I hear ya hjv. The biggest issue I have with Snap, is they take a long time to open up and take up way too much space. Try opening up a browser which was installed via snap. Now open the same browser which was installed via Deb, or Flatpak. You'll see the difference, noticeably.
The second issue, is all the extra disk space it takes up because they don't share libraries. Each package includes all dependent libraries it will need to run.
So the issue that has people upset, is Ubuntu knows these flaws and still uses the snaps because they are intertwined with Canonical, who makes the snaps.
Sure, there are plenty of Ubuntu haters because they've been the big dog on the block for a long time. But this matter of the snaps, is kindling to the fire.
Many distros are based on Ubuntu.
Decisions Canonical makes can affect users down the line. Not just on this specific issue- but anytime that Canonical does something shady - of which they have done plenty - there should be "outcry" that speaks up.
Belittling those that speak up only seeks to silence dissent.
I agree with many of your points. However, I will point out that neither Mint nor POP_OS shunning any particular package management do so with a conflict of interest.
Canonical is doing so with a conflict of interest.
This is what separates the two and why users react to Canonical, but not to MXLinux or Devuan or the others as you mentioned. That difference defines the principles of the actors.
Not at all. When people see something wrong, they speak up. This is holding parties accountable for their choices and actions.
Let's apply classical logic to the problem.
You point out that many of the same users do not react to those that do not have a conflict of interest - That is to say, that they do not have finanical investment in a competing product - but they do react to a company that does have a financial interest due to ownership of their competing product.
This means, they do so for a reason.
You may not have considered that reason before opening discussion on it. That is the beauty of discussion and debate. It opens people up to ideas they may not have yet considered.
You see, having a financial conflict of interest is the basis behind Fraud and Corruption. Just like Insider trading, which is a Felony.
Zorin OS has no financial investment in Snap or Flatpak. They can offer or not offer them as they see fit.
Canonical does have a financial investment in Snap.
Canonical promised previously to users that it would not replace APT packages with Snap in the Gnome-Software-Store and Canonical immediately broke that promise and did just that.
Now, Canonical is applying pressure against a competitor in a Free Open Source User Space. They are gaming the system for their own financial gains.
No.
This is not a knee jerk over reaction. It is accountability of conflict of interest.
Canonical is in the wrong - and we are not expected to be silenced for holding these Companies accountable.
It is different.
Fedora is not financially invested. Canonical is.
Please read both of my above posts carefully.
This is shifting the goal posts. The original question must be - Can Canonical refuse to recuse itself given it's own conflict of interest?
The answer is "No. It cannot."
Whether it goes even further than that by ensuring that their flavors do as well is a moot point.
Can a hospital that owns stock in one pharmaceutical company refuse to provide a competitors brand of a medication? Can they ensure that their affiliates do as well?
What would The Courts say?
Can a city that has invested in a particular construction company ensure that competing construction companies cannot be bid on roadwork?
What would the courts say?
Can a stock trading company that happens to own stock in a product instruct its employees to withhold stock information on a competing product?
What would the courts say?
Can a retailer that owns stock in a particular product refuse to stock the shelves with a product that competes with the one they own stock in?
What would the courts say?
Clearly - These behaviors of Conflict of Interest in which a company seeks to undermine a competing product for their own gains is Unacceptable Behavior.
I have explained this quite clearly across four posts, now.
If the question @hjv has is, "if other distros can, what makes Canonical different?"
I believe I have thoroughly covered it.
@hjv
Please take some time to weigh whether the precedents given in my explanations and examples have merit.
When any company engages in these activities, we cry foul and Canonical is not immune.
Red Herring. I did not say that Canonical committed a felony. I pointed out that in the financial sector, favoring interests while having a conflict of interest: IS a Felony.
Sure, they are not "killing" anyone, but that is not the only crime on the books, now is it?
This is what I meant by Precedent.
By favoring the product that they have a conflict of interest in and inhibiting the competing product. Not only is it the definition of applying pressure; it is High Pressure Tactics.
It absolutely is. Limiting access in any way is pressure.
Favoring Products influences the end user.
Limiting access does not restrict access, but it does apply pressure to reduce that access, especially on users that are switching to Linux and uncertain about the nature of many of these package management systems.
Asking other affiliates to support that action, possibly at cost of losing their brand image; Is High Pressure Tactics.
To take from one of my posted examples above - in many of them a person could find a way to still get the competing product. This does not reduce that pressure in any form.
This... really does not help your case any...
I did not merely claim so. Instead, I provided clear rationale along with... Precedent.
Shifting the goal posts.
The topic in question deals with the Profit gained by Canonical directly from Flatpak. To whit; Canonical has opted to limit access to a competing product in order to shore up their own products financial gains.
For what you moved on to point out:
Let me repeat that:
This is called "Pressure."
This is not analogous because those distros are not financially invested in those browsers.
Please refrain from shifting the goal posts away from this key issue with distraction and misdirection.
You are free to disagree, that is a great thing. But if you choose to attack others for speaking out, then debate the topic, you can expect Rebuttal.
This is not grounds to turn a blind eye nor to press the case that others should stay silent. Accountability is what helps prevent or mitigate mistakes.
Irrelevant.
Just because a party openly admits to what they are doing does not automatically make it ethical or right.
This is a lot of accusation without any support.
My arguments have been consistent and centralized to One Single Word:
Precedent.
Please refrain from attacking the Person instead of the argument they made. Explain the flaws in the points I have made, clearly - provide examples if needed as I have done.
Another ad hom.
Provide evidence that anything I said was fabricated.
Provide a rebuttal instead of Temper.
Red Herring. I did not at any time state That Canonical activities are a felony.
Rather, I cited Precedent in which we can compare Canonicals activities to other activities in order to demonstrate how those activities are perceived and addressed.
That is what Precedent is.
Another Red Herring. I did not allude, hint at, imply nor state that Canonical is engaging in Stock trading Fraud.
It would be easy to believe at this point that you are intentionally being misleading with my words.
Another ad hom.
Another Red Herring.
I have rarely seen a poster engage in such spin and distortion. @hjv,
For the Final Time you are warned:
Do not attack the Poster. Instead, focus on the Merit of the argument. If you have a rebuttal to a point made, provide that. Do not belittle any member of the forum, attack their character or Person. Focus on the Relevant Issue.
Repeated Violations of the guidelines to stay Civil can result in reduction or termination of posting privileges.
And please Do Not keep throwing out red herrings claiming that they said things that they did not as support for your wanton accusations.
If you did not understand something I said, you can ask for Clarity on the Point.
This thread is on a temporary Cool Down period to allow all members to think of their next post carefully and considerately.
I will never be a fan of snapd, flatpak or appimages. In respect of security of flatpak - the fact that I could remove flatpak of rawtherapee without root privileges begs the question do any of these 'smart' app installers meet the same security level as 'apt' does? I purport that they don't ... end of line!
Showing "alternatives" as you mentioned Zorin does, as opposed to having them "pre-installed". Can you see the difference HJV? Now to go just a little bit further, Canonical, which owns Ubuntu, is pre-installing a product with known flaws. Flaws which have been known for a few years, yet not fixed. Why not fixed, who knows, who's to say. However if you are putting out a product, even if free, wouldn't you want it to work the best it can instead of sticking to your guns and making it, inferior?
Yes, Canonical/Ubuntu has every right to do so. Just like some Distro's remove it from the get go. They all have options. But it does effect their reputation, which effects their bottom line.
Something to just note. Not that I need to add anything to this interesting conversation.
Without debating this;
Richard Nixon did great things as President. This did not absolve him when he did something wrong.
It is not enough to dismiss members that you disagree with by simply accusing them of "jumping on the hate train". This assumes others intent and does not examine the merit of claims being made.
It is far more productive to focus on the points being made. Examine them to see if they make sense or if they help you to understand better why they express what they do.
When first using Ubuntu, after install while changing everything to suit my needs, this happened several times to me. It's weird, because it has something to do with it reverting to the Snap Store. I was trying to install Deb/Ubuntu packages and it was switching to snaps. That wasn't cool. Which is a point I left off my earlier post. I didn't notice it until I saw the Snap Store on the upper left of the screen. Just took me some time to remove the snaps and download and go with Gnome Software & Flathub. And you mentioned earlier that people tend to complain about Ubuntu. I agree. Everyone complains about the Big Dog on the block. They have a 'tricky' past, and this snap thing doesn't help matters.
Ubuntu does serve a purpose. I think of all those in the 3rd World countries that use it, because they can't afford M$. I personally like it, use it. I also use Kubuntu.
If you disagree with evidence or feel that it is falsified or fabricated; present evidence to demonstrate such. If you have a rebuttal to the point made - provide a reasonable series of statements that explains your position clearly. Focus on what makes you believe your position rather than trying to shred the oppositions personal character.
Yes, I do find Canonical's actions to be lacking in ethics.
There are two main reasons for this.
Snap is a Canonical Product. Flatpak is aligned with Gnome. Canonical and Gnome are currently in very tense circumstances due to the introduction of LibAdwaita - Bear in Mind that Canonical is a Stakeholder.
These actions by Canonical are prefaced in Free Open Source User Space.
The first bulleted point shows series of Conflicts of interest. Canonical is showing direct preferential treatment of their financially invested product while requesting its flavors, possibly at cost to the flavors brand image, comply. Given the tensions between Gnome and Canonical currently, this may be a retaliatory effort. This is not supported by hard evidence - merely that it Looks Suspicious. But it is important to note that the appearance of suspicion is all that is needed to create a Conflict of Interest. The proper course for a conflict of interest is for the conflicted party to recuse themselves.
This does not require a crime, nor a guilty verdict.
That this is occurring in Free Open Source User Space exacerbates this issue (which is the second factor listed above.)
This is why we must compare canonical actions with a frame of reference.
Is there a Precedent?
A precedent is not a proof.
A precedent is a gauge by which we can measure the commonality of how actions are unethical or ethical.
In most sectors, these precedents point toward Conflicts of Interest to inflate ones earnings by monopolizing against a competitor is Unethical (if not outright illegal such as in the Financial Sector.)
