• @LavenderDay3544
    link
    120 days ago

    Why? What’s the issue with Snap? Is Flatpak any better?

    • @FooBarrington
      link
      1219 days 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
        link
        219 days 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)

        • @FooBarrington
          link
          219 days 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
            link
            118 days 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
              link
              117 days 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?

              • @TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe
                link
                113 days ago

                You simply use a different packaging format as I said in the previous comment.

                • @FooBarrington
                  link
                  113 days 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
                    link
                    111 days 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.

          • @TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe
            link
            018 days 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              318 days ago

              Both have nonfree stuff in there.

              But flatpak’s backend is open source and self-hostable, while snap’s is proprietary and not self-hostable. Flatpak is the lesser of evils from this point of view.

              • @TMP_NKcYUEoM7kXg4qYe
                link
                113 days 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.