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.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
      19·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          15·
          1 year ago

          For desktop apps maybe. How do you run a flatpak from the cli? “flatpak run org.something.Command”. Awesome.

          Both suffer from not making it obvious what directories your application can access and not providing a clear message when you try to access files it can’t. The user experience sucks.

      • lemmyng@lemmy.caEnglish
        51·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • RamdomSlaphead@feddit.ukEnglish
      18·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • redcalcium@lemmy.instituteEnglish
    471·
    1 year ago

    I also like to run my container platform as a containerized application in another container platform.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.instituteEnglish
        311·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • thesmokingman@programming.devEnglish
          7·
          1 year ago

          It’s also offered as part of the installation process at least for Ubuntu server. If you don’t know better it bites you real quick.

        • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          It’s insane how many things they push as Snaps when they are entirely incompatible with the Snap model.

          I think everyone first learns what Snaps are by googling “why doesn’t ____ work on Ubuntu?” For me, it was Filebot. Spent an hour or two trying to figure out how the hell to get it to actually, you know, access my files. (This was a few years ago, so maybe things are better now. Not sure. I don’t live that Snap life anymore, and I’m not going back.)

  • Samsy@lemmy.mlEnglish
    311·
    1 year ago

    TIL, docker has a snap package, and can’t stop laughing. What’s next? A flatpak or AppImage?

  • krash@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2812·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • thesmokingman@programming.devEnglish
      38·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • hperrin@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        6·
        1 year ago

        This exactly. Because some poor shmuck might spend two hours trying to get Nextcloud to work with it.

      • Limitless_screaming@kbin.social
        41·
        1 year ago

        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?

    • hperrin@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      83·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Big P@feddit.ukEnglish
        62·
        1 year ago

        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

      • Throw a Foxtrot@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        21·
        1 year ago

        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?

        • hperrin@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          I have a 20TB RAID array that I use for a number of services mounted at /data. I would like Nextcloud to have access to more than the 128GB available to /home. I’m not willing to move my data mount into /home and reconfigure the ~5 other services that use it just to work around some stupid Snap limitation. Who knows whether Snap even can access data across filesystems if they’re mounted in home. I wouldn’t put it past the Snap devs to fall down on that point either.

          Yes, Docker clearly needs access to all files. It is meant for running server software, and server software is supposed to be flexible in its setup. To me, this limitation makes it completely unusable. Nextcloud is only the first service that needed access to that directory. I’ll also be running MinIO there for blob storage for a Mastodon server. I’ll probably move Jellyfin into a Docker container, and it’ll need access too.

          The fact that this giant issue with Snap is not made clear is my biggest problem with it. I had to figure it out myself over the course of two hours when there are zero warnings or error messages explaining it. What an absolutely unnecessary waste of time, when it could have warned me at install that if I wanted a completely functional version of Docker, I should use the apt package.

          I will never use any Snap package again. This was such a bad experience that I probably won’t even be using Ubuntu Server going forward. I already use Fedora for desktop. And the fact that a few people here are basically saying it’s my fault for not already knowing the limitations imposed on Snap packages is just making it more obvious that Ubuntu has become a toxic distro. It’s sad, because Ubuntu got me into Linux back with Hardy Heron 8.04. I’ve been running Ubuntu servers since 9.10. I used to be excited every six months for the new Ubuntu release. It’s sad to see something you loved become awful.

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
    9·
    1 year ago

    Snap is one of those things that shouldn’t exist. There’s distrobox (podman) or flatpak both of which are more mature and flexible.

  • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
    102·
    1 year ago

    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.