3 ms·

> On the contrary it provably works very well for distributions. if it worked very well there wouldn't be a need for flatpak / snap / appimage / etc. How do I

> On the contrary it provably works very well for distributions. if it worked very well there wouldn't be a need for flatpak / snap / appimage / etc. How do I install an older or newer inkscape / ardour / krita in the latest debian stable / ubuntu / fedora / whatever without recompiling stuff ?

CRConrad 5y ago
> if it worked very well there wouldn't be a need for flatpak / snap / appimage / etc. Exactly: There isn't. > How do I install an older or newer inkscape / ardour / krita in the latest debian stable / ubuntu / fedora / whatever without recompiling stuff ? You don't. Or if you have to, do it on Gobo (or perhaps Guix or NixOS?).
- jcelerier 5y ago
  That's a ridiculous answer. "You don't" means people go back to windows or Mac OS where they can do that easily because it's an actual need people have. That's the worst outcome by far as it leads to less support on Linux.
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    No, "you don't" is a valid answer. You use what is in the distribution. You chose the combination of archives (stable, stable+backports, and so on...) as you need. Then you use what the distro provides. (The same way as you use the default, tested and guaranteed engine computer on your car rather than installing one bought in a dark alley.) Like the car, distribution work when you use the whole set of components bundled and tested together. If upstreams make it difficult to package new version you can help by asking them to step up their game or switch to a better software. If you want to build a Frankenstein bundle of software you are free to do so but you'll be on your own when things start to break.
    - thereddaikon 5y ago
      This is the opposite of freedom. People own their computers, its up to them how they are used, not some gatekeeping devs.
      - goodpoint 5y ago
        This is absurd. You are confusing Linux distributions with DRM. Did you not read the last line? You are free to do whatever change you want. You are also free to use a distribution as it is without having to spend your time handling security, stability and compatibility across applications all by yourself. Yet you cannot mash together a frankenstein OS while also expecting it to provide security and stability. Not because of a distribution decision but because of reality.
joconde 5y ago
The sentence you're answering was about security. I don't think "fixing vulnerabilities faster" is something Flatpaks were created to solve. It was more of a solution to dependency hell, that makes vulnerabilities harder to fix and audit. I see the same issue with Docker services I deploy: how am I supposed to check that the latest Nginx security update is included in all my docker-compose deployments? With shared libraries, it's as simple as "apt-get upgrade" then restarting the services. In Docker, I'd have to check that the latest versions of all images include the correct versions of all dependencies.

CRConrad 5y ago

> if it worked very well there wouldn't be a need for flatpak / snap / appimage / etc. Exactly: There isn't. > How do I install an older or newer inkscape / ardour / krita in the latest debian stable / ubuntu / fedora / whatever without recompiling stuff ? You don't. Or if you have to, do it on Gobo (or perhaps Guix or NixOS?).

jcelerier 5y ago
That's a ridiculous answer. "You don't" means people go back to windows or Mac OS where they can do that easily because it's an actual need people have. That's the worst outcome by far as it leads to less support on Linux.
- goodpoint 5y ago
  No, "you don't" is a valid answer. You use what is in the distribution. You chose the combination of archives (stable, stable+backports, and so on...) as you need. Then you use what the distro provides. (The same way as you use the default, tested and guaranteed engine computer on your car rather than installing one bought in a dark alley.) Like the car, distribution work when you use the whole set of components bundled and tested together. If upstreams make it difficult to package new version you can help by asking them to step up their game or switch to a better software. If you want to build a Frankenstein bundle of software you are free to do so but you'll be on your own when things start to break.
  - thereddaikon 5y ago
    This is the opposite of freedom. People own their computers, its up to them how they are used, not some gatekeeping devs.
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      This is absurd. You are confusing Linux distributions with DRM. Did you not read the last line? You are free to do whatever change you want. You are also free to use a distribution as it is without having to spend your time handling security, stability and compatibility across applications all by yourself. Yet you cannot mash together a frankenstein OS while also expecting it to provide security and stability. Not because of a distribution decision but because of reality.

joconde 5y ago

The sentence you're answering was about security. I don't think "fixing vulnerabilities faster" is something Flatpaks were created to solve. It was more of a solution to dependency hell, that makes vulnerabilities harder to fix and audit. I see the same issue with Docker services I deploy: how am I supposed to check that the latest Nginx security update is included in all my docker-compose deployments? With shared libraries, it's as simple as "apt-get upgrade" then restarting the services. In Docker, I'd have to check that the latest versions of all images include the correct versions of all dependencies.