There are degrees to vendor lock-in, and it's not black and white as you portray it to be. Flatpak and apt exhibit minimal lock-in, because they are decentralized and fully open source. Snap, on the other hand, has a closed source server that is controlled solely by Canonical. Since the Snap Store is the only preinstalled app store on Ubuntu, this results in a greater degree of lock-in than Flatpak and apt.
The backlash from Linux Mint and other distributions was partly caused by Canonical using Snap for Chromium when the user intended to install it through apt. This sleight of hand is not as extreme as a 30% commission, but it's a step in the wrong direction. The FOSS community is able to reject moves toward vendor lock-in even if the closed source Snap server does not mandate a 30% commission.
>There are degrees to vendor lock-in, and it's not black and white as you portray it to be. Flatpak and apt exhibit minimal lock-in, because they are decentralized and fully open source. Snap, on the other hand, has a closed source server that is controlled solely by Canonical. Since the Snap Store is the only preinstalled app store on Ubuntu, this results in a greater degree of lock-in than Flatpak and apt.
You keep repeating yourself. Having a default mechanism for installing software installed on Ubuntu distros that is using Ubuntu based infrastructure does not constitute vendor lock in. Guess what, Ubuntu uses apt rather than yum. That isn't vendor lock in either.
Having a proprietary back end does not constitute vendor lock in.
What you are saying is the equivalent of using spotify is vendor lock in. That or using Firefox. Heck Canonical's model here is practically no different from Firefox with their addon store.
A developer can choose to ignore snap all together and still distribute on Ubuntu. A user can choose to ignore snap all together and still install software on Ubuntu. They will have to face the consequence of not having to use chromium because nobody is willing to maintain it other than Canonical.
What is this nonsense that you are spouting.
>The backlash from Linux Mint and other distributions was partly caused by Canonical using Snap for Chromium when the user intended to install it through apt. This sleight of hand is not as extreme as a 30% commission, but it's a step in the wrong direction. The FOSS community is able to reject moves toward vendor lock-in even if the closed source Snap server does not mandate a 30% commission.
Because any move that you or Mint disagrees with is a 'step' in the wrong direction? So be it, I and probably Canonical would rather be wrong.
Snap has 10x the install base for each snap compared to flatpak. It also has more first party software support.
> Guess what, Ubuntu uses apt rather than yum. That isn't vendor lock in either.
Apt and yum both support configuring multiple repos, their protocols are well-documented, there are an abundance of repo implementations, etc. If apt only supported a single upstream repo and Debian kept the source proprietary, do you think Ubuntu would exist?
The backlash from Linux Mint and other distributions was partly caused by Canonical using Snap for Chromium when the user intended to install it through apt. This sleight of hand is not as extreme as a 30% commission, but it's a step in the wrong direction. The FOSS community is able to reject moves toward vendor lock-in even if the closed source Snap server does not mandate a 30% commission.