luna
Nick @ The Linux ExperimentOh what a terrible decision.
Canonical will prevent Ubuntu flavors to come with Flatpak preinstalled, as they want to push snaps.
Kind of a Microsoft-like move here. Really bad.
MOVED TO @
)@thelinuxEXP Something something walled garden something something closed source backend...
By the way, have you heard that they want to public?
By the way, have you heard that they want to public?
@julia Yeah, it rarely leads to good things when stock holders get to push for more revenue instead of a better experience for users / customers.
rexhent@thelinuxEXP @julia I would agree, despite being a bit different, if you look at game companies it usually means investors who have no idea how the product actually works get too much of a say in the product's creation and it ends up turning out bad. e.g. CD Projekt Red and Cyberpunk overpromising and releasing way earlier then it should've. (even if I still really like the game). It really does look like Fedora might end up becoming the go-to distro for intermediate linux users.
ralf tauscher 
@thelinuxEXP whats next, put it inside windows? #oops ;)
Rui Carmo@thelinuxEXP hahahahaahaha… They pushed me to #fedora by shoving #firefox into snaps. This cannot end well.
Till
J.Kakaofanatiker💙💛@thelinuxEXP
Snaps suck. Starting an app installed with snap takes ages which is enough for me to not use snap.
Another problem: I have multiple hard drives and partitions but snap apps can only access the main drive. I was not able to make the other ones visible.
Snaps suck. Starting an app installed with snap takes ages which is enough for me to not use snap.
Another problem: I have multiple hard drives and partitions but snap apps can only access the main drive. I was not able to make the other ones visible.
@thelinuxEXP
But because I switched to Arch I can now use the AUR so I don't need snap.
But because I switched to Arch I can now use the AUR so I don't need snap.
Michal Kohutek@JKakaofanatiker @thelinuxEXP they can, if you bind mount them.
Pascal Mages@thelinuxEXP if I read that right it's only the Ubuntu flavors which will not include Flatpack by default. Other Ubuntu based distros should not be affected by this decision. Correct me if I'm wrong.
@freeminded Yep, only official flavors
@thelinuxEXP well, seems a fair decision then. It's their distro and their choice of defaults in the end. An MS move would have been to completely remove it for everyone.
@freeminded It still feels very petty
slembcke@thelinuxEXP Kinda maybe. Though did any of them use Flatpaks before? I've only ever used vanilla Ubuntu, and it was before the snap/flatpak showdown anyway. I'm not really even sure what relationship the spins have to Cannonical anyway. Are they an official thing where they are just setting a company policy or are they community maintained?
@thelinuxEXP Hmm. I guess I could have dug into that a bit more myself:
1) Based on comments of others it looks like many (most?) of the spins (Mate, Kubuntu, and Xubuntu) were shipping with Flatpak enabled.
2) The ownership is less clear to me. Like Kubuntu is a trademark of Cannonical, but is run as a community project. So kinda maybe using leverage to force the issue. Kinda gross then.
1) Based on comments of others it looks like many (most?) of the spins (Mate, Kubuntu, and Xubuntu) were shipping with Flatpak enabled.
2) The ownership is less clear to me. Like Kubuntu is a trademark of Cannonical, but is run as a community project. So kinda maybe using leverage to force the issue. Kinda gross then.
NiceMicro@slembcke @thelinuxEXP there is a compromise in every case.
"Want to get our official brand and acknowledgement on your fork? Then keep in line with our expectations."
Might sound bad, but in reality, a company wanting to present a kind of united front in the products that have their name is nothing new.
I don't think calling it "gross" is fair, but I definitely understand why people disagree with this.
@nicemicro @thelinuxEXP Well, specifically I was saying it was gross if they used leverage to force the issue. I'm not really a hard-core "damn the corporations" FOSS, so I don't really disagree with your reasoning. Though in the Flatpak case, it does feel like they are putting a lot of effort into fighting something their users want.
@slembcke yeah I guess my disagreement is more semantic than actually substantial 😂
I mean, it's their brand, and they explicitly have the leverage which shouldn't come as a surprise to developers working under the same brand.
What is really the more problematic in my view is where I agree totally with you, is that prioritizing "in-house tech" vs. what the end-users want. I guess Canonical might have their reasons, it would be nice if they told their users, too.
