Gerald B. Cox píše v Čt 16. 06. 2016 v 11:45 -0300: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro@gnome. > org> wrote: > > Challenge for the marketing folks: can we get these tech journalism > > sites writing about Flatpak instead? About GNOME Software's new > > support > > for displaying and installing Flatpaks in F24? Otherwise, I see > > upstreams adopting Snappy and not Flatpak. > > > > I've seen lots of articles about Snappy and didn't even know that > Flatpak existed. Granted I don't follow Gnome development and am > more interested in KDE and LxQT - but that said, I'm not particularly > interested in Ubuntu either. If the idea behind flatpak is to make > more packages available, it ain't going to work if people don't know > about it. Most people will just choose snappy or flatpak, ,and since > both work - just use the snappy format. It's like Beta and VHS or > more recently HD DVD and Blu-ray. If you have a universal format, > one will become dominant - and for better or worse, it's not > necessarily about which one is better, it has to do with marketing. > -- KDE has been interested in Flatpak for over a year. They even have a KDE runtime and a couple of KDE apps packaged: https://community.kde.org/Flatpak Yes, Snappy is better known because it's marketed by Canonical itself while Flatpak is still mostly pushed by the community, but I still believe Flatpak is better positioned to be a multidistro standard. Snappy has been developed with Ubuntu in mind only, just recently they made it work on other distributions (with a lot of shortcomings mentioned in this thread), the only reasonable way to distribute snaps is through Canonical's servers now, they require the unpopular CLA to contribute,... Jiri
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
