4 ms·

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 a

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....
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
    > Everything is a choice right, and PPA/AUR are pretty cool usability wise. They're two separate systems for exactly two separate distros and, oh yeah, your PPA needs to have separate repos for every single Ubuntu release. > But the point of package maintainers is Irrelevant to a lot of us. To me, they are useless middle men who ensure that it takes entirely too long to get updated software when I want it or alternatively that I can't even get the software I want[0] because no one has bothered to package it and put it in the repo for this specific distro. For 1), I don't trust random unpaid volunteers to do this anyway. I'd rather either not run applications I don't trust or just containerize them. Guess how Flatpak works? For 2), FlatPak makes this irrelevant for Desktop software. If you eliminate the ability for software to conflict, you eliminate the need for unpaid volunteers to try and deal with that problem. Pulse/Pipewire is system software, it's part of the underlying platform. For 3) FlatPak makes this irrelevant. Using containerization and OSTree, FlatPak can provide each application with the dependencies it needs while also keeping only one copy of each necessary dependency (per installation). Besides which, most dependencies (shared libraries) aren't actually shared: https://drewdevault.com/dynlib https://drewdevault.com/dynlib > Running "Any old shit" from the internet is such a bad idea overall I use a computer to run software. I use a personal computer to run the software I personally want to run. I will decide which software is a good idea to run or not on my personal computer, not some random group of internets. > it's an artefact from people running windows Consider that one of the reasons Windows is still more popular than Linux Desktop is that it doesn't have all the drawbacks of the traditional package manager/repo model Linux has been using for the entirety of its distant-3rd-place-on-the-desktop reign. It's certainly one of the reasons I still use it. The traditional package manager repo model has advantages that mostly only apply to servers and platform software[1], but are in my (and many other people's) opinion a terrible way to manage desktop software. [0] Without all the pain of compiling from source or jumping through other such hoops. We don't have to do this on Windows or Mac, it's exclusively a Linux disease. [1] Which I argue shouldn't need a package manager in the first place and should be handled the way distros like Silverblue handle it. Which is to say as one complete package that is entirely replaced when it is updated.
    - dijit 4y ago

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....
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
  > Everything is a choice right, and PPA/AUR are pretty cool usability wise. They're two separate systems for exactly two separate distros and, oh yeah, your PPA needs to have separate repos for every single Ubuntu release. > But the point of package maintainers is Irrelevant to a lot of us. To me, they are useless middle men who ensure that it takes entirely too long to get updated software when I want it or alternatively that I can't even get the software I want[0] because no one has bothered to package it and put it in the repo for this specific distro. For 1), I don't trust random unpaid volunteers to do this anyway. I'd rather either not run applications I don't trust or just containerize them. Guess how Flatpak works? For 2), FlatPak makes this irrelevant for Desktop software. If you eliminate the ability for software to conflict, you eliminate the need for unpaid volunteers to try and deal with that problem. Pulse/Pipewire is system software, it's part of the underlying platform. For 3) FlatPak makes this irrelevant. Using containerization and OSTree, FlatPak can provide each application with the dependencies it needs while also keeping only one copy of each necessary dependency (per installation). Besides which, most dependencies (shared libraries) aren't actually shared: https://drewdevault.com/dynlib https://drewdevault.com/dynlib > Running "Any old shit" from the internet is such a bad idea overall I use a computer to run software. I use a personal computer to run the software I personally want to run. I will decide which software is a good idea to run or not on my personal computer, not some random group of internets. > it's an artefact from people running windows Consider that one of the reasons Windows is still more popular than Linux Desktop is that it doesn't have all the drawbacks of the traditional package manager/repo model Linux has been using for the entirety of its distant-3rd-place-on-the-desktop reign. It's certainly one of the reasons I still use it. The traditional package manager repo model has advantages that mostly only apply to servers and platform software[1], but are in my (and many other people's) opinion a terrible way to manage desktop software. [0] Without all the pain of compiling from source or jumping through other such hoops. We don't have to do this on Windows or Mac, it's exclusively a Linux disease. [1] Which I argue shouldn't need a package manager in the first place and should be handled the way distros like Silverblue handle it. Which is to say as one complete package that is entirely replaced when it is updated.
  - dijit 4y ago