304
Snap bad (midwest.social)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lengau@midwest.social -3 points 1 day 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@feddit.uk 3 points 1 day 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 1 points 41 minutes 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?

[-] DmMacniel@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago

Can you explain why it makes perfect sense?

this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
304 points (91.3% liked)

linuxmemes

20707 readers
477 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS