On 10/12/19, stry...@disintermedia.net.nz wrote:
> As are AppImage files:
> https://appimage.org/
I love AppImage. Thanks for adding it here, strypey.
I've heard similar comments about Docker and DockerHub. AFAIK Docker itself
is 100% free software. But DockerHub, like Flathub, has non-free components
(or did at the time I saw the discussion about it on a mailing list).
As are AppImage files:
https://appimage.org/
On 9/17/19, ma...@masonhock.com wrote:
> whereas there is only one Snap Store,
> controlled by Canonical.
Ah, yes, I forgot that point. Thanks for reminding me, Mason.
> Isn't this installer wizard FOSS?
> This it could be ported to any Debian derivative distro.
Sure, it's easier when it comes directly from upstream, but not
necessary.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
El 17/9/19 a les 1:27, ma...@masonhock.com ha escrit:
> Ubuntu also has some
> advantages, like a more user-friendly installer
Isn't this installer wizard FOSS?
This it could be ported to any Debian derivative distro.
If Canonical is a friend of FOSS community, any enhancement found in
Ubuntu
> However, Ubuntu also has some
advantages, like a more user-friendly installer.
I think the Live ISO installer changed to calamares with Debian Buster.
Should be a lot nicer than the old one.
I see... Thank you for your explanation.
> If Canonical are such a bad faith player among GNU/Linux
> distributions, why is Trisquel based off of Ubuntu?
I don't know I'd go so far as to say "bad faith." Their goals are often
parallel to, but ultimately different from ours. They have done a lot to
facilitate the adoption of GNU/Linux,
If Canonical are such a bad faith player among GNU/Linux distributions, why
is Trisquel based off of Ubuntu?
I don't have much knowledge with GNU/Linux systems so excuse my lack of
knowledge, but from what I've gathered Debian is free out-of-the-box whilst
Ubuntu isn't. Wouldn't it be
On 09/16/2019 03:41 PM, ma...@masonhock.com wrote:
>However, once
> Ubuntu users transition to using snap for applications, Ubuntu could
> conceivably drop its Universe repository (which already does not receive
> security updates), and that would affect Trisquel.
To be honest, I use Flatpak on
> If Canonical goes to snap only and drops debs, that means 41
> downstream distros like Trisquel could be stuck with having to become
> snap/systemd systems.
They probably won't drop debs entirely. The base system, maybe things
like desktop environments too, will likely still be based on Debian.
Whereas Flatpak repositories are just as neutral and decentralized as
apt repos.
--
Caleb Herbert
KE0VVT
816-892-9669
https://bluehome.net/csh
<>
> What a good comparison.
But hardly an unbiased one, considering that this article was published
by Canonical. One important difference that the article leaves out is
that any developer, distro, or individual can create an apt repository
and decide what goes in it, whereas there is only one Snap
From the article:
> Snaps are self-contained application packages designed to run on any system
that supports them. Practically, this translates into 41 systemd-enabled
distributions at the moment.
This highlights my concern with systemd, snap, and flatpaks. RedHat and
Canonical appear to
What a good comparison. That's really in interesting for me. Thanks Ignacio!
A technical comparison between snaps and debs | Snapcraft
https://snapcraft.io/blog/a-technical-comparison-between-snaps-and-debs
--
Ignacio Agulló · grafot...@grafotema.com
17 matches
Mail list logo
