6 ms·

I've been using it since the weekend and it's so great! My favourite feature is that it's all flatpak, allowing smartphone-like permissions for each desktop ap

I've been using it since the weekend and it's so great! My favourite feature is that it's all flatpak, allowing smartphone-like permissions for each desktop app — both first-party and any third-party from Flathub. I like it way more than snap and am glad there's an Ubuntu fork that works so wonderfully with it.

marcodiego 5y ago
Flatpaks, as well as snaps and appimages to a lesser extent, are a true godsend to the linux desktop. I can finally have a stable system and software released yesterday.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Unfortunately each has its own drawbacks and, in typical Linux Desktop fashion, it's 3 fragmented solutions to roughly the same problem with none of them being standard or enjoying a particularly de-facto status. The end result being that you can't get everything in any one of them, and often can't get a particular application in any of them.
  - input_sh 5y ago
    Can't say I've stumbled upon a lot of desktop apps (not terminal utilities) that are not on Flathub. The list is pretty long: https://flathub.org/apps/category/All https://flathub.org/apps/category/All From my experience, most of the popular proprietary ones (think: Slack, Discord, Spotify, whatever) are distributed both as a flatpak and as a snap, while more niche desktop apps are usually flatpak-exclusive (out of those options).
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      > Can't say I've stumbled upon a lot of desktop apps (not terminal utilities) that are not on Flathub. Perhaps you just don't use that many things that aren't really popular or well known? I can't find PuTTY and KeePass (though obviously there are alternatives in those cases), applications that both have Linux versions and that I use every day (and aren't even that unknown). Also, unfortunately the limitations of Flatpak mean even if what you want is there, say Wireshark, it often won't have full functionality because it is impossible to give it the permissions it needs. In Wireshark's case, it can't actually capture any packets. If you want to actually use it you'll still need to resort to a different installation method.
      - workerdrone451 5y ago
        Did you try flatseal for Wireshark? It abstracts the process of messing with permissions. That being said, unless the flatpak has some features your distro version doesn't, for trusted software package is always preferred. Flatpak is really for untrusted software/proprietary and projects that update with new features often.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        You misunderstand, Flatpak has no mechanism whereby the appropriate permission can be granted. At all. https://github.com/flathub/org.wireshark.Wireshark/issues/4 https://github.com/flathub/org.wireshark.Wireshark/issues/4
      - veeti 5y ago
        What is the use case for running PuTTY on Linux? I'm curious.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        It is what I use on Windows, so I'm familiar with it, and it supports serial comms.
        orthecreedence 5y ago
        Window management. It's basically a way to segregate a general terminal (usually used for local stuff) from a window specifically for SSH. For me this was a much bigger issue when I was on Windows, but also in Ubuntu which groups programs together similarly to the Windows taskbar. I'm on i3 now mostly and just use a normal terminal for ssh, but for quite some time I was using putty on linux specifically for window management.
        approxim8ion 5y ago
        Sounds like a use case for tmux?
  - marcodiego 5y ago
    Hi AnIdiotOnTheNet! I really appreciate your comments against linux. I'm true. Since I don't have much knowledge about NT's strengths, the comments I like the most are the ones where you highlight advantages of the NT kernel over linux. It's been some time since I last read anything like that from you. Would you mind to comment if ebpf usage and the possible new futex2 syscall helps to close the gap between linux and NT with regards to async primitives?
  - horsawlarway 5y ago
    As someone who's released commercial software on linux before - having only 3 solutions to target is actually pretty delightful (We still build .deb and .rpm as well, so 5 really, after snap, flatpak and appimage) Plus I find the general sandbox approach to be a LOT more stable - distro upgrades rarely causes issues, and dependencies are much easier to wrangle. Definitely still some hiccups, but overall it feels like it's moving in a direction that I find easier to work with - both as a user and a developer. Plus the markets are generally fairly large - sure I still dip into aur every now and then, but I mostly find the "Software I need at work" stuff available
