tsugu@slrpnk.net to linuxmemes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agoI like both, but usually prefer Ubuntuslrpnk.netexternal-linkmessage-square167linkfedilinkarrow-up1522arrow-down176
arrow-up1446arrow-down1external-linkI like both, but usually prefer Ubuntuslrpnk.nettsugu@slrpnk.net to linuxmemes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square167linkfedilink
minus-squarex00za@lemmy.dbzer0.comBannedlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-211 months agoRemoved by mod
minus-squarelengau@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoSo why would Canonical switch to another technology that came after what they made and doesn’t cover their biggest use cases for snaps?
minus-squarex00za@lemmy.dbzer0.comBannedlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-211 months agoRemoved by mod
minus-squarelengau@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoBut if flatpak doesn’t meet the widest use case of snap, are they really describing flatpak?
minus-squarex00za@lemmy.dbzer0.comBannedlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-211 months agoRemoved by mod
minus-squarelengau@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoFlatpak is not a solution for packaging a large portion of the types of software Canonical packages with snap, such as database servers, kernels and containerisation software like lxd.
Snaps predate flatpaks though.
Removed by mod
So why would Canonical switch to another technology that came after what they made and doesn’t cover their biggest use cases for snaps?
Removed by mod
But if flatpak doesn’t meet the widest use case of snap, are they really describing flatpak?
Removed by mod
Flatpak is not a solution for packaging a large portion of the types of software Canonical packages with snap, such as database servers, kernels and containerisation software like lxd.