Ubuntu Flavors Dropping Flatpak(discourse.ubuntu.com) |
Ubuntu Flavors Dropping Flatpak(discourse.ubuntu.com) |
One of the reasons Ubuntu effectively lost the privileged spot they had won, among Linux distributions, is this obsession with rewriting backend systems instead of focusing on what brought them users in the first place: all-around polish and ease of use. These things end up generating flamewars and ill-will across users and advocates, and in most cases they simply die after some time.
They should focus again on what really matters. But I'm told Shuttleworth's mind doesn't work like that.
I'm pretty sure what really matters to them is making money which they weren't doing but increasing have been doing since shifting focus from what you and others here seem to think they should be focusing on.
Snap is the last of their pointless flamewars, achieving nothing but a slowdown in adoption - the only metric that really differentiates them from the pack.
'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.
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.
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.
Long live the .txz!
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.
Garden variety self-deception.
> I don't want to overstate the significance of this -- it's about as dark as dawn-break.
I don't see any significance in it. What exactly is the problem?
I don't have an issue in them preferring their solutions, I have an issue with them trying to convince us that it's for our benefit -- not theirs.
XKCD standards summarizes my sentiment well: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png
edit: Snap in itself isn't a dark pattern. I've explained why I feel like this change, and particularly the handling, is.
