1A. Its a negative because it imposes both a third parties control on global open source software or possibly worse the control imposed by the parties country o

1A. Its a negative because it imposes both a third parties control on global open source software or possibly worse the control imposed by the parties country of residence. Literally the only reason one would keep in closed source is to profit from designing the system in a fashion that is disadvantageous to others. For instance if it works like channels its virtually impossible to charge a percentage like Apple's app store because people will just publish to a free channel, every distro will include the free channel, and users will just ignore the paid channel. Consider the paucity of software on the Mac app store vs the iphone app store. 1B. There will never be an open source Snap store backend because it would both be more work than you imagine and continued work to retain compatibility of both front and back. If you try you will most likely end up with something that sometimes work sometimes fails and takes a full time maintenance. You may as well call it "snap but shittier how I burned 200k figuring out how moats work" 2. The problem isn't merely re-inventing the wheel its reinventing it for no reason and doing it poorly then not integrating it in a fashion that makes it easy on the average user. The casual user of ubuntu may end up end up needing traditional packages, snaps, flatpaks, ppas. If I understand correctly the current state of software management they can easily install both traditional and snap packages but will have to turn to additional cli tools to integrate ppas and flatpaks. Arch with the AUR enabled provides funny enough an easier and simpler experience. 3.Agreed 4. The is a positive wherein new versions never fuck things up or remove features that users rely on. This doesn't seem to be the current state of play and pinning a version or launching an older version seems to be table stakes for dealing with flawed software.