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
237 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
[–] 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