Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 18.04 LTS Continues Prepping With The Linux 4.15 Kernel

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by vito View Post
    Snap is "bad" (as you put it) because Canonical is re-inventing the wheel again, just like they did with Mir etc. In the perfect world, they would have collaborated with the community on Flatpak.
    I usually don't like to create accounts and talk with "stangers" on the internet. But I couldn't resist this time, so I signed up.
    Snap are OLDER than flatpaks. Yep, Canonical didn't re-invert anything. When Red Hat decided to create flatpaks snaps already existed.
    So Red Hat decided not to collaborate with Canonical, not the other way around.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by olympus View Post
      I usually don't like to create accounts and talk with "stangers" on the internet. But I couldn't resist this time, so I signed up.
      Welcome to the party!

      Originally posted by olympus View Post
      Snap are OLDER than flatpaks.
      You are probably correct seeing that snap was originally created for the Ubuntu phone. However, the push towards the desktop (and especially cross distro/platform) usage was a recent endeavour which came after the flatpack (xdg-app) was already a thing. However, that is not the important part.

      What is important is that Snap requires contributors to sign the CLA which prevents many people from contributing to the project. Also, Snap is hardcoded to only pull from Canonical's "app store". And, while the client itself is "open", the server implementation is closed (last time I checked).

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by vito View Post
        Welcome to the party!
        Thank you my friend.


        Originally posted by vito View Post
        You are probably correct seeing that snap was originally created for the Ubuntu phone.
        No Snaps were meant for everywhere. Ubuntu with Unity was meant to run everywhere. Phones, tablets, laptos, desktops, servers.
        That's was the whole point of Unity, that's why it was named this way. Ubuntu, Unity, Snaps point was convernence.
        Of course they wouldn't run properly on everything in the early stages of their development.


        Originally posted by vito View Post
        However, the push towards the desktop (and especially cross distro/platform) usage was a recent endeavour which came after the flatpack (xdg-app) was already a thing. Also, Snap is hardcoded to only pull from Canonical's "app store". And, while the client itself is "open", the server implementation is closed (last time I checked).
        Snaps are important for Canonical for servers and IoT.
        Why on earth they should give access to their income projects to Red Hat with flatpaks? Red Hat is rich enough, they should stop being so greedy lol.
        I just don't understand why Canonical has to drop snaps. Snaps and flatpaks are installation methods and they don't conflict each other.
        I use both snaps and flatpaks and I have no problem, they both work and they don't conflict.
        It's like demanding from Red Hat to drop rpm because deb works and exists, it makes no sense.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by vito View Post

          The huge problem with Ubuntu (Canonical in general) is that they always try to do their own proprietary version of everything that conflicts with what the community is doing, in an attempt to lock in the users so they have no choice but use their product. For example, Canonical pushed Mir instead of Wayland, Unity instead of Gnome, Snap instead of Flatpack, etc.
          You wrote a ridiculous comment. Your claims that GPL is a proprietary license, is false, but also implies that Linux is a proprietary OS, since it is also a GPL product. Unity was enterprise ready many years ago. When did Gnome Shell hit the enterprise distros? Compiz was the universally accepted compositor at the time. Gnome was the one who decided to make a new one from scratch, which is one of the most important reasons it took so many years to catch up with Unity. Do you think Gnome should've been prohibited from developing Mutter?

          Snap instead of Flatpack? You are aware that Flatpack by design cannot and will not be capable of replacing Snap?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by jo-erlend View Post

            You wrote a ridiculous comment. Your claims that GPL is a proprietary license, is false
            I never claimed that GPL is a proprietary license, so please do not misquote me. What I did say is that Canonical projects like Snap (for example) require contributors to sign the CLA, which effectively makes the project closed. Snap also has hard coded server URLs and a closed server implementation which makes it restricted and exclusive to Canonical. Last time I checked, this is a definition of proprietary but thats semantics. You can call it closed or restricted just as well. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

            Here is a better explanation:
            https://www.happyassassin.net/2016/0...nda-department

            On a side note, if Canonical did not require CLA for their projects, systemd would probably not exist and we would be using upstart:
            https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte.../msg00313.html

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by vito View Post

              I never claimed that GPL is a proprietary license, so please do not misquote me.
              You claimed that they make proprietary versions of things. It is the license that decides whether software is Free Software or proprietary. In the case of Canonical, they use GPL. So the claim that their software is proprietary, is a claim that the GPL is a proprietary license.


