4 ms·

I hate closed platforms as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't count on this getting very far. Snap has a lot of functionality that Flatpak doesn't (and vice-v

I hate closed platforms as much as the next guy, but I wouldn't count on this getting very far. Snap has a lot of functionality that Flatpak doesn't (and vice-versa). They fill almost completely different niches, and I highly doubt desktop Linux users were the cash cows Canonical was counting on in the first place. It's nice that this exists, but it's not the David vs Goliath story many might spin it to sound like.

brucethemoose2 3y ago
> Snap has a lot of functionality that Flatpak doesn't (and vice-versa). Like what?
lockhouse 3y ago
The only business proposition for desktop Linux is winning the hearts and minds that make enterprise purchasing decisions and getting community members to do some of the heavy lifting of package maintenance and peer support.
- frozenport 3y ago
  other stranger ideas include selling hardware with good linux support
toyg 3y ago
> I highly doubt desktop Linux users were the cash cows Canonical was counting on in the first place. Well, actually, that was very much Canonical's original business plan: polishing the Linux desktop so it could be sold to consumers and businesses. It just so happened that the virtual-machine/cloud "revolution" took place shortly after, and precisely because Ubuntu had gained mindshare by being "easy" and "polished", they had an advantage (as people preferred to use something they were already comfortable with) and became the most popular distribution for cloud deployments. Unfortunately they've since been unable to capitalize on that, partially because of bouts of "NIH" like Snaps.