Originally posted by RahulSundaram
View Post
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
-
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tomas View PostSnap. 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.
Comment
-
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.
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
-
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.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post
What does that mean? Snap is GPLv3. Why would that cause concerns?
Anyhow, it is quite possible that Debian does not any solution that comes preinstalled and keeps relying on its own packages.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
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?
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
-
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.
Comment
Comment