• Pasta Dental
    link
    fedilink
    102 days ago

    It’s a shame that snaps are forced to use Canonicals closed source backend because they are really good, and a fully snap system is a very compelling idea for immutable systems

    • @lengau@midwest.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      -42 days ago

      They’re not forced to do so. You can install snaps locally (or provide a distribution system that treats snapd much the way apt treats dpkg), or you can point snapd at a different store. The snap store API is open and documented, and for a while there was even a separate snap store project. It seems to have died out because despite people’s contention about Canonical’s snap store, they didn’t actually actually want to run their own snap stores.

      • Morphit
        link
        fedilink
        32 days ago

        I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. It makes perfect sense that Cannonical made it’s own proprietary package ecosystem and while technically anyone can build their own snap store, ain’t nobody got time for that.

        • @jim3692@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          24 hours ago

          I don’t agree that it made any sense to do that. If they wanted to containerize apps, there has been an open source solution to that for years; Flatpak.

          ain’t nobody got time for that

          As an app maintainer, that wants to support Ubuntu, why would I prefer to deploy a snap server, instead of publishing deb files, or creating a Flatpak?