3 ms·

I wasn't the OP, so accusing me of FUD is somewhat misguided. On the other hand, the design of snap, despite the code being open source, does not mean that the

I wasn't the OP, so accusing me of FUD is somewhat misguided. On the other hand, the design of snap, despite the code being open source, does not mean that the system (system as a collection of code, network services, network effects, network control, bizdev relations, etc) as a whole is non-proprietary. For similar story, see also: Android.

simion314 8y ago
This is still false. Android is open source, see the forks. What is not open source is the services on top. The development process is not open for Android but you did not provided any fact to show contribution was not accepted by Canonical. You are complaining that an open source tool is not using your preferred thing, you want snap to point to a Debian store, get the source, replace the Canonical store url with a Debian store, then create the store backend and implement the APIs. Do you have any complaint about the Canonical store? Did they censored your favorite thing or your issue is that you can't just from principles. Edit About my FUD accusation, maybe you should not get involved in a comment where I correct the OP about him spreading FUD in a vague attempt to protect him. The comment thread was not about what format is better is all about what proprietary means and not have fanboys use the terms wrong.