Skip to main content


UBUNTU without the CONTROVERSIAL choices: try these 5 Linux distros!


This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to The Linux Experiment

the big disadvantage I see is lack of #commercial support, since #Landscape and #SLAs offered by #Canonical as opt-in are the main selling point of @ubuntu ...
in reply to Kevin Karhan :verified:

@thelinuxexperiment @ubuntu

Also, Snaps are only available from proprietary snapstore, which sucks. But if Ubuntu is really succeeding to control all these apps and keep their store save, AND have a Desktop that containerizes everything, that would be great!

So with Official Ubuntu comes also official security, signed ISOs and so on.

#commercial #Landscape #SLAs #Canonical

This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to boredsquirrel

OFC, one does always buy into an #Ecosystem...

I think #Canonical should not #hamfist #Snap too hard and instead work towards a safe alliance to enshure portability of #Linux applications across Distros to replace the #RedHat dominance and avoid a #Duopoly if not #Tripoly for their own sake.

Which reminds me that @EU_Commission not calling out #RHEL and #Autodesk as #Market #Gatekeepers shows that those decisionmakers know shit about #tech.

in reply to Kevin Karhan :verified:

Hm, what is the gatekeeping here? Flatpaks are open and way better than Appimages. Tails is the only reason where I would want appimages. The only advantage of Snaps is Corporation backing and proprietary software.

Ubuntu should totally focus on Core and other things like that, but please, just join effords... its not possible though.

@thelinuxexperiment @ubuntu @EU_Commission

in reply to boredsquirrel

Well, #Snap may be better on the #Server side but considering the "standard by consensus" on #FLOSS they should admit defeat and go with #FlatPak.

Espechally since #Canonical doesn't seem to yet provide the benefit of a #centralized #repo in the form of #QualityControl and #Verification of #Developers...

@BrodieOnLinux took a look at the case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zl_Y8vSteo

in reply to Kevin Karhan :verified:

So true! Btw I am working on a "Appimage to Flatpak Template". Appimages cant simply be put in a container as they need fuse and thats not possible inside Flatpaks. But you can unpack them and convert them to Flatpaks, which is kinda magic.

I am a total beginner at this, so if someone wants to join, feel free:

https://github.com/trytomakeyouprivate/Appimage-To-Flatpak

The goal is to make the process of creating a flatpak easy.

@thelinuxexperiment @ubuntu @EU_Commission @BrodieOnLinux

in reply to boredsquirrel

makes sense.

I wounder if popular apps could use that to provide #FlatPak|s if they already build #AppImage|s...

in reply to Kevin Karhan :verified:

I've been curious to look into how flatpak packaging works at some point
in reply to Brodie Robertson

shure.

Personally, I'm currently moving into the extreme frugal #Linux #CLI / #TUI direction with OS/1337.

I need to get some fixups done to make it boot and then it would be ready to release.

https://os1337.com

#OS1337

in reply to Brodie Robertson

Flatpaks are a cool field! You can now also only add the verified remote:

```
flatpak remote-add flathub-verified --subset=verified https://flathub.org/repo/flathub.flatpakrepo
```

Yes I know this command by heart

@kkarhan @thelinuxexperiment @ubuntu

in reply to Brodie Robertson

Before you do that, take a look at the GIMP beta Flatpak, using GTK 3!

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.