Long live the .txz!
As long as I can avoid building from source / hunting deps for the most part, I'm good. I'll do this for maybe 10% of what I need; beyond that it's untenable.
If I were trying to publish my thing(s) I may care more, but probably not -- I just maintain several RPMs for other projects on Fedora/EL derivatives.
Why is snap a "dark pattern"?
The 'interface' (tool availability) has been crafted such that users are likely to favor Snap over Flatpak... because Flatpak now takes a step that only serves to prop up Snap: installation of the runtime
I don't want to overstate the significance of this -- it's about as dark as dawn-break
The worst thing about this is the messaging. If they had just did it and said nothing, I'd have nothing to complain about.
It could be taken as curation -- the messaging aims to convince that fewer options = more better.
edit: Some irony to this is we'd be closer to their idealized state of 'one way to install' had they instead chosen to adopt Flatpak over insist that Snap has to happen.
> I don't want to overstate the significance of this -- it's about as dark as dawn-break.
I don't see any significance in it. What exactly is the problem?
I don't have an issue in them preferring their solutions, I have an issue with them trying to convince us that it's for our benefit -- not theirs.
XKCD standards summarizes my sentiment well: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png
edit: Snap in itself isn't a dark pattern. I've explained why I feel like this change, and particularly the handling, is.
Garden variety self-deception.
'For the users', please.
The maintenance cost is the same, default or no. It's being built and presumably tested if offered, this serves only to create friction
Edit: before someone says it, yes Canonical can put what they want in their distribution
Just don't try to convince me that taking away defaults improves my options. Be honest, you want to champion your thing.
This is more a criticism of their willingness to rely on dark patterns.