Canonical Formulates The 32-Bit Support Strategy For Ubuntu 20.04 LTS

[jo-erlend]

Canonical isn't supporting shit either way, they are simply repacking Debian just like Devuan does.

It is a matter of control and user lock-in. Canonical is not going to use a generic system you can replicate everywhere with ease (the Flatpak route).

You're not that stupid. Stop pretending.

[jo-erlend]

Sorry, that's rubbish.

The Snap server is closed-source

You mean in the same way nearly all websites are proprietary. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Linux isn't Cuba.

[ssokolow]

Per prefix, not per exe.

Setting arch=win32 or arch=win64 is per-prefix. I'm talking about the "Windows Version" dropdown on the Applications tab in winecfg.

[Vistaus]

Ubuntu supports Flatpak perfectly well.

And how does that invalidate Britoid's point? He said SHIPPING with Flatpak. That's NOT the same as supporting it.

[Britoid]

You mean in the same way nearly all websites are proprietary. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Linux isn't Cuba.

Terrible comparison. You're surely not that stupid.

It's useless without a closed-source piece of software, and this is supposed to be adopted by the free and open source software community.

[Vistaus]

Steam on Linux is mostly 64-bit. It only requires 32-bit dependencies so that users have to install them while installing Steam instead of finding out that game X won't run and wondering why.

Regardless, Valve are moving towards a 64-bit only world, with a recent beta having added a Flatpak style containerization option to run the 32-bit games in... or even all of them, for sandboxing purposes. https://steamcommunity.com/app/22141...5549018366706/

Recent beta? I too see the container option and I'm not on the beta channel.

[jo-erlend]

Setting arch=win32 or arch=win64 is per-prefix. I'm talking about the "Windows Version" dropdown on the Applications tab in winecfg.

Oh, yes, you're absolutely correct. Sorry about that.

[Vistaus]

You mean in the same way nearly all websites are proprietary. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Linux isn't Cuba.

But the point was that someone said that Flatpak and Snap are EQUALLY open source. That's what he was trying to address. Whether or not you see partly closed-source as an issue is a different subject altogether.

[jo-erlend]

Terrible comparison. You're surely not that stupid.

It's useless without a closed-source piece of software, and this is supposed to be adopted by the free and open source software community.

That is pure falsehood. Why do you do this? I mean, anyone who's not a complete newbie are able to use your kind of sophistry in order to "prove" that Firefox is a proprietary product that is only useful as such. But that's all about tricking people who doesn't know better. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean you can't be honest. I don't understand why you'd want to present yourself as a conman just to "win" a discussion in a community of people who knows how software works.

[Britoid]

Except if you want to make something for Firefox you don't have to ask for Mozilla's permission and you have plenty of open source web servers