Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: rustybroomhandle

Quoting: miroWhat the actual fuq?
Is this for real? You do know that this is designed to kill people, not in a cs-fashion but for real. And all with the currently f'ed up narrative and politics, you are cracking jokes with it.

I can not believe this, what a shame.

Are you suggesting we treat the Russian invading army of genocidal psychopaths with respect?

They're perfectly ordinary people

Well... no. Not exactly. They have bolstered their ranks with plenty of mercenaries and convicted criminals. So "perfectly ordinary people" might apply to some of them but a sizeable portion is not "ordinary people". I am also not aware of regular and large scale massacres of the US army in Iraq or Afghanistan (yes, there were war crimes but to a much much lesser extend).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: CatKillerIt's a pretty terrible name, and Ubisoft have historically been not good to work for, but this

QuoteWork with the rest of the engineering staff to help them expand their cross-platform mindset

is how all developers should be thinking.

Yeah too bad "cross-platform" in this context is PC-Playstation-Xbox... where PC means, of course, Windows.
The job is 100% for the server.

Then why would the need to

QuoteExpand and improve the Snowdrop engine’s presence on Linux"

The job is (a) 100% for the client.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: TuxeeCanonical makes money with support and services for commercial customers. Exactly like Red Hat. Their Steam efforts are just pursued to keep Ubuntu visible as "the" desktop distro that plays well with their customer services. And there is zero lock-in since pretty much every software I can think of is also available via other channels. Snap is a convenient (YMMV) alternative in the Ubuntu ecosystem. That's all.

That would be great if it were true, as some software is out there that make snaps available, but otherwise have to be installed via tar balls, or converting rpms, etc. It's a visibility issue. I bet you if there could be alt stores to snap, no one would hate it as much as they do.

So... The situation without the Snap store would be exactly the same for non-snappers today. Correct?
Now, the alt stores... Yes, it would stifle your Canonical flaming somewhat (though I assume there is plenty of other nasty stuff lurking out there), but apart from that it wouldn't change a thing. How many alternative Flatpak repos are there? I have about 20 Flatpaks installed on my system (about as many as snaps). Exactly ONE is NOT from flathub. (And that's a paid-for software.)

Quoting: slaapliedjeThe difference between them and Red Hat is that Red Hat pays developers to put most of that code back into open source projects and pushes forth the advancement in Linux in ways that Ubuntu have either tried to do their own thing with (mir, Unity, snap) or just minor things that do actually help (gnome performance improvements). The scale difference of how much Red hat improves Linux as a whole vs how much Ubuntu does is kind of staggering.

I know. Red Hat. With their NIH syndrome. Painful. They didn't want to contribute to upstart. They had to dish out systemd. How lame. They didn't want to support Unity, no they had to had it their way and concoct Gnome Shell. They could have supported Snap, but no, it had to be flatpak. Because all the Canonical alternatives preceded the Red Hat implementations. Mir was a different beast altogether - Canoncial actually wanted to use Wayland, but Wayland was years from being usable and then Mir served a different purpose.

And just to give you an idea about size and influence: Red Hat has - according to Wikipedia - 19,000 employees and makes billions of revenue. Canonical has a few hundred employees and has an annual revenue of 140 millions. So yes, Red Hat contributing much much more is hardly surprising.

Quoting: slaapliedjeFor myself (and others), Ubuntu would need to do a lot to regain our trust. All the snap vs flatpak does is cause developers to keep shying away from deploying commercial software on Linux (and as much as we as users can disagree on how much we want commercial software, for 'The year of the Linux Desktop' to happen, we need it.

Oh puhleeze. The usual BS. This has been the mantra for at least the last 15 years (because that's how long I use Linux on my desktop). The availability of commercial software has never been hindered by "having two or three package formats". Never. I do have my (paid-for) commercial products as DEBs, AppImages, Flatpaks, Tars, script installers. So if companies want to sell their stuff they are perfectly capable and willing to do so.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: Tuxee

Quoting: sudoerWell done corp world... a container in a container. Unneccessary complexity for the sake of corp agendas. Does Proton even work with this.

What "agenda"?

Every corporation has an agenda... to make money.

