You simply use a different packaging format as I said in the previous comment.
Okay, and how does snapd being open source help with that? It literally has no effect on it.
And when your best argument is “if it gets enshittified you can switch off of it”, why help it get popular in the first place?
Well if it were closed source, it would be harder to repackage proprietary apps because you would not know how the snap “root filesystem” translates to $DISTRO root filesystem.
Because some apps are only packaged as snaps so if you want them to be accessible to users, you have to install snapd. Flatpak can still be the default which on non-Canonical distros already is. Which why I don’t even worry about snap becoming the standard.
Well if it were closed source, it would be harder to repackage proprietary apps because you would not know how the snap “root filesystem” translates to $DISTRO root filesystem.
Only if all the other tools (like Snapcraft) were also made closed-source and obfuscated, but that’s besides the point. What if, for example, Snaps start costing money, and you can’t legally turn them into Flatpaks and distribute them? What if the only legal way to get some software for Linux will be the official Snap repository? This approach will make for a far worse user experience than simply using the already working, already open-source and non-enshittifiable alternative.
Because some apps are only packaged as snaps so if you want them to be accessible to users, you have to install snapd. Flatpak can still be the default which on non-Canonical distros already is. Which why I don’t even worry about snap becoming the standard.
And by promoting Snap to the same status as Flatpaks on other distributions, you’re opening the gates for enshittification and a worse user experience tomorrow. Again, why support it as an equal option if we all know the price?
