Why is snap a "dark pattern"?
The 'interface' (tool availability) has been crafted such that users are likely to favor Snap over Flatpak... because Flatpak now takes a step that only serves to prop up Snap: installation of the runtime
I don't want to overstate the significance of this -- it's about as dark as dawn-break. Canonical is still maintaining/offering it, and I can get behind supporting Their Thing.
The worst thing about this is the messaging. If they had just done the thing and said nothing, I'd have nothing to complain about.
It could be taken as curation -- the messaging aims to convince that fewer options = more better.
edit: Some irony to this is we'd be closer to their idealized state of 'one way to install' had they instead chosen to adopt Flatpak over insist that Snap has to happen.
Garden variety self-deception.
> I don't want to overstate the significance of this -- it's about as dark as dawn-break.
I don't see any significance in it. What exactly is the problem?
I don't have an issue in them preferring their solutions, I have an issue with them trying to convince us that it's for our benefit -- not theirs.
XKCD standards summarizes my sentiment well: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png
edit: Snap in itself isn't a dark pattern. I've explained why I feel like this change, and particularly the handling, is.
