• Diplomjodler
    link
    792 months ago

    Also, Snap is proprietary. That alone is reason enough for me to steer clear.

    • @Penta
      link
      562 months ago

      Well snap itself isn’t proprietary, the backend server distributing the snaps is.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        17
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Explain how this distinction matters in the real world?

        Snap distribution is as much a part of snaps as Snapd.

        Who cares that part of it is open source if other parts aren’t?

        • Draconic NEO
          link
          3
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          If Canonical folded Snap could be taken over by others who could build new server software for it, either from scratch or based off the other projects to develop alternative servers for it, and modify snap to accept multiple repos like that. That’s the difference, also just being able to fork snap like that. Though the fact it hasn’t been done says something about how many real snap enthusiasts there actually are.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            42 months ago

            If Canonical folded, someone else could come along and reinvent everything on the server side. And that makes it Open Source?

            • Draconic NEO
              link
              12 months ago

              What makes it open source is the fact that the parts which matter most are open source. The part that installs on the system is open source, and because of that it can be more easily tweaked and modified to accept other servers. In actuality it can be modified to do so right now, it’s just that there is little reason to do so because the amount of people enthusiastic about snap isn’t very large, as it has many other problems besides just the centralized server infra.