Suquamish@slembcke @thelinuxEXP This discussion happended in the article's comments section, and yes, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, and MATE all provided support for Flatpak.
Dan MacLeod 
@thelinuxEXP I wonder how long it will be before they remove Flatpack from their apt repo for "security" or some such nonsense.
Arnan de Gans@thelinuxEXP From time to time Canonical does some really stupid things that go against the free and open stuff Linux usually stands for 😑
Andy Hubbert@thelinuxEXP honestly other than canonical holding a monopoly why oh why? Plus why don’t they just adopt flatpak and get rid of snaps - listen to your community!!!! Such a bad move - Just when it felt like Ubuntu was moving in a good direction after the ditching of all the unity crap
BigDave 
@thelinuxEXP
Glad I moved on from Ubuntu, for sure ... it's seeming more "corporate" all the time.
So far, I'm happy with EndeavorOS.
Kris@thelinuxEXP There's always a way. Just makes things a bit more tedious.
I myself hate snaps and will never use them if I have the option otherwise.
@thelinuxEXP Does this surprise anyone, given permanently removing snaps ended up being kinda convoluted?
This feels overbearing and anti-community, but distros that chose to be an #ubuntu flavor agree to a process that could be modified at any moment by #Canonical.
Derivative distros like Mint, Neon, and Elementary don't have to follow suite.
On the flip side, interesting to see Canonical double down on their own technology instead of just droping it.
Fraser Smith 🏴@thelinuxEXP And so, the @Fedora five-year-plan for world domination takes one, unanticipated, step forward.
Slade Watkins@thelinuxEXP I grew up on Ubuntu — that’s how my grandfather introduced me to Linux — so it really hurts to see them do something like this. Like seeing your childhood hero pass away, if that makes sense :(
🇵🇸 Panino, o Moço 🇮🇷@thelinuxEXP Their Distro, Their Rules.
Need to build that ecosystem someway.
Need to build that ecosystem someway.
@paninodesu But why? Flavors are community maintained. Why prevent the community from shipping what they prefer?
@thelinuxEXP Yes, but the source distro sets the standards.
I may not "like" it, but I understand their decision. It's not without logic.
naught101@thelinuxEXP anyone able to explain the benefit of flatpak over apt? I don't like snap, but flatpack seems to have some similar problems for me (e.g. https://github.com/flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal/issues/498).
I would have moved to Debian years ago, but the convenience of the larger number of available packages is too useful. Maybe time to check out Neon again...
Huge xdg-document-portal memory usage in some conditions · Issue #498 · flatpak/xdg-desktop-portal
Hi. xdg-document-portal can occupy a lot of RAM space. 2400+ MB and continue growing. How to reproduce Go via Nautilus to /proc/$PID/root (where $PID is your flatpak app which running) and search v...
memoryfile@naught101 @thelinuxEXP I wrote something a while back that explains some of Flatpak's benefits - https://memoryfile.codeberg.page/posts/Distribution-packaging-for-Linux-desktop-applications-is-unsustainable/
Distribution packaging for Linux desktop applications is unsustainable
Traditionally, Linux-based desktop operating systems, also known as distributions, provide applications to their users through their respective software repositories. As a user of a distribution, one typically installs apps through the command line. For example, to install Steam, one writes a command such as sudo apt install steam.
@memoryfile @thelinuxEXP thanks, I got through about half of this the other day (it's big!). Some convincing points.
Any idea why Debian avoid flatpak? Or have they just not got there yet?
@naught101 @thelinuxEXP Glad you're enjoying it! Yeah, it took quite a while to write.
I don't know if they're avoiding it; I don't have much insight on their feelings re: Flatpak itself. Hopefully Flatpak can become more of a staple there at some point!
Emmanuelle Germond@naught101 @thelinuxEXP the main difference between flatpak and apt is for the people maintaining the project and, by consequences, the user and distro maintener for update: security or other kind. Because you only need to push updates on one repo instead of several on the project side and you only need to take care of flat (or snap) integration on the distro side. Hope that answer your question.
GeneBean@thelinuxEXP yikes… that’s no good.
eshep@thelinuxEXP Pretty shitty move but not so surprising. I'd imagine as long as it doesn't go against their license, the problem could be solved with a simple post-install script.
