4 ms·

>Would you describe exactly what will be expensive in releasing the source code to software that was developed in house? Does it have lots of dependencies on pr

by kd913 6y ago

>Would you describe exactly what will be expensive in releasing the source code to software that was developed in house? Does it have lots of dependencies on proprietary software? If so, why? Im not too sure as I don't work for Canonical. However, from an external perspective having worked with bzr and launchpad, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a bunch of aspects there that would make opensourcing a nightmare. Things like potentially giving some mechanism that could enable a user to sign/publish on behalf of Canonical snaps/packages for example. That kind of thing would probably need to be removed. Deep integration between CI/operational infrastructure for things like building images. I can imagine after Canonical's experience of launchpad that they probably did hardcode aspects and it isn't some modular thing you can just spin up on docker. >And this, is the killer. This is exactly what the people at Linux Mint do not want. This is why F-Droid exists on Android. Yes, free software can be distributed on the snap store or on Google Play, but ultimately these are proprietary platforms controlled by one corporate entity whose interests may not be aligned with those of the community. Users of community Linux distros demand choice in where they obtain software. Snaps I checked aren't there to replace apt. They don't prevent the install of flatpak, appimages or any alternative. Canonical has no agreement that prevents parties like Mozilla/KDE from only publishing on the snap store. >Malware has already been successfully pushed to the Snap Store. We now trust software because it came from a store that removes well known malware. There was one case of a snap bundled with a cryptominer. That was settled within 3 days and addressed to the community in a blog. Since then, it has been deliberately looked for. As someone who has published on the snap store, yes there are some checks present to ensure malicious software isn't being pushed. >The idea of "trust" here is also antithetical to open-source and software freedom. Rather than trusting software because it has verifiable source code, It is really easy for me to see exactly what is being run/executed on the snaps that I install. In fact I have built/used snaps successfully without even the snap store all together.

commoner 6y ago
> However, from an external perspective having worked with bzr and launchpad, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a bunch of aspects there that would make opensourcing a nightmare. If Canonical, as a Linux company, is not willing to spend the effort to open source their software, then Snap can continue to be rejected by Linux distributions. Canonical's most obvious reason for keeping the Snap server closed source is to lock its users into a proprietary and centralized system that it has full control over. This strategy is no different from Apple disallowing installations outside of the App Store on iOS, and Google disallowing alternative app stores in Google Play.
- kd913 6y ago
  You haven't really at all explained any justifiable reason for Canonical to open source it. You still haven't argued at all the resource aspects which are I think the primary motivator here. Canonical has done this experiment precisely in the past, and we see the results of nobody operating their own launchpad instance. Nobody contributing back. That experience probably trumps all of this goodwill and opinions from the community. Canonical is more importantly getting users, publishers and numbers behind them. A discussion I remember reading was that every snap has 10x more installs than the corresponding flatpak. That and they have 1st party support from major publishers like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Spotify, Mozilla, Jetbrains, KDE etc.... Those aspects are more important for usability for the average user.
  - commoner 6y ago
    > You haven't really at all explained any justifiable reason for Canonical to open source it. I've explained why it would be in the users' interest for Canonical to open source the Snap store: it reduces vendor lock-in and allows the users to enjoy the benefits of open source software (the ability to use, study, share, and improve the software with no restrictions). Whether open sourcing the Snap server benefits Canonical is irrelevant to the users.
    - kd913 6y ago
      No you think it would be in the users' interest but it absolutely isn't. I'm willing to bet money you haven't looked at launchpad's source code at all. Nor have you or anyone else considered operating their own. That is how most of the Ubuntu based distros right now are already getting their software. If Canonical goes down, a huge part of the usable linux market goes down with it. Possibly Linux Mint too, unless im mistaken. >vendor lock-in You are not vendor locked in. You can install flatpak, install via apt, appimages etc... Canonical doesn't ban the removal of snapd from ubuntu distros. In fact, from a Linux dev I would argue that half the fragmentation for pointless nonsense like packaging and distributions has harmed the community far more. Namely because it's increased the cost of development for these things to a degree that companies won't even bother developing/publishing software on Linux. That has been the primary problem for Linux so far. Canonical is actually getting first party support from major publishers and people still lampoon them. This includes publishers in the past who never would have considered publishing for Linux before.

by kd913 6y ago

commoner 6y ago

> However, from an external perspective having worked with bzr and launchpad, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a bunch of aspects there that would make opensourcing a nightmare. If Canonical, as a Linux company, is not willing to spend the effort to open source their software, then Snap can continue to be rejected by Linux distributions. Canonical's most obvious reason for keeping the Snap server closed source is to lock its users into a proprietary and centralized system that it has full control over. This strategy is no different from Apple disallowing installations outside of the App Store on iOS, and Google disallowing alternative app stores in Google Play.

kd913 6y ago
You haven't really at all explained any justifiable reason for Canonical to open source it. You still haven't argued at all the resource aspects which are I think the primary motivator here. Canonical has done this experiment precisely in the past, and we see the results of nobody operating their own launchpad instance. Nobody contributing back. That experience probably trumps all of this goodwill and opinions from the community. Canonical is more importantly getting users, publishers and numbers behind them. A discussion I remember reading was that every snap has 10x more installs than the corresponding flatpak. That and they have 1st party support from major publishers like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Spotify, Mozilla, Jetbrains, KDE etc.... Those aspects are more important for usability for the average user.
- commoner 6y ago
  > You haven't really at all explained any justifiable reason for Canonical to open source it. I've explained why it would be in the users' interest for Canonical to open source the Snap store: it reduces vendor lock-in and allows the users to enjoy the benefits of open source software (the ability to use, study, share, and improve the software with no restrictions). Whether open sourcing the Snap server benefits Canonical is irrelevant to the users.
  - kd913 6y ago
    No you think it would be in the users' interest but it absolutely isn't. I'm willing to bet money you haven't looked at launchpad's source code at all. Nor have you or anyone else considered operating their own. That is how most of the Ubuntu based distros right now are already getting their software. If Canonical goes down, a huge part of the usable linux market goes down with it. Possibly Linux Mint too, unless im mistaken. >vendor lock-in You are not vendor locked in. You can install flatpak, install via apt, appimages etc... Canonical doesn't ban the removal of snapd from ubuntu distros. In fact, from a Linux dev I would argue that half the fragmentation for pointless nonsense like packaging and distributions has harmed the community far more. Namely because it's increased the cost of development for these things to a degree that companies won't even bother developing/publishing software on Linux. That has been the primary problem for Linux so far. Canonical is actually getting first party support from major publishers and people still lampoon them. This includes publishers in the past who never would have considered publishing for Linux before.