354
Snap bad (midwest.social)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
78 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Canonical provides transitional packages for packages that they've decided to provide as snaps. They're not forcing anyone to use snaps, they're saying "if you want the default we provide you, we're providing you with a snap." KDE Neon (my current distro, which is downstream of Ubuntu) has decided that they want to use the deb packages from packages.mozilla.org, so they provide an override. If you want to use the deb from packages.mozilla.org, you could grab KDE Neon's repository deb and install that, or just set up the mozilla repository and use the same pin file they already have.

This is like saying "Debian FORCES you to use libav" Debian moved from ffmpeg to libav for a while. No, they provided libav and made transitional packages for this drop-in replacement. Some people didn't like that and made their own ffmpeg repos, and the process for using their separate ffmpeg rather than Debian's transitional packages was the same as the process for using Firefox from a different repository. (I was one of the people used some third-party ffmpeg repositories, and I was glad when they switched back to ffmpeg and provided libav to ffmpeg transitional packages.)

Does the fact that the Ubuntu repositories don't contain Keysmith mean "Ubuntu PROHIBITS you from using Keysmith?"

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

    Canonical provides transitional packages for packages that they’ve decided to provide as snaps. They’re not forcing anyone to use snaps, they’re saying “if you want the default we provide you, we’re providing you with a snap.”

    Uhm... and why does the user have to transition to snaps? Why does Canonical provide those transitional packages while there are perfectly valid debs for the same thing? Certainly not because they have a vested interest in forcing it right?

    you instantly refute yourself, kudos!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Uhm… and why does the user have to transition to snaps?

    They don't. But Canonical will no longer be providing debs in primary Ubuntu repositories, so those transitional packages exist so that users don't wind up with an abandoned, old version of Firefox.

    Why does Canonical provide those transitional packages while there are perfectly valid debs for the same thing?

    For the same reason neither Ubuntu nor Debian provide debs for Google Chrome, despite Google having an official apt repository? Those debs exist in somebody else's apt repository. If you want to add that apt repository, you're welcome to. But those external packages aren't part of the system they provide.

    you instantly refute yourself, kudos!

    Your unwillingness to accept what I'm saying doesn't make what I'm saying contradictory.

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

    They don’t. But Canonical will no longer be providing debs in primary Ubuntu repositories

    so they are forcing the users to adopt snaps.

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

    If I were giving you €50/month, and then one day I decided to give you USD$55 instead, am I "forcing" you to accept US currency? No, I'm choosing to give you something I don't have to give you in the first place in a different form. You can always reject my offer. You can ask someone else to give you €50/month.

    They're choosing how they want to provide Firefox. If anyone else wants to provide Firefox differently, Canonical isn't stopping them. In fact, Canonical literally hosts and does the builds for an unofficial Firefox repo with their free Launchpad service.

    Distributions decide what they want to package and how to package it all the time. Pretty much every time, someone is upset. But that upset is generally based on an unreasonable sense of entitlement.

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

    If I were giving you €50/month, and then one day I decided to give you USD$55 instead, am I “forcing” you to accept US currency?

    Yes, you are literally forcing me to accept your dollarinos, which, unless I exchange them MYSELF, are USELESS!

    You provided me, until an arbitrary cutoff day, always the negotiated currency (deb package) but then you, out of the blue, decide to change it to your currency (snap package).

    If Canonical want to do their own package, why don´t they just make a new branch and ditch Debian all together? I am not aware of ANY downstream distribution to ditch their upstream's package format, except Ubuntu. Well and those that lie underneath Ubuntu and ditch snap for the super upstream's (debian) package format.

    You can always reject my offer. You can ask someone else to give you €50/month.

    so either suck it up to Canonical, or go to another distribution provider? Thats your solution to your not perceived enforcement of snap?

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

    Yes, you are literally forcing me to accept your dollarinos, which, unless I exchange them MYSELF, are USELESS!

    Hold on, have I fallen for Poe's law?

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

    That's your pejorative to believe that, yet I am quite sincere when it comes to the fact that Canonical forces Snap on Ubuntu Users when debs were totally fine as other Debian derivatives use them with no issues.

    And as you can see on other comments I'm not alone with that stance.

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

    as you can see on other comments I’m not alone with that stance.

    Being in the majority doesn't necessarily make one right, as shown by [insert election result you disagree with here]. But if you actually are serious about that, you do realise how entitled it sounds to demand that someone do free work for you in the particular way you want it done?

    And I believe you mean prerogative.

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

    Canonical is a for profit company though.

    And yeah I always mix up those two words, so thanks.

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

    And they're providing Ubuntu for free. If you were a paying customer and the contract you'd signed with them said they'd provide Firefox as a deb, that would be a different situation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •