3 ms·

Linux doesn't inspire anyone to create new end-user apps (with the exception of Blender and Krita, which were started well over ten years ago). Maybe it's beca

Linux doesn't inspire anyone to create new end-user apps (with the exception of Blender and Krita, which were started well over ten years ago). Maybe it's because the community is full of people who see any change as an attack on how we used to do things, breaking the UNIX philosophy, etc.? This closed-mindedness leads to thinking like: Instead, we're loosing the apps we had, and march towards dumb UIs and needlessly containerized apps a la snap/flatpack. There is a lot of innovation in this space. OSTree (which is also used by Flatpak), replaces the old Unix filesystem model by something that is exciting and much better (atomic upgrades, rollbacks, signed system images, etc.). Flatpak itself finally makes it much easier to deploy desktop applications, which is long-needed to extend Linux beyond the traditional UNIX crowd.

tannhaeuser 4y ago
> see any change as an attack on how we used to do things, breaking the UNIX philosophy, etc. Yeah let's throw portability and any semblance of order away b/c of ... what exactly? > replaces the old Unix filesystem model by something that is exciting :shudder: Count me in on the closed-minded I guess ;)
- microtonal 4y ago
  Yeah let's throw portability and any semblance of order away b/c of ... what exactly? There are only two Unix-like systems left that matter: macOS and Linux. No need to hold them back by pretending we are still in the UNIX wars and retaining compatibility with some UNIX system that nobody really uses anymore.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Linux distribution wars begat UNIX wars.
    - simiones 4y ago
      I think it's the other way around: the older UNIX wars begat the newer Linux distro wars.
      - pjmlp 4y ago
        Might be, not native speaker.
  - dTal 4y ago
    We need to maintain compatibility with 30 years worth of software. That's a primary reason why Microsoft is still dominant, despite the decline of their flagship to the point where it provokes disgust even in the layperson.
executesorder66 4y ago
I agree with your overall point completely. But: > Flatpak itself finally makes it much easier to deploy desktop applications I don't really see how this is at all an improvement over just updating all your software via a a package manager. One command to update everything from a trusted source. What does flatpak do to improve upon this?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  Allows you to install software that isn't in the distro's package manager and didn't have to go through some third party maintainer. In particular, developers can publish to Flathub whenever they want, can run their own FlatPak repo, and can even just distribute FlatPaks directly through whatever means they feel like. This means you can have up to date software the day it is released and don't have to care if it is popular enough to be in your distro's repo. Additionally, FlatPaks can be stored in "installations" that can be in arbitrary locations. This allows users to install FlatPaks without root, put FlatPaks on alternative disks, etc. FlatPaks also make dependency conflicts a thing of the past. Oh yeah, and the whole thing is distro agnostic[0]. [0] Mostly. The extreme fragmentation of Linux distros does cause a few edge-case problems.
  - dijit 4y ago
    Everything is a choice right, and PPA/AUR are pretty cool usability wise. So, I understand what you mean. But the point of package maintainers is: 1) a third party has independently verified and attested to the quality or state of x software. (or there is a responsible person at least) 2) there can be certain guarantees that the package/software integrates with the distro correctly; an example could be bazel vs bazelisk: where both try to write to the /usr/bin/bazel file and would overwrite each other. (same for pipewire-pulse and pulseaudio- they're mutually exclusive). 3) centralises dependencies: if everything depends on the same set of software then you're going to save disk space and memory on every machine, which in aggregate is going to be a lot. Running "Any old shit" from the internet is such a bad idea overall... it's an artefact from people running windows; and every program bundling it's own update framework....

tannhaeuser 4y ago

> see any change as an attack on how we used to do things, breaking the UNIX philosophy, etc. Yeah let's throw portability and any semblance of order away b/c of ... what exactly? > replaces the old Unix filesystem model by something that is exciting :shudder: Count me in on the closed-minded I guess ;)

microtonal 4y ago
Yeah let's throw portability and any semblance of order away b/c of ... what exactly? There are only two Unix-like systems left that matter: macOS and Linux. No need to hold them back by pretending we are still in the UNIX wars and retaining compatibility with some UNIX system that nobody really uses anymore.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Linux distribution wars begat UNIX wars.
  - simiones 4y ago
    I think it's the other way around: the older UNIX wars begat the newer Linux distro wars.
    - pjmlp 4y ago
      Might be, not native speaker.
- dTal 4y ago
  We need to maintain compatibility with 30 years worth of software. That's a primary reason why Microsoft is still dominant, despite the decline of their flagship to the point where it provokes disgust even in the layperson.

executesorder66 4y ago

I agree with your overall point completely. But: > Flatpak itself finally makes it much easier to deploy desktop applications I don't really see how this is at all an improvement over just updating all your software via a a package manager. One command to update everything from a trusted source. What does flatpak do to improve upon this?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
Allows you to install software that isn't in the distro's package manager and didn't have to go through some third party maintainer. In particular, developers can publish to Flathub whenever they want, can run their own FlatPak repo, and can even just distribute FlatPaks directly through whatever means they feel like. This means you can have up to date software the day it is released and don't have to care if it is popular enough to be in your distro's repo. Additionally, FlatPaks can be stored in "installations" that can be in arbitrary locations. This allows users to install FlatPaks without root, put FlatPaks on alternative disks, etc. FlatPaks also make dependency conflicts a thing of the past. Oh yeah, and the whole thing is distro agnostic[0]. [0] Mostly. The extreme fragmentation of Linux distros does cause a few edge-case problems.
- dijit 4y ago
  Everything is a choice right, and PPA/AUR are pretty cool usability wise. So, I understand what you mean. But the point of package maintainers is: 1) a third party has independently verified and attested to the quality or state of x software. (or there is a responsible person at least) 2) there can be certain guarantees that the package/software integrates with the distro correctly; an example could be bazel vs bazelisk: where both try to write to the /usr/bin/bazel file and would overwrite each other. (same for pipewire-pulse and pulseaudio- they're mutually exclusive). 3) centralises dependencies: if everything depends on the same set of software then you're going to save disk space and memory on every machine, which in aggregate is going to be a lot. Running "Any old shit" from the internet is such a bad idea overall... it's an artefact from people running windows; and every program bundling it's own update framework....