Some Fedora Users Concerned GNOME Software Promotes Proprietary Software With Flathub

[re:fi.64]

This seems a bit ridiculous to me because doesn't ship with Flathub ootb anyway, and if you've added Flathub it's often because you need some proprietary software.

That being said, do note that WG proposals don't always result in anything.

[duby229]

most of you have no clue what you're talking about. Fedora -is- Fedora -because- it doesn't even give the option to install proprietary packages without using third party repo's.... This has been the status quo for -decades-.... It's a huge part of the reason for its success. If everybody was pining for proprietary apps the -NO- Linux distro would have been a success. Facts of what has happened and is continuing to happen prove that most people don't need proprietary apps provided good open source alternatives. And those same people are too ignorant to even realize it. They don't need to realize it.

[tildearrow]

Typo:

At today's working working group meeting,

[ElectricPrism]

Everyone has an opinion but fails to remember or care that Fedora by default installs no proprietary software and has no access to such software without adding extra repositories.

So the reason this issue comes up is because it goes against the grain of their ethos. It's fundamental to their identity and their values.

I liked the suggestion about adding filter by license controls and making it a more prominent category or distinction that can be disabled by default even. I can understand, it would be like Gentoo shipping binaries by default as a primary install source over source-built portage packages.

[wizard69]

Promoting blobs is really a shoot in the foot. I can't understand

Honestly Flatpaks are ideal for blobs. The last thing I want is a packaged piece of software screwing up my system.

[wizard69]

Oh woe is those poor freedom fighters, how dare that evil proprietary software invade their safe space by simply showing a logo.

Like, who cares, just don't install it. Why do people obsessed with free software have to throw a tantrum at the mere echo of something that isn't GPLv3'd.

I’m of the same opinion, these guys act like 5 year olds. Beyond that what is their problem with making money off software? It is up to the developers actually writing the software to determine how to copyright it. Some of these guys must have been born with a silver spoon in their mouths and never had the need to work to feed themselves.

[CommunityMember]

Last I checked (and I do not regularly use gnome-software), if you actually check the license on these example (before clicking install), it says "Proprietary". Those that do not check if the software they are installing is truly free are likely to end up with proprietary software.

Rather than treating users as clueless and needing of protection, we should prioritize education, and trust that they can make their own informed choices.

[SpyroRyder]

Sounds like they need to be able to filter by license. Add that abiility to Flathub and Gnome Software then just turn it on

[ssokolow]

Yawn seriously. Want to attract new users to Linux or not? Plenty of people around the use services such as Spotify. They will want such things to run period. Isn't the app sand boxed ? Does Gnome advertising dollars that the can use to further development?

As I see it, the complaint is about recommending proprietary apps, not offering them.

[DarkFoss]

Yawn seriously. Want to attract new users to Linux or not? Plenty of people around the use services such as Spotify. They will want such things to run period. Isn't the app sand boxed ? Does Gnome advertising dollars that the can use to further development?