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

[starshipeleven]

That's how Wine works. You create one Wine prefix per application you want to run and then you customize each prefix. Others can build on thiş to support specific applications. Crossover and PlayonLinux are two examples of this, but there are more. In other words, the core functionality is the uncustomized wine prefix that expects to be customized on a per-application basis.

Then I don't understand why they care about code quality in the application-specific "prefix" as it's.. specific. It's not the first time someone reworked a hack that was working perfectly fine and all hell breaks loose.

[jo-erlend]

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.

They are equally open source. Nobody in the GNU+Linux community would ever say that rpm is useless as a package system without proprietary software just because it's most important store is proprietary. Nobody. Or, at least, nobody who wasn't a complete newbie.

Yes, Canonical's snap server is proprietary, as Red Hats rpm server is proprietary, as most websites are. Whether or not the snap system is usable without Canonical's proprietary store, depends on whether or not it can be used with other stores. I can. Because it's completely open source. One of the arguments against this, was that you'd have to recompile it, but the fact that you are legally able to do so, is what makes it open source. There is no requirement that open source software are multi-server or federalized.

Some people doesn't seem to understand that fast talking doesn't work in written form. The worst thing is that I agree with the point; I also think that users should be able to easily choose which stores to use. But that has nothing to do with the difference between open source and proprietary software and the claim that snap is useless without a proprietary server, is just false.

[Britoid]

Yes, Canonical's snap server is proprietary, as Red Hats rpm server is proprietary,

It's literally an Apache web server with a directory listing. That's all you need for an RPM server.

If you're referring to Koji? Open source.
Or Pague? Open source.
Or Copr? Open source.
or Bodhi? Open source.

Actually, I think 100% of Fedora's infastructure is open source.

You've come out here insulting people, yet the one who's stupid seems to be yourself.

[starshipeleven]

You're not that stupid. Stop pretending.

Sorry, I mean that they work late at night to maintain their beautiful and independent distro, and that shipping packages in the distro is much better than using Flatpak. Really, who still uses Flatpak in 2019

[jo-erlend]

Then I don't understand why they care about code quality in the application-specific "prefix" as it's.. specific. It's not the first time someone reworked a hack that was working perfectly fine and all hell breaks loose.

It's perfectly possible that I don't understand what you mean, but regressions happens in any complex source project and the history of Microsoft Windows isn't a bad example of that – I mean, it has been intentionally broken on several occasions in order to cause havoc in apps. I don't know enough about Wine development to have any opinions on how they should develop it. But to be clear, a Wine prefix is the directory you use, ~/.wine by default. That's where you do the per-app customizations in the form of config tweaks and different versions of DLLs, etc. In Crossover, they're known as Bottles and they have recipes on how to customize a Bottle for specific apps. It's really what you pay for.

[starshipeleven]

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

WTF is Cuba doing in a Linux discussion.

The website is irrelevant. The issue is the server component for hosting repositories. Afaik Snap does not have any server application for third parties to host their own packages.

[jo-erlend]

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

You don't need Canonical's permission to setup your own Snap distro either and there are plenty of open source web servers you can use.

[jo-erlend]

It's literally an Apache web server with a directory listing. That's all you need for an RPM server.

That is the requirement for a Snap server as well. It's a web server and it doesn't matter which one you use. If you do want a payment system, user databases, etc, then that is different. You'll have to create that yourself, as normal websites tend to do. Sure, it would be nice if someone wanted to make a sort of Drupal for Snap distros and anyone who wants to, are free to do so. Canonical isn't required to and the lack of an open source website for commercial Snap distros, does not make Snapd a proprietary system.

[jo-erlend]

WTF is Cuba doing in a Linux discussion.

The website is irrelevant. The issue is the server component for hosting repositories. Afaik Snap does not have any server application for third parties to host their own packages.

The snap server is a web server that provides a RESTful API, all of which is obviously open source, since the client is open source. So what's really missing, is the website/webapp itself, but that would most likely be different between distros anyway, since they probably wouldn't use the same databases, LDAP servers, etc. If you didn't care about advanced features such as payment and CDNs, etc, then you could make your webapp much simpler than Canonical's.

If you wanted to, you could just use an FTP server and a small bash script running wget and then snap install the files you download.

[Britoid]

The snap server is a web server that provides a RESTful API, all of which is obviously open source, since the client is open source. So what's really missing, is the website/webapp itself, but that would most likely be different between distros anyway, since they probably wouldn't use the same databases, LDAP servers, etc. If you didn't care about advanced features such as payment and CDNs, etc, then you could make your webapp much simpler than Canonical's.

If you wanted to, you could just use an FTP server and a small bash script running wget and then snap install the files you download.

It's almost as if you can't read. Read https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...58#post1142358

Stop defending closed-source software. Until there's a workable open-source snap-server alternative, the system is closed-source. It's unethical that Canonical hasn't made one. The fact is Snap is useless without the snap server and the snap server is closed-source. This is in contrast to Flatpak where the Flatpak binary itself can build servers.

But you have a history of defending unethical practices, so why do I bother.