$HOME/snap is for user content. User content should be user-accessible.
However, it looks like the feature is not very user-friendly. Should
users need to change how they organize their files, to gain access to
the features of snap?
For example, today the firefox snap created $HOME/snap/firefox, along
with three files in there: two empty directories (118, common) and a
symlink (current -> 118). My initial impressions are below.
First, the name of the top-level directory is named after an
application, rather than being called something meaningful to a user.
What has been snapped? Are we talking *oh, snap*? Fingers snapping?
Twigs? Camera shutters? I don't mean to criticize the name of the
project, but by putting that name as a directory in $HOME, these are the
questions a user might have. Particularly if the user doesn't know what
the snap application is or does.
Second, two extra hierarchical levels adds complexity that seems
unnecessary. Why do I need to navigate through this? What organizational
purpose does it serve, to offset the time it takes to use?
Third, the files created under $HOME/snap/firefox are named nothing that
makes sense to a user. What is 118 anyway?
Fourth, the organization behind the files under $HOME/snap/firefox
doesn't make any initial sense. Why is current a symlink? Are these
files versioned somehow? Is that specific to firefox, or generic to
snap?
Finally, taken together these first points make the content of
$HOME/snap seem quite opaque. That conflicts with their stated purpose
of being for user content.
After reading [most of] the comments on this bug, I decided to test it
out. I downloaded a file, and found it in
$HOME/snap/firefox/common/Downloads. This is deep enough in the
hierarchy as to be effectively hidden from both shell and GUI users. How
would I have known it'd be there? Why not just use $XDG_DOWNLOAD_DIR?
A symlink could be a workaround, to get rid of the 4+ levels of folders
that effectively hide these files from view. If a workaround is
necessary, then there is a problem. If there is a problem, then it would
be inappropriate to consider the issue as a feature request.
XDG lets users have a clean $HOME, and to define what "clean" means.
Standards like XDG have community/industry support. They should be
respected, either by following, or by stating a clear reason to not
follow. How should this be done in XGD? Or what shortcoming of XDG is
being addressed?
Implementing snap as a feature of ubuntu is a rather aggressive way to
change the standard. It seems to lack clear direction, in breaking XDG.
It therefore appears to disrespect the community, for whom the standard
works. The feeling of disrespect can be seen motivating the various
tones of people posting to this bug report.
XDG effectively combines the data for all applications into one
structure. Does this make sense for something compartmentalized like
snap? At my distance (new snap user, linux user since kernel 1.x), the
new file structure doesn't seem inherently necessary, to have
compartmentalization. It seems that each compartmentalized app should be
able to use the XDG directories. Why not?
Is part of the compartmentalization approach to keep user data separate?
If so, how will the eventual need for users to break that separation be
handled securely? How do the $HOME/snap/ directories fit into
this?
Also, since epochs are mentioned in the rationale above, are they
conceptually-relevant to $HOME/snap? Or is that just a technical
dependency that we don't really need to understand, to know about
$HOME/snap?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1575053
Title:
Please move the "$HOME/snap" directory to a less obtrusive location
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/snapd/+bug/1575053/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