There is a precedent for comparison in the financial sector. In the retail sector. In the governorship sector. The list goes on.
When a party is conflicted, seeks to undermine a competitor or does not recuse themselves when conflicted (For example a judge or jury member that has been personally compromised) - overwhelmingly the precedents show that these actions are viewed as Unethical and in some cases, even violate statute or law.
These precedents are very strong.
I mean if the precedent is just that a bunch of people dislike it... that is one thing. But when in many cases, the accused end up charged and convicted and go to prison for felonies, that is a very big deal. As a precedent, it is strongly suggestive that the behavior in question must therefor be Highly Unethical.
Now... I will briefly take your bait:
Is Canonical doing something Illegal? No laws are broken that I know of. But it in itself does not need to be.
At the very least, it is highly questionable. At worst, Unethical and disruptive to Linux.
And for this reason, many people exercise their right to speak up. To be heard. To hold Canonical accountable for its pressure tactics in Free Open Source User Space. Because that is what users do. It is what users should do.
If you don't like it. Don't read it.
You do not get the privilege of joining a forum and insulting any and every person that does not adhere to Your World View.
Just.
Deal.
With.
It.
Red Herrings are all listed below summarized.
Summary
Everything here is a list of Red Herrings:
The only person that Ever suggested that Canonical committed Crimes was YOU and you only did so by claiming I had done so when I had not. Red Herring.
Red Herring.
This topic is about Canonical. Not about "but... but... look what somebody else did..."
Those statements were relevant, important and not ambiguous. Red Herring.
You admit this, now?
I did not link Canonical to Nixon. Instead, I rebutted your non-sequitur by validly demonstrating that just because someone or something did good things, does not mean that anything they did wrong can be ignored. It Does Not Follow.
Please try to resist the the Spin and misleading red herrings.
Because they work....lol Yes, Canonical/Ubuntu is just like RH/Fedora. I see that point. I also see Aravisian points.. You both are making good, solid points.
I think the conversation has evolved away into something off the path. Because you see it differently. And, also, you did get a bit personal with a thing or two, which is frowned upon. And not nice.
However, yes Canonical does have that right. It's just what they are pushing is flawed, and they know it without fixing it. Yes, the user can just remove it and use something else. Yet, is it right to push a flawed product? Is that what FOSS is about? I'm sure many would answer this differently. Hence, thee above.
We all make our choices and can just agree to disagree, and keep doing what we enjoy doing. Using Linux, but mainly Zorin....lol
The one thing that irks me a bit about an Ubuntu-based OS is that Shuttleworth stated:
We have root.
... meaning all apps install and update as root, so we inherently trust Canonical and its code repositories in the mere running of an Ubuntu-based OS.
But later, Canonical stated (after it was revealed that a Snap application had bitcoin mining code in it):
Even then, the inherent complexity of software means it’s impossible for a large scale repository to only accept software after every individual file has been reviewed in detail. That’s true whether source code is available or not as no institution can afford to review hundreds of thousands of incoming source code lines every single day.
In my mind, that's translated to: "You trust us (because that's how we've programmed it)... but you shouldn't."
A red herring is a statement that is not relevant but leads away from the topic.
For example, you stating that Nixon resigned. This was not relevant to any statements made nor to the topic, but it leads the reader away from the topic.
This is another Red Herring. You persist in repeatedly distracting from the topic with this same one.
You dodge and duck away from the points and arguments I make and throw Red herrings all over the thread and finally:
You persist in Ad Hominem attacks in spite of multiple Moderator Warnings.
Thread closed.
I will re-open it at the proper time.
Let's not forget that flatpak started off as an individual project and had the 'infamous' Red Hat developer Lennart Poettinger in attendance at one of their inaugural meetings and Red Hat has been a leading espouser of flatpak, along with systemd and pulse audio - also of Lennart fame. And let's not forget that Red Hat has always wanted to be the Microsoft of the GNU/Linux world and don't want users to change things at the backend - if they had their way they would cease having /etc as part of the system - the only way end users can block hardware that conflicts with other hardware.
A recent vinyl purchase of Bob Moses' The Silence in Between album and the track 'Broken Belief' has these poignant words:
"We live in the land of the many, we live in the grip of the few ..."
When the timer ticks down, I will be happy to move this post into the preferred thread. However, the Slow Mode Feature was enabled for a reason: to keep the thread calm and prevent fighting and flamewars.
Bypassing that defeats the purpose and creates thread clutter.
I understand that it is frustrating to be made to wait. I must wait one hour in between posts in that thread the same as everyone else.
Please accept the objective lessons it yields:
To frame arguments that examine the merit of ideas instead of attacking a persons character.
To provide meaningful rebuttals to arguments made, rather than to misrepresent what was said, then attack an illusion - or to make sarcastic retorts rather than have a rational debate on topic.
To consider not only your points, but how to considerately convey them to get the best possible response with the least amount of harm.
Further bypass threads will be closed and removed entirely.
This thread is closed and the post will be moved when the time is available.
(Sidenote for casual readers: @swarfendor437 did not personally engage in any of the above behaviors, for the record.)