Ubuntu Flavors Dropping Flatpak
discourse.ubuntu.com
Ubuntu Flavors Dropping Flatpak
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Ubuntu Flavors Dropping Flatpak
#2Yay! When do they get rid of snaps?
Re: Ubuntu Flavors Dropping Flatpak
#3Yay! When do they get rid of snaps?
Heh, they're removing flatpak from the default installation to encourage more Snap
'For the users', please.
The maintenance cost is the same, default or no. It's being built and presumably tested if offered, this serves only to create friction
Edit: before someone says it, yes Canonical can put what they want in their distribution
Just don't try to convince me that taking away defaults improves my options. Be honest, you want to champion your thing.
This is more a criticism of their willingness to rely on dark patterns.
Re: Ubuntu Flavors Dropping Flatpak
#4Yay! When do they get rid of snaps?
Heh, they're removing flatpak from the default installation to encourage more Snap 'For the users', please. The maintenance cost is the same, default or no. It's being built and presumably tested if offered, this serves only to create friction Edit: before someone says it, yes Canonical can put what they want in their distribution Just don't try to convince me that taking away defaults improves my options. Be honest,…
debs have always been fine with me.
Re: Ubuntu Flavors Dropping Flatpak
#5Nice corporate bullshit article again, that have first thousands of worlds to tell you how they favor diversity... And this is why they will do something to ensure that you don't use anything else than their shitty snap!
Re: Ubuntu Flavors Dropping Flatpak
#6Yay! When do they get rid of snaps?
Agreed. I think they're both awful, and so far have been successful in avoiding them completely.
Ubuntu and I have never gotten along very well on a technical level, so I don't use it. Maybe that's working out for the best.
Re: Ubuntu Flavors Dropping Flatpak
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, they're removing flatpak from the default installation to encourage more Snap 'For the users', please. The maintenance cost is the same, default or no. It's being built and presumably tested if offered, this serves only to create friction Edit: before someone says it, yes Canonical can put what they want in their distribution Just don't try to convince me that taking away defaults improves my options. Be honest,…
debs have always been fine with me.
debs are a nightmare compared to a SlackBuild.
Long live the .txz!
Re: Ubuntu Flavors Dropping Flatpak
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, they're removing flatpak from the default installation to encourage more Snap 'For the users', please. The maintenance cost is the same, default or no. It's being built and presumably tested if offered, this serves only to create friction Edit: before someone says it, yes Canonical can put what they want in their distribution Just don't try to convince me that taking away defaults improves my options. Be honest,…
debs have always been fine with me.
Same here, generally -- as a user I don't really give a bother.
As long as I can avoid building from source / hunting deps for the most part, I'm good. I'll do this for maybe 10% of what I need; beyond that it's untenable.
If I were trying to publish my thing(s) I may care more, but probably not -- I just maintain several RPMs for other projects on Fedora/EL derivatives.
Re: Ubuntu Flavors Dropping Flatpak
#9Yay! When do they get rid of snaps?
Heh, they're removing flatpak from the default installation to encourage more Snap 'For the users', please. The maintenance cost is the same, default or no. It's being built and presumably tested if offered, this serves only to create friction Edit: before someone says it, yes Canonical can put what they want in their distribution Just don't try to convince me that taking away defaults improves my options. Be honest,…
Yet more "snap is a dark pattern" kind of comment.
Why is snap a "dark pattern"?
Re: Ubuntu Flavors Dropping Flatpak
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heh, they're removing flatpak from the default installation to encourage more Snap 'For the users', please. The maintenance cost is the same, default or no. It's being built and presumably tested if offered, this serves only to create friction Edit: before someone says it, yes Canonical can put what they want in their distribution Just don't try to convince me that taking away defaults improves my options. Be honest,…
Yet more "snap is a dark pattern" kind of comment. Why is snap a "dark pattern"?
Dark pattern: a user interface that has been carefully crafted to trick users into doing things
The 'interface' (tool availability) has been crafted such that users are likely to favor Snap over Flatpak... because Flatpak now takes a step that only serves to prop up Snap: installation of the runtime
I don't want to overstate the significance of this -- it's about as dark as dawn-break. Canonical is still maintaining/offering it, and I can get behind supporting Their Thing.
The worst thing about this is the messaging. If they had just done the thing and said nothing, I'd have nothing to complain about.
It could be taken as curation -- the messaging aims to convince that fewer options = more better.
edit: Some irony to this is we'd be closer to their idealized state of 'one way to install' had they instead chosen to adopt Flatpak over insist that Snap has to happen.