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      > As someone who's released commercial software on linux before - having only 3 solutions to target is actually pretty delightful I think that speaks to a particularly huge failure of Linux Desktop more than anything else.
      - beermonster 5y ago
        In what sense? If you mean the fact there are multiple solutions, I don't think it's anything to do with Linux Desktop. I don't think that's even to do with Linux. More the plethora of alternatives in general when using FOSS. But that to some is its strength, not failure.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        I disagree. Now to ensure I can install software I need not just one package manager, but at least 2 or 3 (atp, flatpak, snap). Of course that doesn't cover all the bases either, I'm still occasionally going to have to compile something from source because the developer didn't even bother making a binary because they don't want to build it for 5+ different packaging formats, several of which will need constant maintenance. When it comes to platforms[0], you need to be able to depend on certain things being there and working a certain way. Fragmentation of a platform is bad, and Linux Desktop is so fragmented the various distros style themselves as entirely different OSs! [0] As opposed to applications. Part of the problem is that historically there has never been a clear delineation in Linux Desktop.
sylens 5y ago
That feature does seem like the standout of their release notes to me
imglorp 5y ago
Do any of the Flatpak advocates have a response to this security criticism? Eg - https://flatkill.org/2020/ https://flatkill.org/2020/
- input_sh 5y ago
  See: https://theevilskeleton.gitlab.io/2021/02/11/response-to-flatkill-org.html https://theevilskeleton.gitlab.io/2021/02/11/response-to-fla... There's also Flatseal (https://flathub.org/apps/details/com.github.tchx84.Flatseal https://flathub.org/apps/details/com.github.tchx84.Flatseal) as a user-friendly way of managing permissions for flatpak apps. This version of elementary OS comes with its own permission manager, but with my limited experience with both, it seems like it allows tweaking less permissions than Flatseal.
  - BeefWellington 5y ago
    > See: https://theevilskeleton.gitlab.io/2021/02/11/response-to-fla https://theevilskeleton.gitlab.io/2021/02/11/response-to-fla... Everything in that reference basically says "yep the criticism is valid" and in a few cases the author expands on that with "but it's ok because..." and then lists various reasons why it's fine that it's still a problem but that's it's being worked on. They also had to correct a good chunk of just outright incorrect information they were supplying mid-post about system updates. One item was addressed, which was that flatpak now notifies the user that sandbox escapes are possible based on the app's configuration. As a response to the criticisms, it's not a great one. Consider also, there are better ways that some of these issues could have been tackled. Why not have flatpak prompt for permissions as they're used, e.g.: "This app wants to open your home directory" rather than at install-time. That would make it abundantly clearer to the end users this is aimed at.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      > Why not have flatpak prompt for permissions as they're used, e.g.: "This app wants to open your home directory" rather than at install-time. That would make it abundantly clearer to the end users this is aimed at. I'm going out on a limb and guessing that it is because that's what is done in mobile, and it's usage in mobile has re-taught everyone the lesson that constant dialog prompts just train users to click through dialog prompts without reading them. That's bad, and annoying. I do still think there are better solutions to that problem, but it would require more effort from users to get applications working if they weren't designed with sandboxing in mind, which is the vast majority of applications, which in turn means that Flatpak probably wouldn't have grown as quickly.
BiteCode_dev 5y ago
Does flatpack have solved the theming problems they had 2 years ago ? And the perf issues ?
- schmorptron 5y ago
  Those were issues snap had though, I'm not aware of flatpak having those problems.

