5 ms·

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

by 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.

by waheoo 6y ago

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.