              What I did say is that Canonical projects like Snap (for example) require contributors to sign the CLA, which effectively makes the project closed.
              Only in the same way that Gnome and Debian are proprietary systems because they require certain things from people who want to upload code to their systems.

              Snap also has hard coded server URLs and a closed server implementation which makes it restricted and exclusive to Canonical. Last time I checked, this is a definition of proprietary but thats semantics. You can call it closed or restricted just as well. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
              You simply have never checked if you think having the right to use private servers is the definition of Free Software and that the fact that the code is GPL licensed is irrelevant. Do you believe that Linux is a proprietary OS because you are not allowed to just enter code into their VCS? If you do, then you're wrong. What about GNU, which requires a CLA? Is that also then a proprietary system?

              By the way, lots and lots of software has hardcoded URLs in them. That's perfectly ok considering you explicitly have the right to edit that hardcoded string.
              Last edited by jo-erlend; 03-25-2018, 06:22 PM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by vito View Post
                This is not what I said. You seem to be missing the point. :-)
                Indeed. I don't really see which point you are trying to make except that Canonical is Evil(tm) because you say so.

                Originally posted by vito View Post
                Everything might have worked under it, but the apps that had ties to it were broken on other desktop and distros.
                And that is Unity's fault, is it? How dare they innovate and design new features when everyone knows that if your name is Canonical, then designing and promoting anything is Verboten! Seriously, do you actually read yourself? Unity implements something, others use it, some desktops are sitting still and become incompatible, and you blame Unity for having the audacity of succeeding in a certain segment rather than stagnating like everyone else? I suppose it's AMD's fault that 64-bit binaries compiled for AMD64 don't work on old, pre-Core2 32-bit Intel CPUs, right?

                Originally posted by vito View Post
                Functionality is not bad. The key however is that KDE team plays well with the community - they are actually part of the community.
                Any chance of knowing what "playing well with the community" actually means in your book? Obviously it's not developing desktop APIs that the community embraces and uses, because as you explained above, that's a No-no. It's obviously also not developing and promoting a package format accepted and used by the community and by third party developers, because everyone from RedHat to Debian, Arch, Slackware etc. can come up with their own packages but Canonical must not.

                Originally posted by vito View Post
                All the important ones do.
                Well LXD is rather important, I think. Much more than say Mir, if you ask me.

                Originally posted by vito View Post
                This is a textbook example of fragmentation. :-)
                Nice strawman, but do you know what else works this way? The Linux kernel. No, it doesn't have a CLA, but virtually every distro has its own fork of it, with different features, patches and updated merged in. That's not to mention Android and the embedded world. Yes, I can't actually think of any other open source project as "fragmented" as Linux. Yet last time I checked, the sky still hasn't fallen.

                Originally posted by vito View Post
                Snap is "bad" (as you put it) because Canonical is re-inventing the wheel again, just like they did with Mir etc. In the perfect world, they would have collaborated with the community on Flatpak.
                Well Flatpak doesn't have any entitlement that others should automatically collaborate on it, especially judging by the fact that "the community" essentially ignores it completely. It has existed for years under the name "XDG App" and no one gave a flick about it. But the moment Ubuntu introduced another format which, unlike Flatpak, sees some real world usage, an infinitisemal number Flatpak of fanboys started barracking for it while no-one seems to use it as a first-party distribution channel save for half a dozen GNOME packages, some of which now directly support snap too.

                Originally posted by vito View Post
                So Canonical starting Mir (for example) instead of collaborating with the rest of community (on Wayland for example) is a myth? It must be nice in your parallel universe. :-)
                I still don't see how starting a FOSS project is such a terrible crime, because once again, when someone creates something, that doesn't confer an automatic right to expect everyone to use it and embrace it. Competition is good, you know. In the case of Mir, no-one says it was a success. Canonical was in fact the first end user-friendly distro that introduced Wayland (Fedora is by design very bleeding edge and experimental), so your point is as moot as all the previous ones.

                Originally posted by vito View Post
                And for this you can thank the FOSS community - the ones that play well with each other.
                Of which Canonical is a member

                Originally posted by vito View Post
                This conversation reminds me of the one I had with an Apple fan about why Apple creating their own 3D API (i.e. Metal) instead of using Vulkan is bad for the community.
                You are wrong on two accounts. Firstly I'm not a Canonical fanboy, in fact I have critisied them a lot for many things. Secondly, Metal seems to be a resounding success for the community of Apple users and developers.

                Comment

                Working...
                X