6 ms·

Flatpak and Snaps are a great step forward for Linux packaging and usability. I think there's a vocal segment of the Linux community that doesn't understand wh

by jhack 8y ago

Flatpak and Snaps are a great step forward for Linux packaging and usability. I think there's a vocal segment of the Linux community that doesn't understand what a major roadblock it is for the general user having different distributions having completely different ways of packaging, distributing, and updating applications. Don't worry, no one's taking away your apt-get, pacman, rpm, eopkg, makefiles, etc.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Eh, it's a step forward, I wouldn't call it a great one. A great step forward would be to remove all this complicated runtime garbage and keep things simple. GNUStep App Bundles, ROX AppDirs, and AppImage are much better ideas, if you ask me, and the wide adoption of one of those would be a great step forward.
- dec0dedab0de 8y ago
  Eh, it's a step forward, I wouldn't call it a great one. A great step forward would be to remove all this complicated runtime garbage and keep things simple. GNUStep App Bundles, ROX AppDirs, and AppImage are much better ideas, if you ask me, and the wide adoption of one of those would be a great step forward. I go back and forth on this one. On one hand I think it would make things much simpler for users who have enough storage and bandwidth. On the other, when there is a vulnerability in a major library we would have to wait for every application to be updated, if they're even being maintained. The thing is that package managers have mostly abstracted away the headaches of dependency hell, but have also raised the barrier to entry, so any software not participating seems suspect.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    > On the other, when there is a vulnerability in a major library we would have to wait for every application to be updated, if they're even being maintained. Yes, that's a drawback, but how often is there a major library that shouldn't be part of the set of libraries included as part of the base OS install? And for the ones that aren't, if the vendor chooses not to update at least you have the option of continuing to use, or not, the older version on your own terms instead of having it broken by the package manager when a dependant library is swapped out from under it. We live with this sort of thing every day in real world business and it honestly hasn't been a big deal.
- TingPing 8y ago
  Just hoping the host never breaks ABI is why we are here in the first place, solutions like that simply don't work and you need a runtime to be portable.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    The Linux Kernel ABI is incredibly stable, thanks to Linus, it's only the userland built up around it by other people that doesn't give a damn about compatibility. This isn't a significant issue for other OSs because they have a well defined base system and care about compatibility (because users care about compatibility).
    - tracker1 8y ago
      I'm not entirely sure why you are being downvoted. The statements may not be entirely true and a bit volatile, but it's been my experience to a large extent. One of the things I like about docker, flatpak, etc. is that it allows for entire apps and dependencies to be encapsulated together. Less interruption and down time fixing things. When I use Linux as my main OS, I lose about a day or so every other month to dealing with upgrade/update fallout. It's discouraging to say the least. With Windows, it's been about every other year, and macOS every major version gives me a little grief for something. Both far less frequent than any Linux distro I've used. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy using linux, that said, I still have very weak trust of it as my primary desktop/laptop OS. I use all three regularly.
      - eikenberry 8y ago
        > When I use Linux as my main OS, I lose about a day or so every other month to dealing with upgrade/update fallout. One of the big benefits of Linux is you have control over this by picking your distribution. If you used, for example, Debian you wouldn't have this problem as updates don't break things. If, on the other hand, you don't mind dealing with the occasional update issue and want bleeding edge packages then something like Arch might be better.
        8y ago
- rkeene2 8y ago
  You might like AppFS, it solves the packaging problem. It doesn't include sandboxing, but that's a separate system that could be built on top. https://AppFS.rkeene.org/ https://AppFS.rkeene.org/
mediocrejoker 8y ago
I installed Ubuntu 18.04 the other day and was prompted to install some common software such as Slack, Discord and Spotify . I installed all of them, and it mostly worked (navigating to another page in the software centre cancels an ongoing install with no warning). When I ran mount, I noticed that every package I'd installed had it's own entry in the mount list. After I rebooted the machine, these mounts were no longer listed and the software I'd "installed" was no longer available through the gnome menu. I'm not against finding new and better ways to package software but this experience left me with the expression that the technology is not quite ready to be rolled out and adopted en masse.
- seiferteric 8y ago
  I've noticed after updates I believe, the calculator app just won't open. It will sit there with the spinning wheel thing. After a reboot it will be fine. I noticed that the calc app is installed as a snap, never noticed this behavior before.
  - stuaxo 8y ago
    I thought that was just me, haven't reported it yet as I don't use calc enough to bother, but probably should.
  - jake_the_third 8y ago
    I've encountered the same issue as well. I found that I could "fix" the issue by uninstalling the snap version and installing apt version instead.
  - aorth 8y ago
    Wait, why is the calculator app installed as a snap? As a technology preview or proof of concept it's not very impressive—especially if it doesn't work!
- scns 8y ago
  Had a similar experience with flatpack. Installed some software 2 days ago and yesterday flatpak told me it is not installed. Teething problems i guess.
cpburns2009 8y ago
Snap needs to fix their non-standard directory placement. They ignore the FHS [1] by creating /snap at the root level. And they ignore XDG [2] by persistently creating ~/snap in your home directory. I've heard Flatpak is better in this regard. I'm sure it could help with application delivery so long as it's constrained to that. I don't want half of my standard libraries or utilities suddenly becoming sandboxed. For full blown applications sandboxing would be welcomed. [1]: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/index.html https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/index.html [2]: https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-0.6.html https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-...
- Thaxll 8y ago
  Does it matters?
  - deadbunny 8y ago
    Do standards matter? Yes.
    - moocowtruck 8y ago
      depends if they are holding back a better future, then no
- akerro 8y ago
  They just create ~/.var if you install program for single user, if as root it goes somewhere to /usr/share
- lathiat 8y ago
  Flatpak uses /app so I’m not sure how it’s really “better” Problem is they both need to create an area with a full separate file system which doesn’t really fit in with the FHS.
  - cpburns2009 8y ago
baybal2 8y ago
>I think there's a vocal segment of the Linux community that doesn't understand what a major roadblock it is for the general user having different distributions having completely different ways of packaging, distributing, and updating applications. Don't worry, no one's taking away your apt-get, pacman, rpm, eopkg, makefiles, etc. There's a vocal segment of the mobile App developer community that doesn't understand what a major roadblock it is for the general user having different distributions having completely different ways of packaging, distributing, and updating applications on iPhone and Android phones. In reality, it doesn't matter. I saw a lot of near pension age people, first time computer users, being taught basic usage of Ubuntu at around version 5.10. In our office, we have administrative and corporate treasury staff being taught to use it. The matter of them using it and not complaining "where is the start button here?" is having them RTFM* or get fired. Not a single time we had to fire anybody over that. Irony here is that the few Windows machines in the office are used by engineering for things like solidworks, different physics simulation packages, cadence, vivado and etc [*] available in eloquent Chinese, unlike worse than Google translate Microsoft's manuals
marenkay 8y ago
What worries me more is that packaged applications come with 1-n standards again. There is no value in having a package manager on top of one. The real problem is that actual software is trying hard to be too complex and violate best practices for installing software. User managed Apps are okay. But: only for private use and never for company use since user control IS the actual issue there.
- jcelerier 8y ago
  > User managed Apps are okay. But: only for private use and never for company use [...] well, private use is by far the majority use case, isn't it ?
  - marenkay 8y ago
    So, what about all the people building the software and making a living from that?

