• FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, Flatpak is far better. The most glaring issue: Canonical hosts the only Snap backend, you can’t host it yourself. Flatpak on the other hand is fully open.

      Don’t introduce proprietary crap just so companies can profit off of it.

      • TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Don’t introduce proprietary crap just so companies can profit off of it.

        I agree but I think it’s the user who should be able to make the informed choice (ie. during installation)

          • TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            This is a stupid argument. In FSF’s eyes even having nonfree repository (ie. for drivers) is bad so this is completely irrelevant for anyone considering flatpak or snap. Both have nonfree stuff in there.

              • TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                I’m not arguing whether snap or flatpak is better. Flatpak is better.

                But your arguments are going against each other. You disagree that FSF should tell you what software you can use but then you want to tell other users what software they can use. If you use flatpak despite of FSF’s opinions, you should let people use snap despite of your opinion.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Honestly, why enable this kind of behavior in any way? Any user is free to make an informed choice by installing it themselves.

          We all know how this goes. Once a critical mass is reached, enshittification begins to milk everything dry. By making it an installer option, you’re legitimizing it and supporting a worse future for the Linux desktop.

          • TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Ok but KDE has official Snap packages so they already are “legitimizing it”. Also snap won’t be able to entshittify anything. Snapd is still open source, so you can just repackage the software for different package system.

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              My guy. There is no open backend for Snap. If Ubuntu enshittifies Snap, nobody can host an alternate backend for them. How does the client being open source help you?

                • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Okay, and how does snapd being open source help with that? It literally has no effect on it.

                  And when your best argument is “if it gets enshittified you can switch off of it”, why help it get popular in the first place?

                  • TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    Well if it were closed source, it would be harder to repackage proprietary apps because you would not know how the snap “root filesystem” translates to $DISTRO root filesystem.

                    Because some apps are only packaged as snaps so if you want them to be accessible to users, you have to install snapd. Flatpak can still be the default which on non-Canonical distros already is. Which why I don’t even worry about snap becoming the standard.