3 ms·
But that’s not the point that is made against flatpaks - the point made in the article is “it allows access to the home directory, so it’s worse.” Whether flat
by Xylakant 6y ago
But that’s not the point that is made against flatpaks - the point made in the article is “it allows access to the home directory, so it’s worse.”
Whether flatpaks is better or worse than packages depends on many other factors. Flatpaks allow software providers to package for multiple operating systems in one package, for example. This makes software available that otherwise wouldn’t be. Whether that’s worth it or not is debatable, but raising clearly invalid points to attack flatpaks is disingenuous.
- trasz 6y agoDoes it? Which operating system other than Linux uses flatpaks?
- Xylakant 6y agoLet’s count the various Linux flavors as different operating systems for this purpose, because they use wildly different package formats. And yes, I’ve installed software for fedora via flatpak that did not have packages for fedora at all or depended on versions of dependencies that the host system did not provide. (Specific python versions and dependencies IIRC)
- trasz 6y agoPackage format does not make an os. Codebase does.
- the_why_of_y 6y agoIndeed. If you're an ISV packaging an application that uses OpenSSL, $DISTRO version N and $DISTRO version N+1 can easily be different OSes because they ship different incompatible OpenSSL versions, so what you do is provide a .deb/.rpm/.tar.gz that bundles a statically linked OpenSSL.