Both sides of the containerized app aisle post their opinions.
Many of these opinions contain spin.
Many users, especially new migrants, find this all confusing and dramatic.
So, the devs say that the GNU Linux users need to "get with the times" and accept change. This is dumping the responsibility onto the end user for development instead of the developers being the ones to accept it.
Older GNU Linux users seem to like to alienate new users by engaging in lots of technobabble and GNUSpeak.
This often translates as elitist behavior.
Especially when peppered with attitudes like, "Do it yourself." "Don't like the software? Write a better one yourself, then."
In this, GNU Linux users need support to resist corporate interests in controlling Linux. But they erode relations with their best asset to be an ally - New Users coming in.
New users coming in are already conditioned by Microsoft Windows to hand over control of their desktop, shun the terminal and code and accept change without measuring its merit.
And New Users are likely to buy the salespitch that Flatpak and Snap are super easy and just plain ol' good without really asking the hard questions.
What happens when the unstoppable force meets the unmovable object?
Something's just going to have to give.
We think this will improve the out-of-the-box Ubuntu experience for new users
We collaborate with contributors from around the world to improve snaps and address remaining shortcomings, as they are an increasing part of the experience in Ubuntu.
I have yet to find, anywhere, any kind of technical reason from Canonical as to why pushes for Flavors to drop Flatpak. I have not seen any report of security concerns as a reason.
More and more, it looks like Ubuntu wishes to exclude Flatpak based on Ubuntu pushing Snap.
This is ugly.
And "Flavors"... Distros are, by their nature, set apart even if using Ubuntu as a base. They serve the purpose of providing a different experience than Ubuntu.
To suggest that derivatives must adhere to Ubuntus preference is... unsettling.
In addition: Many articles report that "Ubuntu Flavors" have all agreed to this.
But nowhere, does it say which Flavors (distros).
This distinction is important.
Because following that is:
The derivatives of Ubuntu have... agreed to honor Ubuntus request to:
I do not know which Universe that makes sense in. But it doesn't make any sense in this one.
Why would all these separate distros, which stand because they provide a different experience than Base Ubuntu - agree to terms - voiced to express a need to preserve the Ubuntu Experience?
Apparently, I have a poor understanding of Ubuntu Flavors.
I looked into this a bit in order to learn more - as in, what is included - and found an answer.
Ubuntu Flavors are Not Ubuntu Derivative Distros. They are Ubuntu with a desktop environment other than Gnome.
I apologize for creating so much confusion and have noted the above posts to redirect here - I leave my original comments for the record.
Here are the Official Ubuntu Flavors that agreed to abide by Ubuntu dropping Flatpak:
Ubuntu Mate
Ubuntu Unity
Ubuntu Studio
Ubuntu Kylin
Ubuntu Budgie
Lubuntu
Kubuntu
This solves the mystery of why the flavors would agree- as they are Ubuntu. Not Distro Derivatives that use Ubuntu as a base.
This also highly suggests that Zorin OS, Mint, Pop and other distro derivatives are uninvolved with this fiasco.
Ubuntu, Canonical (which makes snap) are intertwined. Like, say how media is tied with a political party. What do we often hear, follow the money.. LOL
The good news is, there are plenty of videos, websites that teach how to remove snaps and add flathub for Ubuntu. with Zorin, I removed all the snaps I could via the software center, and just install Deb or Flatpak. I think of it like how people customize their desktops. All about personal preference.
The terminology does confuse, but in any of the distros, a few, as well as reviewers, have referred to their different versions as flavors. Zorin OS would have three flavors, lite, core and education. There may be a fourth with the introduction of Zorin Grid, enterprise, but it may be integrated in all of the versions... the devs haven't commented on how they are implementing it.
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.