Can we not pretend that the single source nature is anything other than a money grab? It's pretty clear that all you have to do to ensure grandma doesn't add sources is make adding it require the cli.
You can watch the discussions from Popey, Martin Wimpress etc... It's pretty clear from their perspective that they built the tech from users/devs first approach.
Do you really think Canonical is looking for money over here? If so do please precisely explain in the short-term how exactly you think they are gonna achieve that.
Do you think they are suddenly going to be able to dominate the entire 100% Linux desktop software market and charge 30%? Do you think a company like Microsoft/Spotify/Jetbrains would just roll over with that? I don't imagine they can do that considering Red Hat/Suse market position. Nor do I see the total Linux Desktop applications being a blip at all on their revenue streams.
Last I checked, they are still providing infrastructure to the Linux community for free. They still have more market share then the rest of the Linux distros combined. That and without them, Linux Mint wouldn't be operating as they do now.
Frankly they don't deserve the hatred the FOSS community throws at them and you are being somewhat disingenuous by presenting them as such.
The FOSS community opposes Snap because its server is closed source and forces vendor lock-in to Canonical, among other reasons. This is fairly simple to understand and not "disingenuous".
> The FOSS community opposes Snap because its server is closed source
If this was true FOSS projects wouldn't be publishing things on the snap store (they are, and they publish on google play, winget, and other closed app stores).
No one can claim they speak for whatever you think "the FOSS community" is, let alone what it opposes or supports.
You haven't even explained how it's vendor lock-in. Canonical has no way designed their approach to ban the use of apt, rpm, deb, flatpak or appimages. They are in no way of a position to dominate the market in the way Google does with Android and it's stupid to even think that is their aim.
It should be pretty obvious to you why they aren't exactly going to claim 30% commission on nothing from users who are as cost averse as possible. It should be plainly obvious to you also how they don't have the clout to bully software vendors to publish for them.
They have already plenty of evidence that profitability of distribution of linux software isn't exactly a lucrative market like Google or Apple. The fact that you think that is their aim or that it is feasible in the FOSS Linux community with large scale players like Google/Microsoft/IBM is ludicrous. Canonical tries to attempt to get such vendor lock-in and they would lose so much marketshare apps on their store instantaneously. They aren't even in a position like Apple/Google/Microsoft here who charge money to publish apps.
I have already explained how that argument is complete nonsense.
There are degrees to vendor lock-in, and it's not black and white as you portray it to be. Flatpak and apt exhibit minimal lock-in, because they are decentralized and fully open source. Snap, on the other hand, has a closed source server that is controlled solely by Canonical. Since the Snap Store is the only preinstalled app store on Ubuntu, this results in a greater degree of lock-in than Flatpak and apt.
The backlash from Linux Mint and other distributions was partly caused by Canonical using Snap for Chromium when the user intended to install it through apt. This sleight of hand is not as extreme as a 30% commission, but it's a step in the wrong direction. The FOSS community is able to reject moves toward vendor lock-in even if the closed source Snap server does not mandate a 30% commission.
>There are degrees to vendor lock-in, and it's not black and white as you portray it to be. Flatpak and apt exhibit minimal lock-in, because they are decentralized and fully open source. Snap, on the other hand, has a closed source server that is controlled solely by Canonical. Since the Snap Store is the only preinstalled app store on Ubuntu, this results in a greater degree of lock-in than Flatpak and apt.
You keep repeating yourself. Having a default mechanism for installing software installed on Ubuntu distros that is using Ubuntu based infrastructure does not constitute vendor lock in. Guess what, Ubuntu uses apt rather than yum. That isn't vendor lock in either.
Having a proprietary back end does not constitute vendor lock in.
What you are saying is the equivalent of using spotify is vendor lock in. That or using Firefox. Heck Canonical's model here is practically no different from Firefox with their addon store.
A developer can choose to ignore snap all together and still distribute on Ubuntu. A user can choose to ignore snap all together and still install software on Ubuntu. They will have to face the consequence of not having to use chromium because nobody is willing to maintain it other than Canonical.
What is this nonsense that you are spouting.
>The backlash from Linux Mint and other distributions was partly caused by Canonical using Snap for Chromium when the user intended to install it through apt. This sleight of hand is not as extreme as a 30% commission, but it's a step in the wrong direction. The FOSS community is able to reject moves toward vendor lock-in even if the closed source Snap server does not mandate a 30% commission.
Because any move that you or Mint disagrees with is a 'step' in the wrong direction? So be it, I and probably Canonical would rather be wrong.
Snap has 10x the install base for each snap compared to flatpak. It also has more first party software support.
> Guess what, Ubuntu uses apt rather than yum. That isn't vendor lock in either.
Apt and yum both support configuring multiple repos, their protocols are well-documented, there are an abundance of repo implementations, etc. If apt only supported a single upstream repo and Debian kept the source proprietary, do you think Ubuntu would exist?
