> No idea why self-hosted software isn't `apt-get install` and forget.
Ubuntu tried to fix this with snaps but the whole Linux community raged and pushed back at them. Yeah, snap has its faults but it was designed initially for server-side apps.
Snap install xyz-selfhosted-app was the initial goal. You can install nextcloud as a snap right now.
Instead the Linux community let perfect be the enemy of good and successfully convinced everyone else to dump and avoid snaps as a format at all costs.
I don't recall any of that narrative being why people didn't like snaps.
One of the early sticking points was switching Firefox from deb to snap. That doesn't fit into your characterization.
Right, it got a bad rep on the desktop which tarnished its reuptation overall as a packaging format entirely
Isn't Ubuntu primarily a desktop distribution?
The numbers might favor server installs (no idea), but it seems like the decisions must be primarily desktop. (i.e. a server admin or business that installs a thousand Ubuntu instances is just a single decision).
Either way, if Canonical's goals for snaps included easing people into self-hosting their services, surely making the experience pleasant on desktop would be a priority?
I don't recall any positive changes brought by snaps. I was looking at it through a desktop lens at the time, but my general perspective is mostly server-side, so I might be biased in that direction.
I don't think the two perspectives are necessarily in conflict, but noted just for framing... :)
Nextcloud snap is really easy to install, and has been solid. Zero maintenance.