3 ms·

>There is no downside to Flatpak's support for multiple repositories and ability to self-host repositories. There are always tradeoffs. I would argue there are

by kd913 6y ago

>There is no downside to Flatpak's support for multiple repositories and ability to self-host repositories. There are always tradeoffs. I would argue there are advantages for having a trusted party vetting my software repos. It's why I even use Ubuntu because I trust Canonical to make some sane decisions when vetting their repositories. You give multiple repository support and suddenly users have to one find a way to add another repo, and second there is no way of removing software from those repositories if they do end up malicious. Which is why I brought up the webupd8 java instance having root access to thousands of machines. >users can optionally add more repositories if they choose to do so. Ubuntu is the version of Linux designed to be used by your grandmother. They want to make it as easy as possible for users to install trusted/safe software from both proprietary/free vendors. It's kind of telling that Mozilla/Microsoft/Spotify/Jetbrains released software as a snap long before it is even possible on flatpak but nevermind that. I don't think you can even get VSCode, Spotify or Intellij on Flatpak.

commoner 6y ago
> You give multiple repository support and suddenly users have to one find a way to add another repo, and second there is no way of removing software from those repositories if they do end up malicious. > Ubuntu is the version of Linux designed to be used by your grandmother. They want to make it as easy as possible for users to install trusted/safe software from both proprietary/free vendors. By default, GNOME Software and KDE Discover only use the Flathub repository. Your grandmother won't be adding other repositories to the Flatpak client. Users who don't add any extra repositories will use Flathub, which is a trusted source of software that runs on an open source server. > It's kind of telling that Mozilla/Microsoft/Spotify/Jetbrains released software as a snap long before it is even possible on flatpak but nevermind that. I don't think you can even get VSCode, Spotify or Intellij on Flatpak. https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.visualstudio.code https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.visualstudio.code https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.spotify.Client https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.spotify.Client https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.jetbrains.IntelliJ-IDEA-Community https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.jetbrains.IntelliJ-...
- kd913 6y ago
  None of those 3 links are provided by Microsoft, Spotify or Jetbrains. Yes they are there, but they are published from 3rd parties. Why exactly do you think that is? The microsoft, spotify and Jetbrains software comes directly from their respective publishers. Problems are supported and debugged directly. That is a major difference.
  - cosmojg 6y ago
    > Why exactly do you think that is? Canonical very publicly collaborated with these companies to get their software on the Snap store while Flathub has been handled in a more free-for-all manner. If you build it, they will come, and all that. Moreover, I'm not so sure Red Hat is as explicitly interested in monopolizing the Linux application ecosystem as Canonical, especially since their acquisition by IBM. Maybe IBM has other ideas, but we likely won't see similar marketing efforts on that front in the near future.
michaelmrose 6y ago
Can we not pretend that the single source nature is anything other than a money grab? It's pretty clear that all you have to do to ensure grandma doesn't add sources is make adding it require the cli.
- kd913 6y ago
  You can watch the discussions from Popey, Martin Wimpress etc... It's pretty clear from their perspective that they built the tech from users/devs first approach. Do you really think Canonical is looking for money over here? If so do please precisely explain in the short-term how exactly you think they are gonna achieve that. Do you think they are suddenly going to be able to dominate the entire 100% Linux desktop software market and charge 30%? Do you think a company like Microsoft/Spotify/Jetbrains would just roll over with that? I don't imagine they can do that considering Red Hat/Suse market position. Nor do I see the total Linux Desktop applications being a blip at all on their revenue streams. Last I checked, they are still providing infrastructure to the Linux community for free. They still have more market share then the rest of the Linux distros combined. That and without them, Linux Mint wouldn't be operating as they do now. Frankly they don't deserve the hatred the FOSS community throws at them and you are being somewhat disingenuous by presenting them as such.
  - commoner 6y ago
    The FOSS community opposes Snap because its server is closed source and forces vendor lock-in to Canonical, among other reasons. This is fairly simple to understand and not "disingenuous".
    - kd913 6y ago
      You haven't even explained how it's vendor lock-in. Canonical has no way designed their approach to ban the use of apt, rpm, deb, flatpak or appimages. They are in no way of a position to dominate the market in the way Google does with Android and it's stupid to even think that is their aim. It should be pretty obvious to you why they aren't exactly going to claim 30% commission on nothing from users who are as cost averse as possible. It should be plainly obvious to you also how they don't have the clout to bully software vendors to publish for them. They have already plenty of evidence that profitability of distribution of linux software isn't exactly a lucrative market like Google or Apple. The fact that you think that is their aim or that it is feasible in the FOSS Linux community with large scale players like Google/Microsoft/IBM is ludicrous. Canonical tries to attempt to get such vendor lock-in and they would lose so much marketshare apps on their store instantaneously. They aren't even in a position like Apple/Google/Microsoft here who charge money to publish apps. I have already explained how that argument is complete nonsense.
addicted 6y ago
Your first argument is an argument against using Linux at all.
kelnos 6y ago
> They want to make it as easy as possible for users to install trusted/safe software from both proprietary/free vendors. Canonical deciding that Ubuntu won't allow third-party Snap repositories is completely orthogonal to open sourcing their Snap server and/or making it easy for people to develop alternatives. They can perfectly well do both.

