> Ubuntu is the version of Linux designed to be used by your grandmother. They want to make it as easy as possible for users to install trusted/safe software from both proprietary/free vendors.
By default, GNOME Software and KDE Discover only use the Flathub repository. Your grandmother won't be adding other repositories to the Flatpak client. Users who don't add any extra repositories will use Flathub, which is a trusted source of software that runs on an open source server.
> It's kind of telling that Mozilla/Microsoft/Spotify/Jetbrains released software as a snap long before it is even possible on flatpak but nevermind that. I don't think you can even get VSCode, Spotify or Intellij on Flatpak.
https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.visualstudio.code
https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.spotify.Client
https://www.flathub.org/apps/details/com.jetbrains.IntelliJ-...
The microsoft, spotify and Jetbrains software comes directly from their respective publishers. Problems are supported and debugged directly. That is a major difference.
Canonical very publicly collaborated with these companies to get their software on the Snap store while Flathub has been handled in a more free-for-all manner. If you build it, they will come, and all that. Moreover, I'm not so sure Red Hat is as explicitly interested in monopolizing the Linux application ecosystem as Canonical, especially since their acquisition by IBM. Maybe IBM has other ideas, but we likely won't see similar marketing efforts on that front in the near future.
Canonical deciding that Ubuntu won't allow third-party Snap repositories is completely orthogonal to open sourcing their Snap server and/or making it easy for people to develop alternatives. They can perfectly well do both.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
There are always tradeoffs. I would argue there are advantages for having a trusted party vetting my software repos. It's why I even use Ubuntu because I trust Canonical to make some sane decisions when vetting their repositories.
You give multiple repository support and suddenly users have to one find a way to add another repo, and second there is no way of removing software from those repositories if they do end up malicious.
Which is why I brought up the webupd8 java instance having root access to thousands of machines.
>users can optionally add more repositories if they choose to do so.
Ubuntu is the version of Linux designed to be used by your grandmother. They want to make it as easy as possible for users to install trusted/safe software from both proprietary/free vendors.
It's kind of telling that Mozilla/Microsoft/Spotify/Jetbrains released software as a snap long before it is even possible on flatpak but nevermind that. I don't think you can even get VSCode, Spotify or Intellij on Flatpak.