29 ms·

There’s a lot of good software that isn’t in package repos. This isn’t a failure in the developers part. It takes knowledge and time and effort to package for a

There’s a lot of good software that isn’t in package repos. This isn’t a failure in the developers part. It takes knowledge and time and effort to package for a repo, let alone all the different repos on each distro. Flat pack gives a single way to distribute something and on that merit alone it’s valuable.

waheoo 6y ago
Again, to whom? Arch has aur, arch can sideload rpm/Deb's, Mac has home brew, who needs this? The only people I see using flatpak is the 50 odd Linux users we have at work, they constantly have dramas trying to make things work around home directory sandboxing, permissions, updating and more > Single way Why is this valuable? Just saying it doesn't make it true. Why do we need a single way to install? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but giving up home dirs and a bunch of other platform specific benefits is a cost I'm not willing to pay for some made up ideal that gives me a worse experience.
- santoshalper 6y ago
  Did you know, and this may shock you, that there are other people with other interests. Also, and this one is really going to blow your mind, these other "people" (plebes if you will), may value different things and want products that are of no interest to you. Flatpak sounds like a shitshow, but the not because it doesn't meet your specific requirements.
- knocte 6y ago
  > Again, to whom? Are you trolling? I think the answer is obvious: less duplication of efforts may make the linux ecosystem be more lean which may mean more manpower to... bring the year of the linux desktop.
  - asveikau 6y ago
    If you avoid duplication of effort by doing something worse than existing solutions, is that progress? Distro package managers have more than 20 years doing this. If you want to replace them I think there should be fewer drawbacks. Otherwise you are throwing out decades of design, thought, bug fixes for something more problematic.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    You are assuming that packaging is a substantial burden when compared to making a complex application and that that labor translates ultimately into tangible benefits. If the packaging is done by the dev you are assuming that 1% extra effort wont be spent playing chess instead of adding features. If the packaging is down by an interested party for that distro you are assuming that a person competent to write a package file is even competent to say write an app let alone interested in doing so.
- jdright 6y ago
  To me at least, but I'm sure there is more people than me who wants this.
kchr 6y ago
Almost every package manager on Linux distros allow you to install packages outside of the main repositories and still manage dependencies using the repos. I agree there are a lot of distros to package for, but I'd say the bonus of not having to maintain and update all the dependencies outweighs that fact. For example, there are a lot of tools that can generate Debian packages for you if you don't want to spend any time learning the manifests. I assume these exist for most distros.
- quicklyfrozen 6y ago
  Even if there are easy tools available, I'd still need to learn them for each distro I want to support. Heck, just figuring out the different names each distro uses for a particular package is a fair bit of work.
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    Just use Gnu Stow as a secondary package manager and install into the /usr/local tree.
    - eikenberry 6y ago
      The discussion is about packaging your software for users, not yourself. Stow is a solution for managing non-packages software on your personal system, not for distributing it.
      - waheoo 6y ago
        Most people don't package their software for distros. Smart distros keep things close to upstream so the burden is small. This is a weird argument. Now you want each developer to manage dependency updates for their application? I don't trust them to develop their own app let alone apply security patches properly.

waheoo 6y ago

Again, to whom? Arch has aur, arch can sideload rpm/Deb's, Mac has home brew, who needs this? The only people I see using flatpak is the 50 odd Linux users we have at work, they constantly have dramas trying to make things work around home directory sandboxing, permissions, updating and more > Single way Why is this valuable? Just saying it doesn't make it true. Why do we need a single way to install? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but giving up home dirs and a bunch of other platform specific benefits is a cost I'm not willing to pay for some made up ideal that gives me a worse experience.

santoshalper 6y ago
Did you know, and this may shock you, that there are other people with other interests. Also, and this one is really going to blow your mind, these other "people" (plebes if you will), may value different things and want products that are of no interest to you. Flatpak sounds like a shitshow, but the not because it doesn't meet your specific requirements.
knocte 6y ago
> Again, to whom? Are you trolling? I think the answer is obvious: less duplication of efforts may make the linux ecosystem be more lean which may mean more manpower to... bring the year of the linux desktop.
- asveikau 6y ago
  If you avoid duplication of effort by doing something worse than existing solutions, is that progress? Distro package managers have more than 20 years doing this. If you want to replace them I think there should be fewer drawbacks. Otherwise you are throwing out decades of design, thought, bug fixes for something more problematic.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  You are assuming that packaging is a substantial burden when compared to making a complex application and that that labor translates ultimately into tangible benefits. If the packaging is done by the dev you are assuming that 1% extra effort wont be spent playing chess instead of adding features. If the packaging is down by an interested party for that distro you are assuming that a person competent to write a package file is even competent to say write an app let alone interested in doing so.
jdright 6y ago
To me at least, but I'm sure there is more people than me who wants this.

kchr 6y ago

Almost every package manager on Linux distros allow you to install packages outside of the main repositories and still manage dependencies using the repos. I agree there are a lot of distros to package for, but I'd say the bonus of not having to maintain and update all the dependencies outweighs that fact. For example, there are a lot of tools that can generate Debian packages for you if you don't want to spend any time learning the manifests. I assume these exist for most distros.

quicklyfrozen 6y ago
Even if there are easy tools available, I'd still need to learn them for each distro I want to support. Heck, just figuring out the different names each distro uses for a particular package is a fair bit of work.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  Just use Gnu Stow as a secondary package manager and install into the /usr/local tree.
  - eikenberry 6y ago
    The discussion is about packaging your software for users, not yourself. Stow is a solution for managing non-packages software on your personal system, not for distributing it.
    - waheoo 6y ago
      Most people don't package their software for distros. Smart distros keep things close to upstream so the burden is small. This is a weird argument. Now you want each developer to manage dependency updates for their application? I don't trust them to develop their own app let alone apply security patches properly.