484
Ubuntu's Mozillateam PPA now forcing users over to snap install for Firefox. (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
238 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

What use to be the PPA that allowed Ubuntu users to use native .deb packages for Firefox has recently changed to the same meta package that forces installation of Snap and the Firefox snap package.

I am having to remove the meta package, then re-uninstall the snap firefox, then re-uninstall Snap, then install pin the latest build I could get (firefox_116.0.3+build2-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1_arm64.deb) to keep the native firefox build.

I'm so done with Ubuntu.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Seems like Canonical wants to push snaps now really hard. I hope that Flathub soon implements its payment structure, before companies flock to the Canonical store.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    Payment? What for?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    For easily supporting developers of the apps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    For giving us more things migrating away from native packages? No thanks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Oh wow. We should NOT let Flatpak have payment options. So the corporates will flock to Canonical's Snap and we will all be forced to use it just to be able to use proprietary apps we need for work/school. Shooting ourselves in the foot is the nature of Linux users. 🐧

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Donation options, sure. Pay for play, no.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    The year of the Linux desktop will only come if supporting Linux becomes profitable. For that, companies need ways to make their software paid. Even though Flatpak is better than Snaps, they will flock on Snaps because that's where they can make profits.

    Therefore for the sake of everyone, Flatpak must support paid apps before Canonical takes over everything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    First, take your GTFO and stuff it where it belongs, and second, this isn't some BS.

    If you want to pay for play, don't open source it. If you want to get paid and open source it, then accept and ask for donations. But if you pay for play only your open source, and the software is any good, it's going to get forked... by someone who will either do it fully for free, or also asking for donations.

    Go clean yourself up now that I'm done with you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    @PseudoSpock @IverCoder that is not true, I work in an open source compagny (since 2016, BSD-3 for most of our works).
    We sell support, training, dev,... expertise. And that is only ONE example.
    Other open source compagnies use dual licensing to make money for example, other provide paid binaries or SaaS...
    You can open source and make money

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    We sell support, training, dev,… expertise

    Cool, but the comment you're replying to is not talking about making money from open source in general, it is talking specifically about "pay for play". Meaning, in my reading at least, the kind of software which users cannot use without paying for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    Open source can make money. You can charge for training and customer support. You can also charge for binary downloads, while keeping the source code public. While some can compile it themselves without paying you, most will just pay to avoid the hassle of it.

    People with your way of thinking are what causes the year of desktop Linux to never arrive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    For proprietary, non-free software I'd much prefer them to be sandboxed in Flatpak, thank you very much. So yeah, let Flatpak integrate payments!

    For open source keystone applications, like my browser or my text editor, please let me have an unsandboxed native package.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    As long as it is a voluntary donation. Payment only can jump in a lake. I'm ok with donating to a project I really like, but if it's a paywall, hell no.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I think desktop will go towards immutable, and flatpak will be saving grace for it...

    Native package still the king, but when the immutable desktop become standard, then the only option is using new sandboxed app runner like flatpak, or native package change it's building strategy.

    There are rpm-ostree, but immutable desktop focus on stability, and with flatpak, it will offer the best experience.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    For buying or donating (maybe even subscriptions). Both open source and proprietary software. They're working on it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Funding non native packaging to absolve distros of their job is not something I would donate to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago*

    I think you’re misunderstanding what the claim here is. The payments are not necessary for Flathub and flatpak (though they take a cut), it’s revenue for developers. Revenue they would have never seen if their app is packaged in distro repos like normal. Implementing payment systems in the native package format is basically impossible which is why no one ever did it. Flathub is giving app developers (whose job is oftentimes thankless) a chance to receive easier funding or even a livelihood. All around a good thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent