Ubuntu asks its derivatives to no longer include Flatpak

Chat about Zorin
57

This is a valid question. Let's dive into it.

Following a simpler template:

  • Present the Point
  • Support the point with evidence.

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.

1 Like
59

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

60

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."

1 Like
62

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.

63
64
68

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 ..."

2 Likes
69

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.)

3 Likes