3 ms·

The whole point is that this is technically worse and only being used to try to bootstrap a walled garden where they (RedHat, Canonical for flatpack or snap) ge

The whole point is that this is technically worse and only being used to try to bootstrap a walled garden where they (RedHat, Canonical for flatpack or snap) get paid a fee due to a monopoly on app distribution to their users. This is not 'the revolution' we should support. I encourage you to study the technical arguments until you understand them well enough that they become convincing.

panick21_ 5y ago
> monopoly on app distribution to their users And the argument that it is a walled garden is simply nonsense. Its not monopoly any more then any default repository is. > I encourage you to study the technical arguments until you understand them well enough that they become convincing. I have been using flatpak since it came out and many other people in this thread have already pointed out the failure of the technical arguments, no need to do that again.
- ltbarcly3 5y ago
  I guess Canonical, who makes 100% of their revenue on support contracts for open source software, doesn't release the snap server code in open source because... what's the reason you are going to come up with? What possible reason is there apart from making it difficult for anyone else to set up any repository at all? It's the same reason they bet big on Ubuntu on Phones. App stores are worth a ton of money, you contribute effectively nothing and collect 25% of other company's revenue purely because you can lock out any competing app store.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    I don't care about Snap, only Flatpak.
    - ltbarcly3 5y ago
      Good for you, here is some candy?
      - panick21_ 5y ago
        Your arguments simply don't hold any water when we are talking about Flatpak. So I guess you can have candy but no water.
        ltbarcly3 5y ago
        Just announcing that you think something you disagree with is wrong isn't an argument at all. I know you think my arguments are wrong since you are disagreeing. The only reason you have given for thinking they are wrong is that you don't think they are convincing. This may be because you have a secret reason you don't want to share, but I believe it is more likely you are more interested in being disagreeable than in understanding.

panick21_ 5y ago

> monopoly on app distribution to their users And the argument that it is a walled garden is simply nonsense. Its not monopoly any more then any default repository is. > I encourage you to study the technical arguments until you understand them well enough that they become convincing. I have been using flatpak since it came out and many other people in this thread have already pointed out the failure of the technical arguments, no need to do that again.

ltbarcly3 5y ago
I guess Canonical, who makes 100% of their revenue on support contracts for open source software, doesn't release the snap server code in open source because... what's the reason you are going to come up with? What possible reason is there apart from making it difficult for anyone else to set up any repository at all? It's the same reason they bet big on Ubuntu on Phones. App stores are worth a ton of money, you contribute effectively nothing and collect 25% of other company's revenue purely because you can lock out any competing app store.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  I don't care about Snap, only Flatpak.
  - ltbarcly3 5y ago
    Good for you, here is some candy?
    - panick21_ 5y ago
      Your arguments simply don't hold any water when we are talking about Flatpak. So I guess you can have candy but no water.
      - ltbarcly3 5y ago
        Just announcing that you think something you disagree with is wrong isn't an argument at all. I know you think my arguments are wrong since you are disagreeing. The only reason you have given for thinking they are wrong is that you don't think they are convincing. This may be because you have a secret reason you don't want to share, but I believe it is more likely you are more interested in being disagreeable than in understanding.