Not shit, Sherlock. But "agenda" sounds so much more sinister and secretive than "make some money and - maybe - grow". And since we are talking about Canonical something fishy must go on.

Quoting: slaapliedjeCanonical's best way to make money is to try to get as much vendor lock-in that they can, without pissing off the community enough that someone switches to a different distro. Snap and them being the only ones who can host a snap store is their method of lock-in.

Canonical makes money with support and services for commercial customers. Exactly like Red Hat. Their Steam efforts are just pursued to keep Ubuntu visible as "the" desktop distro that plays well with their customer services. And there is zero lock-in since pretty much every software I can think of is also available via other channels. Snap is a convenient (YMMV) alternative in the Ubuntu ecosystem. That's all.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: sudoerWell done corp world... a container in a container. Unneccessary complexity for the sake of corp agendas. Does Proton even work with this.

What "agenda"?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedjeLet's say SteamOS had been built upon Ubuntu. None of those awesome utilities would be available without some nonsense. I'm betting most of them are not there as snaps.

That's one stupid "argument"...
What utilities are we talking about? Steam Deck specific ones, I suppose. Why should I have them on my Ubuntu desktop? Anyway, if the Deck was Ubuntu-based it still could provide flatpak support, because why not (IT'S NOT AN UBUNTU BRAND for chrissake) or the tools would have appeared in the snap store. Because again: Why not?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedjeAnd people who are basing their builds off of Ubuntu because of their more frequent release schedules are now being mandated to not being able to give their users choice. What constitutes a 'flavor' in their mind? Is that Kubuntu, or is it things like Linux Mint / PopOS. Some of them still use the Ubuntu repos. This just seems like early shots to try to eliminate competition.

Well, you could ofc inform yourself. (But I assume that's "work" and just less fun than ranting.) Well, you would have learned that distros named *ubuntu are flavors. Mint, Pop_OS!, Zorin, elementary, KDE Neon and a gazillion other ones are separate distros which can ship whatever they want.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: const

Quoting: Tuxee

Quoting: furaxhornyxNot sure about all this, but would this mean that Canonical may want to get rid of PPAs as well, one day, because they don't have near-total control over it ?

They already have or actually won't have to since PPAs were never installed by default. It's precisely the same situation as here: You actively have to add PPAs and you actively have to add flatpak support. (Even Google doesn't actively prevent you from installing alternative stores on your Android phone - it just has to be an explicit decision by the user.)

I'd absolutely agree if Ubuntu just deactivated all flatpak repos by default. No issue with that. But the software needs to be there and when a user clicks a .flatpak or .flatpakref in their browser, it should work - maybe with a warning, yet without searching the internet for a solution.

But IT HAS NEVER BEEN THERE. Using standard Ubuntu you always had to install flatpak support explicitly.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: furaxhornyxNot sure about all this, but would this mean that Canonical may want to get rid of PPAs as well, one day, because they don't have near-total control over it ?

They already have or actually won't have to since PPAs were never installed by default. It's precisely the same situation as here: You actively have to add PPAs and you actively have to add flatpak support. (Even Google doesn't actively prevent you from installing alternative stores on your Android phone - it just has to be an explicit decision by the user.)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ZlopezI remember that in LTS they usually have really old version of flatpak, so some things didn't work as they should anyway.

I'm not sure why Canonical doesn't want to have flatpak installed out of the box, but they sometimes do strange decisions, like Mir or Unity. Not bad projects but they were the only one using them and dropped them after some time.

In a nutshell (yes I am simplifying): Unity came before Gnome Shell. Upstart came before systemd. Snap came before flatpak. Even Bazaar came before git (if just by a few days). And while Wayland came before Mir it still has issues 15 years after its inception. In other words: Canonical frequently addressed issues and provided solutions which were then succeeded by other (often better) alternatives. Still, the constant flaming is just tiring and often enough unfounded.

As for the topic at hand: Dropping OOTB flatpak support of Ubuntu spins is an absolute "non-issue" which is completely blown out of proportion. One can still do sudo apt install flatpak and every standard Ubuntu user had to do that for the past couple of years.

View this comment - View article - View full comments