marcodiego 5y ago

Flatpaks, as well as snaps and appimages to a lesser extent, are a true godsend to the linux desktop. I can finally have a stable system and software released yesterday.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Unfortunately each has its own drawbacks and, in typical Linux Desktop fashion, it's 3 fragmented solutions to roughly the same problem with none of them being standard or enjoying a particularly de-facto status. The end result being that you can't get everything in any one of them, and often can't get a particular application in any of them.
- input_sh 5y ago
  Can't say I've stumbled upon a lot of desktop apps (not terminal utilities) that are not on Flathub. The list is pretty long: https://flathub.org/apps/category/All https://flathub.org/apps/category/All From my experience, most of the popular proprietary ones (think: Slack, Discord, Spotify, whatever) are distributed both as a flatpak and as a snap, while more niche desktop apps are usually flatpak-exclusive (out of those options).
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    > Can't say I've stumbled upon a lot of desktop apps (not terminal utilities) that are not on Flathub. Perhaps you just don't use that many things that aren't really popular or well known? I can't find PuTTY and KeePass (though obviously there are alternatives in those cases), applications that both have Linux versions and that I use every day (and aren't even that unknown). Also, unfortunately the limitations of Flatpak mean even if what you want is there, say Wireshark, it often won't have full functionality because it is impossible to give it the permissions it needs. In Wireshark's case, it can't actually capture any packets. If you want to actually use it you'll still need to resort to a different installation method.
    - workerdrone451 5y ago
      Did you try flatseal for Wireshark? It abstracts the process of messing with permissions. That being said, unless the flatpak has some features your distro version doesn't, for trusted software package is always preferred. Flatpak is really for untrusted software/proprietary and projects that update with new features often.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        You misunderstand, Flatpak has no mechanism whereby the appropriate permission can be granted. At all. https://github.com/flathub/org.wireshark.Wireshark/issues/4 https://github.com/flathub/org.wireshark.Wireshark/issues/4
    - veeti 5y ago
      What is the use case for running PuTTY on Linux? I'm curious.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        It is what I use on Windows, so I'm familiar with it, and it supports serial comms.
      - orthecreedence 5y ago
        Window management. It's basically a way to segregate a general terminal (usually used for local stuff) from a window specifically for SSH. For me this was a much bigger issue when I was on Windows, but also in Ubuntu which groups programs together similarly to the Windows taskbar. I'm on i3 now mostly and just use a normal terminal for ssh, but for quite some time I was using putty on linux specifically for window management.
        approxim8ion 5y ago
        Sounds like a use case for tmux?
- marcodiego 5y ago
  Hi AnIdiotOnTheNet! I really appreciate your comments against linux. I'm true. Since I don't have much knowledge about NT's strengths, the comments I like the most are the ones where you highlight advantages of the NT kernel over linux. It's been some time since I last read anything like that from you. Would you mind to comment if ebpf usage and the possible new futex2 syscall helps to close the gap between linux and NT with regards to async primitives?
- horsawlarway 5y ago
  As someone who's released commercial software on linux before - having only 3 solutions to target is actually pretty delightful (We still build .deb and .rpm as well, so 5 really, after snap, flatpak and appimage) Plus I find the general sandbox approach to be a LOT more stable - distro upgrades rarely causes issues, and dependencies are much easier to wrangle. Definitely still some hiccups, but overall it feels like it's moving in a direction that I find easier to work with - both as a user and a developer. Plus the markets are generally fairly large - sure I still dip into aur every now and then, but I mostly find the "Software I need at work" stuff available
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    > As someone who's released commercial software on linux before - having only 3 solutions to target is actually pretty delightful I think that speaks to a particularly huge failure of Linux Desktop more than anything else.
    - beermonster 5y ago
      In what sense? If you mean the fact there are multiple solutions, I don't think it's anything to do with Linux Desktop. I don't think that's even to do with Linux. More the plethora of alternatives in general when using FOSS. But that to some is its strength, not failure.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        I disagree. Now to ensure I can install software I need not just one package manager, but at least 2 or 3 (atp, flatpak, snap). Of course that doesn't cover all the bases either, I'm still occasionally going to have to compile something from source because the developer didn't even bother making a binary because they don't want to build it for 5+ different packaging formats, several of which will need constant maintenance. When it comes to platforms[0], you need to be able to depend on certain things being there and working a certain way. Fragmentation of a platform is bad, and Linux Desktop is so fragmented the various distros style themselves as entirely different OSs! [0] As opposed to applications. Part of the problem is that historically there has never been a clear delineation in Linux Desktop.

sylens 5y ago

That feature does seem like the standout of their release notes to me

imglorp 5y ago

Do any of the Flatpak advocates have a response to this security criticism? Eg - https://flatkill.org/2020/ https://flatkill.org/2020/

input_sh 5y ago
See: https://theevilskeleton.gitlab.io/2021/02/11/response-to-flatkill-org.html https://theevilskeleton.gitlab.io/2021/02/11/response-to-fla... There's also Flatseal (https://flathub.org/apps/details/com.github.tchx84.Flatseal https://flathub.org/apps/details/com.github.tchx84.Flatseal) as a user-friendly way of managing permissions for flatpak apps. This version of elementary OS comes with its own permission manager, but with my limited experience with both, it seems like it allows tweaking less permissions than Flatseal.
- BeefWellington 5y ago
  > See: https://theevilskeleton.gitlab.io/2021/02/11/response-to-fla https://theevilskeleton.gitlab.io/2021/02/11/response-to-fla... Everything in that reference basically says "yep the criticism is valid" and in a few cases the author expands on that with "but it's ok because..." and then lists various reasons why it's fine that it's still a problem but that's it's being worked on. They also had to correct a good chunk of just outright incorrect information they were supplying mid-post about system updates. One item was addressed, which was that flatpak now notifies the user that sandbox escapes are possible based on the app's configuration. As a response to the criticisms, it's not a great one. Consider also, there are better ways that some of these issues could have been tackled. Why not have flatpak prompt for permissions as they're used, e.g.: "This app wants to open your home directory" rather than at install-time. That would make it abundantly clearer to the end users this is aimed at.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    > Why not have flatpak prompt for permissions as they're used, e.g.: "This app wants to open your home directory" rather than at install-time. That would make it abundantly clearer to the end users this is aimed at. I'm going out on a limb and guessing that it is because that's what is done in mobile, and it's usage in mobile has re-taught everyone the lesson that constant dialog prompts just train users to click through dialog prompts without reading them. That's bad, and annoying. I do still think there are better solutions to that problem, but it would require more effort from users to get applications working if they weren't designed with sandboxing in mind, which is the vast majority of applications, which in turn means that Flatpak probably wouldn't have grown as quickly.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago

Does flatpack have solved the theming problems they had 2 years ago ? And the perf issues ?

schmorptron 5y ago
Those were issues snap had though, I'm not aware of flatpak having those problems.