I sympathize with them more than I used to. I attended a meeting of the Linux Standard Base working group back when systemd was truly awful compared to it's current state, and the main item on the agenda from employees of the other major Linux companies was how they were going to force Debian / Ubuntu to go along with systemd so LSB didn't have to shrink their scope or not apply to them. I no longer blame them for not wanting to play politics to be part of a community like that. I don't really like Ubuntu's style personally anymore, but for what they're trying to do, going with everyone else's solutions is probably a good thing to avoid.

Didn't Snap appear first? Why is FlatPak not an example of NIH?

Exactly. Snaps grew out of the work to make Ubuntu mobile phone apps secure and easy to update. They are a great way to publish software, worth creating regardless of all the anti-canonical trolling. And they work fine across distros except where RH has actively tried to cripple them. That's their right, but wow, toxic.

Snap is not vendor neutral - it has hard coded dependence on Canonical infrastructure. If you want to provide your own, tough luck.

Calling to attention about that is not anti-canonical trolling. It's avoiding creating a dependence on a third-party.

s/tough luck/patches welcome/

Patches here: https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak ;)

> RH has actively tried to cripple them

Source?

Snaps require AppArmor which is used by Ubuntu and openSUSE. This makes it harder to integrate Snaps into Red Had (SELinux) distros, but I wouldn't say that this is something RH does actively to cripple them.

Snaps need a security backend like AppArmor in order to run in confinement. Without it, they can still be run unconfined. And while AppArmor+seccomp is the only working security backend, snapd is designed to support alternate backends, so one could be made for SELinux, we just need someone with SELinux experience to write it (our in-house expertise is in AppArmor)

It is rare to see something come out of Fedora that is not NIH.

As for all the mentioned package/image managers, IMO they all bring more problems then solutions (except maybe nix). Dependency resolution brings sloppiness and keeping the programs dependencies up to date would kill the internets and hard drives (compared to a normal package manager). They should just build a build bot and amen (or just not do anything). The only "problem" they solve is proprietary program distribution, and that is solved by a Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (and fd.o) compliant installer such as MojoSetup (as used by GoG).

Yeah, my worry is that when a vulnerability hits libc we have to download all the snaps again and the vulnerable libc is still there in the abandoned snaps. There are many other libraries used by many programs that would suffer from the same problem. I'm thinking about openssl.

Edit: somebody answered to my doubts in a comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13559060

FlatPak is a rename of xdg-app, which is the successor of Glick2, which is the successor of Glick, which was released in 2007, all by the same author.

My impression is the other way around... ish. Canonical tends to release their own solution to problems that the broader community is trying to solve, but not fast enough for their liking. Hence Mir before Wayland, upstart before systemd, etc.

You could call the broader community's refusal to adopt the Canonical solution NIH too, but my view is more that Canonical's shipped - but usually inferior for non-Ubuntu users - solutions prompt the community to stop trying to perfect their version's architecture and just polish and release it already.

There are two ways this has played out over the last 13 years. a) Canonical develops an open source solution to a real problem but RH and others choose not to contribute or adopt (e.g. bzr, Launchpad, upstart, Mir, Unity, LXD, Juju, Snaps, et al.). Or b) Canonical adopts open source tech from RH or others and works hard to deliver it nicely for Ubuntu users (e.g. KVM, Compiz, systemd, Ceph, etc.). Either way, inevitably Canonical is perceived as evil by an unweilding segment of the tech community, for either not adopting RH's solution or not contributing enough to RH's solution. How much should Canonical care about the unreasonable opinions of a handful of noisy Fedora fans?

How is it that Canonical is accused of NIH, but literally NO ONE ELSE IS?

Because Mir.

And upstart maybe. And Unity.

Because they have their own stuff and no one else has, roughly speaking (there's no Fedora desktop environment, no RedHat init system, okay, now there's systemd, but that's seen as Lennart's not RH's, or whatever).

Also, it's mostly noise, don't take it too seriously.