Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again
Date: 13 Feb 2025 21:23:08 GMT
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <m1765sFtdfrU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <vo75q5$3vki0$1@dont-email.me> <zCJpP.39$EyH6.1@fx45.iad> <vo7ttl$3nof$1@dont-email.me> <qhLpP.67094$za5e.59176@fx09.iad> <vo830p$4ntj$1@dont-email.me> <f_1qP.80552$YsRf.33634@fx18.iad> <vocbbn$1444h$1@dont-email.me> <1WoqP.4088$NgFa.1524@fx46.iad> <voeqct$1lgc9$1@dont-email.me> <6CIqP.4095$NgFa.688@fx46.iad> <voheq0$27eqp$1@dont-email.me> <ZT1rP.468602$YsRf.357723@fx18.iad> <vok46l$2pp5m$2@dont-email.me> <vFmrP.237006$dxRc.216642@fx13.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net rqROsSLT7tgR+A1eWO9aRwOUk8BwZjQxaN+PpX0pL2MEeD1iB/
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rWY8Q71GoLEawDzeZHFUIAzfhxY= sha256:SmSKPH5ox/QwXCyzvg1dbWWTjI59YvPBF9CRc1YdcnI=
User-Agent: Pan/0.160 (Toresk; )
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:685812

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 08:42:51 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Actually, I read that Snaps were superior to Flatpaks. The problem is
> that Canonical has ultimate control over their storage and distribution.

I haven't searched around to see how the flatpak selection compared to 
snaps. My only reference is the Arduino IDE v2 that is a flatpak but isn't 
a snap leading to messing around with AppImage.