Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
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.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
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).
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
As are AppImage files: https://appimage.org/
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
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.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
> 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
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
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 should be portable and packageable into any other GNU/Linux distro, and even more for Debian derivatives.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
> 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.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
I see... Thank you for your explanation.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
> 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, which on its own is a good thing for software freedom. Their approach to doing so has sometimes had positive effects for software freedom. At other times I'd argue it has been negative. I expect the Snap Store to have negative effects for software freedom. Trisquel has been based on Ubuntu for a long time, and this snap stuff is a relatively recent development. > 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 easier from a > developer standpoint to 'Free' Debian than Ubuntu, or are there > benefits for Trisquel being tied to Ubuntu that I am not seeing? Yes and no. Both Debian and Ubuntu maintain repositories of non-free software. Ubuntu's are enabled by default, whereas Debian's are disabled by default, so in that sense Debian is more free out-of-the-box. Debian attempts to distance itself from their non-free repositories and does not heavily encourage their use, so in that sense they are also better than Ubuntu. However, neither of those things makes these distros easier or harder than one another to free. It is just as easy for Trisquel to exclude Ubuntu's Multiverse and Restricted repositories as it would be to exclude Debian's contrib and non-free repositories. The default configuration and culture around Debian and Ubuntu is only relevant to Debian and Ubuntu users, not us. Most of the changes we make to Ubuntu are rebranding or modifying free packages that install or recommend non-free ones. Both Debian and Ubuntu need to be modified in this way in order to follow the Free System Distribution Guidelines. There may be a few ways in which it might be easier to be based on Debian. For example, Ubuntu's universe repository does not receive security updates, which requires us to do things like import Tor from the Tor developers instead of Ubuntu. However, Ubuntu also has some advantages, like a more user-friendly installer. Right now I think it is worth being based on Ubuntu. I'm just concerned that this might change in the future. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
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 easier from a developer standpoint to 'Free' Debian than Ubuntu, or are there benefits for Trisquel being tied to Ubuntu that I am not seeing?
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
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 Trisquel. Ideally, I'd like to see an alternate repository from Flathub, which does not contain proprietary software. I just have to manually avoid the proprietary apps. -- Caleb Herbert KE0VVT 816-892-9669 https://bluehome.net/csh <>
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
> 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. However, they are encouraging users to install applications like LibreOffice and VLC from the Snap Store. For now such applications are still available in the universe repository, and most applications exclusive to the Snap Store are likely proprietary, so it is currently not a problem for Trisquel to simply not include snap. 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. A distro like Mint may or may not mind having their users just use the Snap Store, but for Trisquel that is not an option, because the Snap Store contains proprietary software. As for free software that is not packaged in Debian/Ubuntu, due to Ubuntu's popularity, developers often desire to make their software easy to install on Ubuntu. When they do this by providing a PPA or apt repository, that involves creating Debian source packages which can be easily imported to Trisquel and other Debian-based distros, so accommodating Ubuntu benefits also benefits other distros. However, I'm lately seeing some[1] cases[2] where developers upload to the Snap Store instead, which only increases Canonical's influence. I'm not against distro-agnostic packaging in general, but I am against walled-garden app stores that prioritize the power of developers over the freedom of users. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
Whereas Flatpak repositories are just as neutral and decentralized as apt repos. -- Caleb Herbert KE0VVT 816-892-9669 https://bluehome.net/csh <>
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
> 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 Store, controlled by Canonical. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus 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 be attempting to grab control of a majority of all distro infrastructure. 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.
Re: [Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
What a good comparison. That's really in interesting for me. Thanks Ignacio!
[Trisquel-users] Not really for users, but very interesting: deb versus snap
A technical comparison between snaps and debs | Snapcraft https://snapcraft.io/blog/a-technical-comparison-between-snaps-and-debs -- Ignacio Agulló · grafot...@grafotema.com