In theory, I agree. In practice, there doesn't seem to be any other snap store out there?

This is a years old quote from [0], but it doesn't feel like anything changed since.

> If you want to distribute your snaps, your choices are 1) publish it through the Canonical store, entirely under Canonical's control, 2) upload it as a file and tell people to use the CLI to install it, or 3) try to figure out how to reconfigure the snap client to use a different server by reading the source code, then write your own server end from scratch, and tell your users to do that.

[0] https://www.happyassassin.net/posts/2016/06/16/on-snappy-and...

>try to figure out how to reconfigure the snap client to use a different server by reading the source code, then write your own server end from scratch, and tell your users to do that.

You also need to

1) compile and distribute your own version of snapd, since it hardcodes the Canonical snap store.

2) Set the appropriate env variable to prevent snapd from auto-updating itself back to a Canonical version.

Again, this does not address what I took issue with, which is "explicitly for profit". There is no indication that this assertion is even remotely true. I did call out the proprietary nature of some of their server code, but again, that does not yield "explicitly for profit" which nullifies the posters point.

You've also claimed that it's "almost entirely out of the hands of Canonical", which it is not.

I'm with you on the "it's not explicitly-for-profit" point at the moment, but it is set up in a way that it could change at any point. Whether it's set up that way deliberately or not, we can only guess.

Anyway, Ubuntu derivatives are approaching the topic with this in mind. Linux Mint forbids snapd from being installed via apt (https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/02/linux_mint_team_snap/), and elementary OS goes a step further and is working on making its entire app ecosystem flatpak-exclusive (https://blog.elementary.io/elementary-appcenter-flatpak/).

I used the words "almost entirely" which is confusing, I will admit. I don't use snap for the same reasons. That said, what's being postulated by multiple users here is blatantly false.

He refers to the snapcraft, not the snap manager https://snapcraft.io/ , https://snapcraft.io/sosumi

I am still not seeing how snapcraft.io is "explicitly for-profit". eg: https://snapcraft.io/thunderbird

A private company is for-profit by definition. They may not be monetising it now, but that’s because they’re in the growth phase.

You don't get to make assertions based on speculation. Across Linux there have been an infinite number of package managers, sometimes ones that integrate each other's protocols like how the PopOS store integrates flatpak. Is PopOS or the PopStore now explicitly for profit despite the fact that it doesn't sell a single thing?

Except for non-profit companies, which are...