tsugu@slrpnk.net to linuxmemes@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 months 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 · 11 months agomessage-square167linkfedilink
minus-squarex00za@lemmy.dbzer0.comBannedlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-210 months agoRemoved by mod
minus-squarelengau@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·11 months 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-210 months agoRemoved by mod
minus-squarelengau@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·11 months agoBut if flatpak doesn’t meet the widest use case of snap, are they really describing flatpak?
minus-squarex00za@lemmy.dbzer0.comBannedlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-210 months agoRemoved by mod
minus-squarelengau@midwest.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up1·11 months 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.
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.