0

Since loop devices are limited, and based on this current state of my ubuntu 18.04 (with cinnamon), one must assume that at some point ubuntu will be useless. There will be so many loop devices for the snaps that will pass the max limit (not mentioning that some apps, like gnome-calculator, are already using more than one). Is that correct?

EDIT (after commented):

I am running a default Ubuntu installation, which means that snaps are default for Ubuntu. (I am not sure, but I don't remember installing all these snaps)

The idea of proposing to desktop users to change the hard coded loop limit is out of (any) discussion.

ilias iliadis
  • 371
  • If you are running a resource-constrained but general-purpose, application-heavy Ubuntu Core system, then you may indeed eventually run into limits. However that's a corner-case for which Snaps are not really intended right now. There are many other use cases which Snaps are preferable. Snaps and Debs each have different advantages and disadvantages, and Ubuntu gives you the flexibility to easily choose. Design your system to maximize the advantages that you want, and to minimize the disadvantages. – user535733 May 18 '19 at 02:39
  • See also: https://askubuntu.com/questions/1039411/how-can-i-replace-snap-application-such-as-gnome-calculator-with-a-deb & https://askubuntu.com/questions/948861/why-would-i-want-to-install-a-snap-if-i-can-install-via-apt-instead – oldfred May 18 '19 at 03:07
  • "Since loop devices are limited, and based on " The 256 is hard coded but if needed someone could increase this "one must assume that at some point ubuntu will be useless. " not within the next time-frame to the next LTS. And nobody is forcing you to use snaps. – Rinzwind May 18 '19 at 05:23
  • Also, understand that snap apps effect your boot time. Best to uninstall snap apps and replace them with standard apt/.deb apps. – heynnema May 18 '19 at 14:23
  • I have 257 snaps installed on my laptop. Therefore I have 536 mounted loopback squashfiles as a result. Way beyond whatever 256 limit you're suggesting. So that's inaccurate. – popey May 20 '19 at 09:53
  • @popey there is a limit which can be altered (with some loss of efficiency of course). – ilias iliadis May 22 '19 at 02:55

0 Answers0