Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Snapcraft 6.0 Coming To Finally Move From Ubuntu 18.04 To 20.04 LTS Base, Phase Out i386

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post

    Snap is one of the solutions that tries to solve the problem along with Flatpak, AppImage etc. Snap current usage however is inherently tied to a proprietary backend server.
    It's a web server with a private implementation of a public GPLv3 JSON API that you would _have to_ replace anyway, unless you wanted a perfect implementation of Canonical's internal networks. Why anyone would care about this, is beyond my comprehension. It's nothing special or a web server to use some internal scripts that aren't shared with the public.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by mppix View Post
      Not even Debian could easily (and I assume would) adopt snap out of licensing concerns of the ecosystem.
      What does that mean? Snap is GPLv3. Why would that cause concerns?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by tomas View Post

        Not that it matters which one came first, but the roots of flatpak goes back to 2007 with a project called glick then glick2. When was snap announced?
        Also note that xdg-app is the same thing as flatpak so it was just a rebranding.
        Snap is the successor of Click, which was very similar to Flatpak in that it could only be used for desktop apps, while snaps are designed to be used for many different types of software. I think the work started in 2009, but I'm not entirely sure about that.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by tomas View Post
          Snap. It's the new upstart/mir/unity/bazaar/insert the next abandonware from Canonical. Technology developed by Canonical and only adopted by Ubuntu with some minor exceptions. Give it another five years and it will be flatpak that will come out on top. It's like they never learn from their past failures.
          Flatpak cannot be used for the same things that snaps are used for, because it requires a desktop and many servers do not have a desktop. The idea that i would want to install a desktop system on my server in order to use a database, is ridiculous to me.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post

            Flatpak cannot be used for the same things that snaps are used for, because it requires a desktop and many servers do not have a desktop. The idea that i would want to install a desktop system on my server in order to use a database, is ridiculous to me.
            Alright. In that case I'm okey with them keeping snap for server stuff, although no one else seems to use it. Or am I wrong?
            For desktop apps flatpak will win out in the end. Upstream community is all about flatpak. It's the same old problem with Canonical insisting on "having exclusive control" by the means of CLA. Not all of snap is even 100% open source if I'm not mistaken. That by itself disqualifies it from being adopted outside of Canonical.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post

              It's a web server with a private implementation of a public GPLv3 JSON API that you would _have to_ replace anyway, unless you wanted a perfect implementation of Canonical's internal networks. Why anyone would care about this, is beyond my comprehension. It's nothing special or a web server to use some internal scripts that aren't shared with the public.
              In the free software community, you don't understand why people are concerned about a proprietary backend? Let's flip the question, if it is nothing special, why should it remain proprietary?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post

                In the free software community, you don't understand why people are concerned about a proprietary backend? Let's flip the question, if it is nothing special, why should it remain proprietary?
                Exactly. Flathubs infrastructure is all 100% open source an anyone can in fact easily host flatpaks on other sites which is already done today. Why should snaps infrastructure be any different? Are any snaps available from other sources than Canonicals snap store?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post

                  What does that mean? Snap is GPLv3. Why would that cause concerns?
                  Debian is usually very 'libre' about what they adopt as 'default'. Snap is a closed ecosystem.
                  Anyhow, it is quite possible that Debian does not any solution that comes preinstalled and keeps relying on its own packages.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post

                    In the free software community, you don't understand why people are concerned about a proprietary backend? Let's flip the question, if it is nothing special, why should it remain proprietary?
                    i absolutely don't, no. Why would you care what internal scripts my website uses when you could not ever have made use of that script on your server anyway? If there had been some important part of the system that had been proprietary, sure you should care, but there isn't. I mean, a web server is a web server. As a client, you shouldn't care about how my web server is setup at all.

                    Internal scripts usually contain lots of hardcoded data that you might not want the public to know, such as usernames, passwords, bank accounts or even just network layouts. I don't understand the extreme passion about knowing how Canonical's internal network is designed when you would never want to recreate it anyway. APIs are used for a reason.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by mppix View Post

                      Debian is usually very 'libre' about what they adopt as 'default'. Snap is a closed ecosystem.
                      Anyhow, it is quite possible that Debian does not any solution that comes preinstalled and keeps relying on its own packages.
                      All traditional distros are closed ecosystems. There is nothing special about that. Debian has supported software like alien forever, allowing users to install packages from other closed ecosystems, like Fedora. I think that Debian only cares that the software is Free Software. Snap is GPLv3 and Debian shouldn't mind it at all. There are even Debian repositories that only serves proprietary software and they don't ban those, so what's different?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X