by jhack 8y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

Eh, it's a step forward, I wouldn't call it a great one. A great step forward would be to remove all this complicated runtime garbage and keep things simple. GNUStep App Bundles, ROX AppDirs, and AppImage are much better ideas, if you ask me, and the wide adoption of one of those would be a great step forward.

dec0dedab0de 8y ago
Eh, it's a step forward, I wouldn't call it a great one. A great step forward would be to remove all this complicated runtime garbage and keep things simple. GNUStep App Bundles, ROX AppDirs, and AppImage are much better ideas, if you ask me, and the wide adoption of one of those would be a great step forward. I go back and forth on this one. On one hand I think it would make things much simpler for users who have enough storage and bandwidth. On the other, when there is a vulnerability in a major library we would have to wait for every application to be updated, if they're even being maintained. The thing is that package managers have mostly abstracted away the headaches of dependency hell, but have also raised the barrier to entry, so any software not participating seems suspect.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  > On the other, when there is a vulnerability in a major library we would have to wait for every application to be updated, if they're even being maintained. Yes, that's a drawback, but how often is there a major library that shouldn't be part of the set of libraries included as part of the base OS install? And for the ones that aren't, if the vendor chooses not to update at least you have the option of continuing to use, or not, the older version on your own terms instead of having it broken by the package manager when a dependant library is swapped out from under it. We live with this sort of thing every day in real world business and it honestly hasn't been a big deal.
TingPing 8y ago
Just hoping the host never breaks ABI is why we are here in the first place, solutions like that simply don't work and you need a runtime to be portable.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  The Linux Kernel ABI is incredibly stable, thanks to Linus, it's only the userland built up around it by other people that doesn't give a damn about compatibility. This isn't a significant issue for other OSs because they have a well defined base system and care about compatibility (because users care about compatibility).
  - tracker1 8y ago
    I'm not entirely sure why you are being downvoted. The statements may not be entirely true and a bit volatile, but it's been my experience to a large extent. One of the things I like about docker, flatpak, etc. is that it allows for entire apps and dependencies to be encapsulated together. Less interruption and down time fixing things. When I use Linux as my main OS, I lose about a day or so every other month to dealing with upgrade/update fallout. It's discouraging to say the least. With Windows, it's been about every other year, and macOS every major version gives me a little grief for something. Both far less frequent than any Linux distro I've used. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy using linux, that said, I still have very weak trust of it as my primary desktop/laptop OS. I use all three regularly.
    - eikenberry 8y ago
      > When I use Linux as my main OS, I lose about a day or so every other month to dealing with upgrade/update fallout. One of the big benefits of Linux is you have control over this by picking your distribution. If you used, for example, Debian you wouldn't have this problem as updates don't break things. If, on the other hand, you don't mind dealing with the occasional update issue and want bleeding edge packages then something like Arch might be better.
      - 8y ago
rkeene2 8y ago
You might like AppFS, it solves the packaging problem. It doesn't include sandboxing, but that's a separate system that could be built on top. https://AppFS.rkeene.org/ https://AppFS.rkeene.org/

