• pkill@programming.dev
      ·
      7 months ago

      Why are they even still pushing that nonsense when flatpak at least somewhat gets closer to getting bwrap implemented right?

      • Tobias Hunger@programming.dev
        ·
        7 months ago

        To be fair: snaps can work for all kinds of things all over the stack from the kernel to individual applications, while flatpak just does applications. Canonical is building a lot around those abilities to handle lower level things, so I guess it makes sense for them.

        IMHO flatpak does the applications better and more reliably and those are what I personally care for, so I personally stay away from snaps.

  • anzo@programming.dev
    ·
    7 months ago

    This post title is misleading. The developer was working with Snap until Canonical didn't allowed it anymore. He's pissed with the policy enforcement which is strictly speaking commercial and as bad as Apple's afaik...

    • suy@programming.dev
      ·
      7 months ago

      Sorry, could you clarify what you mean? I don't see the difference. Isn't the author complaining about Canonical for the policy enforcement?

      • anzo@programming.dev
        ·
        7 months ago

        Canonical has been taking bad decisions for quite some time now, and this developer was trying to reach Ubuntu users even while probably knowing these. Which makes sense, of course. The point being that this dev's disappointment seems quite specific in these notes (against Snap), and imho he might work again towards shipping their app through Snap if he was allowed to. My comment compares Canonical to Apple, to give some context of where Canonical is at so many other idiosyncrasies (for example, I also heard other bad stuff about their H.R., in particular a way too lengthy hiring process.)