3 ms·

That's the thing. Not every package is available on every distribution. Snap/Flatpak were meant to solve that issue. Edit: There's also the fact that practica

by przmk 6y ago

That's the thing. Not every package is available on every distribution. Snap/Flatpak were meant to solve that issue. Edit: There's also the fact that practically most packages on Ubuntu or Debian, for example, are outdated.

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
> That's the thing. Not every package is available on every distribution. > Snap/Flatpak were meant to solve that issue. https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
enriquto 6y ago
> Not every package is available on every distribution. Snap/Flatpak were meant to solve that issue. This "issue" was already solved by static executables. Snap and flatpack are the work of computer illiterates.
- przmk 6y ago
  You still need to distribute the static executables and there's no way to update them besides downloading them again unless the software has some auto-updater built-in. That definitely doesn't solve the issue.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. If you are so concerned about the security of your system that you want to run each program on a sandbox, then you definitely do not want to allow programs to "update" themselves by automatically downloading random binaries from the internet.
    - przmk 6y ago
      Well, I never said I was concerned with security. I am to some extent but not to the point where I inspect every single update. What I value most is having every software or library available through some form of package manager. Downloading static binaries off the internet without auto-update just doesn't make it which is why I like having Flatpak as a fallback. It also makes it easier for the common user to have every piece of software available through one store. They don't need to know whether it's a .deb or a Flatpak underneath, it just needs to be there and work reasonably well. There's really no other option: either distro maintainers include every single piece of software in the repositories (unlikely), or we need a common format that works on all distros (already the case with Flatpak).
- aesh2Xa1 6y ago
  Snaps and Flatpaks provide package management without system privilege required by the system package manager. This is a good deal for users. On the maintainer/author side, yes, I think static binaries largely perform the same.
worble 6y ago
> Snap/Flatpak were meant to solve that issue And they do? Just because they have some flaws doesn't mean that they're completely unusable. If you need an app that isn't on your distro but is on Flatpak, by all means use it.
herewulf 6y ago
> practically most packages on Ubuntu or Debian, for example, are outdated. Some reasonable level of quality control does take time. There are distros that are much more up to date with upstream versions (Arch Linux, Gentoo, etc), but by living on the bleeding edge, you will eventually get cut.
opan 6y ago
Nix and Guix on your foreign distro of choice are a solution.

by przmk 6y ago

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago

> That's the thing. Not every package is available on every distribution. > Snap/Flatpak were meant to solve that issue. https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/

enriquto 6y ago

> Not every package is available on every distribution. Snap/Flatpak were meant to solve that issue. This "issue" was already solved by static executables. Snap and flatpack are the work of computer illiterates.

przmk 6y ago
You still need to distribute the static executables and there's no way to update them besides downloading them again unless the software has some auto-updater built-in. That definitely doesn't solve the issue.
- enriquto 6y ago
  I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. If you are so concerned about the security of your system that you want to run each program on a sandbox, then you definitely do not want to allow programs to "update" themselves by automatically downloading random binaries from the internet.
  - przmk 6y ago
    Well, I never said I was concerned with security. I am to some extent but not to the point where I inspect every single update. What I value most is having every software or library available through some form of package manager. Downloading static binaries off the internet without auto-update just doesn't make it which is why I like having Flatpak as a fallback. It also makes it easier for the common user to have every piece of software available through one store. They don't need to know whether it's a .deb or a Flatpak underneath, it just needs to be there and work reasonably well. There's really no other option: either distro maintainers include every single piece of software in the repositories (unlikely), or we need a common format that works on all distros (already the case with Flatpak).
aesh2Xa1 6y ago
Snaps and Flatpaks provide package management without system privilege required by the system package manager. This is a good deal for users. On the maintainer/author side, yes, I think static binaries largely perform the same.

worble 6y ago

> Snap/Flatpak were meant to solve that issue And they do? Just because they have some flaws doesn't mean that they're completely unusable. If you need an app that isn't on your distro but is on Flatpak, by all means use it.

herewulf 6y ago

> practically most packages on Ubuntu or Debian, for example, are outdated. Some reasonable level of quality control does take time. There are distros that are much more up to date with upstream versions (Arch Linux, Gentoo, etc), but by living on the bleeding edge, you will eventually get cut.

opan 6y ago

Nix and Guix on your foreign distro of choice are a solution.