of an OS inside the container with them

2 Likes
#3

If you compare Disk Usage Analyser and System Monitor (as snap mounts them like separate devices), the numbers don't actually add up.

image.png935×324 80.1 KB

This could mean Disk Usage Analyser is also counting symbolic links, which are files that "soft link" to another file, but are treated like they are a separate file:

So in this case, these two 300 kB files will appear to programs as 600 kB, but physically these two files only use 300 kB on the disk.

Just a theory, I'm no expert in snaps. I'm aware snaps in general can be larger in size then their deb package counterparts as they ship their own a copy of the libraries they use, as opposed to using installed libraries system-wide. (Pro = self contained, no conflicts. Con = larger size, a snap could ship an outdated library)

4 Likes
#4

@lah7 I do hope there is a ‘mistake’ in the size output (links being counted), otherwise it’s just like @stevecook172001 is saying and more or less we install an entire OS for each app… Is there a way to clarify this?

#5

Yes you can go on the snapcraft forum and ask there.

#6

After I browsed their forum (it’s https://forum.snapcraft.io right?) I won’t be asking that there. First for what I read there I don’t think that’s a question that will get love from the snap developers (shared stuff and size seem like tension topics over there) and second I already found the ‘politically correct answer’ they give about snaps size there, which is that some snaps will be bigger or smaller than others, depending on who is packing them and what is being packed. (you know, the political answer equivalent to ‘go f yourself’ for asking that :smiley:)

For what I’ve searched snaps are kind of a (bad) joke in terms of size, something really ridiculous. In example at https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2018/02/ubuntu-18-04-include-snap-apps-default this was wrote:

3 Likes
#7

I will be a contrarian here, I’ve often argued that with 1TB drives in the end the end-caps at places like Fry’s and MicroCenter for ~$30 the need for shared libraries and their resultant Linux equivalent of Windows “DLL-hell” is wrong headed for desktop systems, especially if targeted at “normal” users that don’t aspire to become sys admins or tech gurus.

In moments of dependency hell I’ve often longed for a return to the days of static linking where a program was distributed with the exact libraries it was developed with. In many ways snaps would seem to be an answer to my prayers. I’ve limited experience with snaps and docker containers but so far its been pretty good.

For embeded or IOT type constrained resource systems, snaps should have no role unless its a single snap that implements the entire system.

1 Like
#8

Remember some apps like Discord , Google Chrome… Spotify , they all use Electron Framework.
it’s very common to use 80MB - 100MB

#9

To be honest, I kind of feel the same way about Snaps. That is to say, although I understand that using a relatively large hard drive space may be an issue for other, it is less of a problem for me. Knowing that everything the app needs is going to come bundled with it should mean, in principle, that the perennial problem of apps no longer working on the latest LTS should be a thing of the past. If true, that would be great, since I have lost count of the number of apps I can no longer use (or have had to mess about with mightily to get to work) due to LTS upgrades.

The only thing that is concerning me is the apparent lack of security on the lines of official installation.

3 Likes
#10

AFAIUI snaps were invented precisely for InternetOfThings, so let’s hope they do use a single snap.