mediocrejoker 8y ago

I installed Ubuntu 18.04 the other day and was prompted to install some common software such as Slack, Discord and Spotify . I installed all of them, and it mostly worked (navigating to another page in the software centre cancels an ongoing install with no warning). When I ran mount, I noticed that every package I'd installed had it's own entry in the mount list. After I rebooted the machine, these mounts were no longer listed and the software I'd "installed" was no longer available through the gnome menu. I'm not against finding new and better ways to package software but this experience left me with the expression that the technology is not quite ready to be rolled out and adopted en masse.

seiferteric 8y ago
I've noticed after updates I believe, the calculator app just won't open. It will sit there with the spinning wheel thing. After a reboot it will be fine. I noticed that the calc app is installed as a snap, never noticed this behavior before.
- stuaxo 8y ago
  I thought that was just me, haven't reported it yet as I don't use calc enough to bother, but probably should.
- jake_the_third 8y ago
  I've encountered the same issue as well. I found that I could "fix" the issue by uninstalling the snap version and installing apt version instead.
- aorth 8y ago
  Wait, why is the calculator app installed as a snap? As a technology preview or proof of concept it's not very impressive—especially if it doesn't work!
scns 8y ago
Had a similar experience with flatpack. Installed some software 2 days ago and yesterday flatpak told me it is not installed. Teething problems i guess.

cpburns2009 8y ago

Snap needs to fix their non-standard directory placement. They ignore the FHS [1] by creating /snap at the root level. And they ignore XDG [2] by persistently creating ~/snap in your home directory. I've heard Flatpak is better in this regard. I'm sure it could help with application delivery so long as it's constrained to that. I don't want half of my standard libraries or utilities suddenly becoming sandboxed. For full blown applications sandboxing would be welcomed. [1]: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/index.html https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/FHS_3.0/fhs/index.html [2]: https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-spec-0.6.html https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/basedir-...

Thaxll 8y ago
Does it matters?
- deadbunny 8y ago
  Do standards matter? Yes.
  - moocowtruck 8y ago
    depends if they are holding back a better future, then no
akerro 8y ago
They just create ~/.var if you install program for single user, if as root it goes somewhere to /usr/share
lathiat 8y ago
Flatpak uses /app so I’m not sure how it’s really “better” Problem is they both need to create an area with a full separate file system which doesn’t really fit in with the FHS.
- cpburns2009 8y ago

baybal2 8y ago

>I think there's a vocal segment of the Linux community that doesn't understand what a major roadblock it is for the general user having different distributions having completely different ways of packaging, distributing, and updating applications. Don't worry, no one's taking away your apt-get, pacman, rpm, eopkg, makefiles, etc. There's a vocal segment of the mobile App developer community that doesn't understand what a major roadblock it is for the general user having different distributions having completely different ways of packaging, distributing, and updating applications on iPhone and Android phones. In reality, it doesn't matter. I saw a lot of near pension age people, first time computer users, being taught basic usage of Ubuntu at around version 5.10. In our office, we have administrative and corporate treasury staff being taught to use it. The matter of them using it and not complaining "where is the start button here?" is having them RTFM* or get fired. Not a single time we had to fire anybody over that. Irony here is that the few Windows machines in the office are used by engineering for things like solidworks, different physics simulation packages, cadence, vivado and etc [*] available in eloquent Chinese, unlike worse than Google translate Microsoft's manuals

marenkay 8y ago

What worries me more is that packaged applications come with 1-n standards again. There is no value in having a package manager on top of one. The real problem is that actual software is trying hard to be too complex and violate best practices for installing software. User managed Apps are okay. But: only for private use and never for company use since user control IS the actual issue there.

jcelerier 8y ago
> User managed Apps are okay. But: only for private use and never for company use [...] well, private use is by far the majority use case, isn't it ?
- marenkay 8y ago
  So, what about all the people building the software and making a living from that?