by kd913 6y ago

commoner 6y ago

> You give multiple repository support and suddenly users have to one find a way to add another repo, and second there is no way of removing software from those repositories if they do end up malicious. > Ubuntu is the version of Linux designed to be used by your grandmother. They want to make it as easy as possible for users to install trusted/safe software from both proprietary/free vendors. By default, GNOME Software and KDE Discover only use the Flathub repository. Your grandmother won't be adding other repositories to the Flatpak client. Users who don't add any extra repositories will use Flathub, which is a trusted source of software that runs on an open source server. > It's kind of telling that Mozilla/Microsoft/Spotify/Jetbrains released software as a snap long before it is even possible on flatpak but nevermind that. I don't think you can even get VSCode, Spotify or Intellij on Flatpak. https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.visualstudio.code https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.visualstudio.code https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.spotify.Client https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.spotify.Client https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.jetbrains.IntelliJ-IDEA-Community https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.jetbrains.IntelliJ-...

kd913 6y ago
None of those 3 links are provided by Microsoft, Spotify or Jetbrains. Yes they are there, but they are published from 3rd parties. Why exactly do you think that is? The microsoft, spotify and Jetbrains software comes directly from their respective publishers. Problems are supported and debugged directly. That is a major difference.
- cosmojg 6y ago
  > Why exactly do you think that is? Canonical very publicly collaborated with these companies to get their software on the Snap store while Flathub has been handled in a more free-for-all manner. If you build it, they will come, and all that. Moreover, I'm not so sure Red Hat is as explicitly interested in monopolizing the Linux application ecosystem as Canonical, especially since their acquisition by IBM. Maybe IBM has other ideas, but we likely won't see similar marketing efforts on that front in the near future.

michaelmrose 6y ago

Can we not pretend that the single source nature is anything other than a money grab? It's pretty clear that all you have to do to ensure grandma doesn't add sources is make adding it require the cli.

kd913 6y ago
You can watch the discussions from Popey, Martin Wimpress etc... It's pretty clear from their perspective that they built the tech from users/devs first approach. Do you really think Canonical is looking for money over here? If so do please precisely explain in the short-term how exactly you think they are gonna achieve that. Do you think they are suddenly going to be able to dominate the entire 100% Linux desktop software market and charge 30%? Do you think a company like Microsoft/Spotify/Jetbrains would just roll over with that? I don't imagine they can do that considering Red Hat/Suse market position. Nor do I see the total Linux Desktop applications being a blip at all on their revenue streams. Last I checked, they are still providing infrastructure to the Linux community for free. They still have more market share then the rest of the Linux distros combined. That and without them, Linux Mint wouldn't be operating as they do now. Frankly they don't deserve the hatred the FOSS community throws at them and you are being somewhat disingenuous by presenting them as such.
- commoner 6y ago
  The FOSS community opposes Snap because its server is closed source and forces vendor lock-in to Canonical, among other reasons. This is fairly simple to understand and not "disingenuous".
  - kd913 6y ago
    You haven't even explained how it's vendor lock-in. Canonical has no way designed their approach to ban the use of apt, rpm, deb, flatpak or appimages. They are in no way of a position to dominate the market in the way Google does with Android and it's stupid to even think that is their aim. It should be pretty obvious to you why they aren't exactly going to claim 30% commission on nothing from users who are as cost averse as possible. It should be plainly obvious to you also how they don't have the clout to bully software vendors to publish for them. They have already plenty of evidence that profitability of distribution of linux software isn't exactly a lucrative market like Google or Apple. The fact that you think that is their aim or that it is feasible in the FOSS Linux community with large scale players like Google/Microsoft/IBM is ludicrous. Canonical tries to attempt to get such vendor lock-in and they would lose so much marketshare apps on their store instantaneously. They aren't even in a position like Apple/Google/Microsoft here who charge money to publish apps. I have already explained how that argument is complete nonsense.

addicted 6y ago

Your first argument is an argument against using Linux at all.

kelnos 6y ago

> They want to make it as easy as possible for users to install trusted/safe software from both proprietary/free vendors. Canonical deciding that Ubuntu won't allow third-party Snap repositories is completely orthogonal to open sourcing their Snap server and/or making it easy for people to develop alternatives. They can perfectly well do both.