4 ms·
Again, this does not address what I took issue with, which is "explicitly for profit". There is no indication that this assertion is even remotely true. I did c
by kodah 6y ago
Again, this does not address what I took issue with, which is "explicitly for profit". There is no indication that this assertion is even remotely true. I did call out the proprietary nature of some of their server code, but again, that does not yield "explicitly for profit" which nullifies the posters point.
- input_sh 6y agoYou've also claimed that it's "almost entirely out of the hands of Canonical", which it is not. I'm with you on the "it's not explicitly-for-profit" point at the moment, but it is set up in a way that it could change at any point. Whether it's set up that way deliberately or not, we can only guess. Anyway, Ubuntu derivatives are approaching the topic with this in mind. Linux Mint forbids snapd from being installed via apt (https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/02/linux_mint_team_snap/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/02/linux_mint_team_snap/), and elementary OS goes a step further and is working on making its entire app ecosystem flatpak-exclusive (https://blog.elementary.io/elementary-appcenter-flatpak/ https://blog.elementary.io/elementary-appcenter-flatpak/).
- kodah 6y agoI used the words "almost entirely" which is confusing, I will admit. I don't use snap for the same reasons. That said, what's being postulated by multiple users here is blatantly false.