Sergij SApcPro@thelinuxEXP The community should somehow stop this. 🫤
calc.exe
防空識別區ᵒᵘᵗᵉʳᵏᵒˢᵐᵒˢ@adiz @thelinuxEXP I know I know, but Ubuntu means so much for the Linux community because it was the start of the Linux desktop
Ivan Jelić@thelinuxEXP wait, but haven’t they made this decision together?
“As part of our combined efforts, the Ubuntu flavors have made a joint decision”
“As part of our combined efforts, the Ubuntu flavors have made a joint decision”
@escapetofreedom @thelinuxEXP I found this confusing. Why would, say, Xubuntu, make this decision hot on the heels of including Flatpak in 23.04?
ref: https://tinyurl.com/vtk8vnnp
Not to push conspiracy theories, … oh who am I kidding?! It sure smells like Canonical showed up said “be a shame if a Flatpak fell on your official flavor status and broke it.”
@suquamish @escapetofreedom Yeah, feels weird. 2 or 3 flavors decide to include Flatpak in their latest release (probably because users demanded it), and then, all of a sudden, it’s not allowed?
Feels like more than a coincidence!
@thelinuxEXP @suquamish probably not a coincidence at all. Canonical doesn't seem to want alternative store default availability fragmentation under Ubuntu brand. That is why I'd really like to see how the decision process went, plus how flavors impact Ubuntu brand, user expectations and satisfaction
mrscientific@thelinuxEXP
I mean so as it still is in the repos, fine I guess. But also I'm starting to get suspicious as to why they want to push snaps that badly. Servers aren't free, so they must have incentive to push snaps. Hopefully they don't try to sneak in tracking or start adding pay walls.
That and the news that they are going public is scaring me a bit. Even if Ubuntu wanted to push for the public good, they won't be able to unless the investors also get paid.
Nick@thelinuxEXP Canonical has always suffered from severe Not Invented Here Syndrome.
Dane Peterson@linuxfiend @thelinuxEXP Two of the main sources of this criticism both predated the other projects they were supposed to have used at the time they created them.
Snap's first release predated Flatpack by around 9 months.
Upstart predated systemd by around 4 years.
The only major one that didn't was Mir, but that was part of their whole phone/converged desktop/embedded device push.
@linuxfiend @thelinuxEXP Also, to my understanding, Snap still offers features for command line and server tools that Flatpack doesn't.
Snaps also provide features and support for OEMs making embedded systems and server appliances with an Ubuntu Core base.
According to a number of maintainers I've seen write on the topic, the tooling for creating and packaging Snaps is simpler, starting with a .deb they likely already create and making it easy to pull in all the dependencies and pack them up.
@danep @linuxfiend Yeah, but let’s be honest, in the first months of Snap, there probably was no package made by anyone other than the Ubuntu team.
Tetra@thelinuxEXP This is probably gonna end Ubuntu most likely. I may not use flatpaks as much, but I understand how important they can definitely be. They really are addicted to snaps now.
Tonch@thelinuxEXP I'm using Kubuntu but that can easily be something else with KDE if I don't like how things keep going...
@thelinuxEXP I wonder if the distros will have a one-click Flatpak install (corrected typo)
@PirateRoberts Probably not, it’s going to be command line install only
Ben Whitley@thelinuxEXP I don't think there's anything wrong with Canonical wanting to push Snaps. Canonical is building a brand on open software which is something we always wish to see. And if we are too afraid to make an opinionated choice on FOSS software, then we aren't utilizing FOSS correctly. The beauty of this software is we can change it if we don't like it and we shouldn't be afraid to make decisions.
@purplg They have community maintained flavors that announced they would ship Flatpak out of the box a few months ago, and then they pull this.
It’s pretty wrong, definitely goes against the wishes of the community.
Matt Keith@thelinuxEXP it would be one thing if snaps actually worked well but they dont'.. and my read on the situation is flatpak is becoming THE standard. so yeah shame on ubuntu. It's mostly why I went with fedora too btw
@matkeith Yep. At that point, snaps have no chance of becoming a standard. Flatpak already won that fight, so why are they still pushing snaps so hard?
Accept the loss, keep them on server, where they are very useful, and move on…