3 ms·

How so?

broknbottle 4y ago
it doesn't respect umask for one. if you're umask is 027, for 750 & 640, you'll get 755 and 644 The most popular repo 'flathub' is filled with flatpak apps that are built from manifests where they are just downloading random debs and extracting them to get the binary instead of actually building anything from source. It's a mullet package manager.. business in the front, party in the back.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
First of all just the concept of a second package manager is pretty stupid. I only need one. Second, while the idea of sandboxing sounds nice, when it's done to arbitrary packages that might not even be written with sandboxing in mind, all sorts of bugginess can result, in addition to a bunch of friction. E.g on Pop OS the 7zip GUI for linux is a flatpak, and 7zip might leave half made archives around if it crashes during archiving. But now you have to go find some place 8 folders deep into the root filesystem to find and delete it. All sorts of other annoying interactions with filesystems can occur with flatpak'd programs. It just muddies the waters and makes things more complicated. It makes much more sense to just have a reasonable, flexible method of sandboxing, independent of packages, that I can apply to whatever software I want to as needed, like jails on FreeBSD. In short, bundling sandboxing with the package manager breaks with the UNIX philosophy: it does two unrelated things, neither of them well.
- angry_octet 4y ago
  You're complaining that the Unix API is hard to sandbox, and indeed that sandboxing comes with inherent friction. That isn't a flatpak problem. Macos sometimes does it better, but it's an unsolved problem. On Ubuntu we shouldn't have to be forced to accept snap packaging for the browser, but we are. Canonical make a number of shit decisions, chasing some corporate dollars, and using flatpak is something you can do without rebuilding everything yourself.
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    It might not be a flatpak problem, but that doesn't make flatpak a better idea. I think the concept is just fundamentally flawed. I'm planning on moving back to Arch or maybe try Guix just to get away from all this Linux trying to be Windows nonsense. I don't like Windows and I think we can do better without imitating it so much, and so poorly. It's weird, I used to think Linux would only ever get better to use, but the more mainstream distros kind of peaked around 2010 in terms of ergonomics for technically minded users. And the experience seems to have become increasingly opaque and frustrating since then, all to chase some desktop adoption that never really materialised anyway, and what do we have to show for it? Greybeards like me are unhappy, nontechnical people still find the OS chafy and inpenetrable.
- forgotpwd16 4y ago
  >when it's done to arbitrary packages that might not even be written with sandboxing in mind, all sorts of bugginess can result That's something the package maintainer should consider. >bundling sandboxing with the package manager Flatpak utilizes bubblewrap for sandboxing that can be used independently. Flatpak merely provides ("packages" someone can say) the instructions for it.

How so?

it doesn't respect umask for one. if you're umask is 027, for 750 & 640, you'll get 755 and 644 The most popular repo 'flathub' is filled with flatpak apps that are built from manifests where they are just downloading random debs and extracting them to get the binary instead of actually building anything from source. It's a mullet package manager.. business in the front, party in the back.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

First of all just the concept of a second package manager is pretty stupid. I only need one. Second, while the idea of sandboxing sounds nice, when it's done to arbitrary packages that might not even be written with sandboxing in mind, all sorts of bugginess can result, in addition to a bunch of friction. E.g on Pop OS the 7zip GUI for linux is a flatpak, and 7zip might leave half made archives around if it crashes during archiving. But now you have to go find some place 8 folders deep into the root filesystem to find and delete it. All sorts of other annoying interactions with filesystems can occur with flatpak'd programs. It just muddies the waters and makes things more complicated. It makes much more sense to just have a reasonable, flexible method of sandboxing, independent of packages, that I can apply to whatever software I want to as needed, like jails on FreeBSD. In short, bundling sandboxing with the package manager breaks with the UNIX philosophy: it does two unrelated things, neither of them well.

angry_octet 4y ago
You're complaining that the Unix API is hard to sandbox, and indeed that sandboxing comes with inherent friction. That isn't a flatpak problem. Macos sometimes does it better, but it's an unsolved problem. On Ubuntu we shouldn't have to be forced to accept snap packaging for the browser, but we are. Canonical make a number of shit decisions, chasing some corporate dollars, and using flatpak is something you can do without rebuilding everything yourself.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  It might not be a flatpak problem, but that doesn't make flatpak a better idea. I think the concept is just fundamentally flawed. I'm planning on moving back to Arch or maybe try Guix just to get away from all this Linux trying to be Windows nonsense. I don't like Windows and I think we can do better without imitating it so much, and so poorly. It's weird, I used to think Linux would only ever get better to use, but the more mainstream distros kind of peaked around 2010 in terms of ergonomics for technically minded users. And the experience seems to have become increasingly opaque and frustrating since then, all to chase some desktop adoption that never really materialised anyway, and what do we have to show for it? Greybeards like me are unhappy, nontechnical people still find the OS chafy and inpenetrable.
forgotpwd16 4y ago
>when it's done to arbitrary packages that might not even be written with sandboxing in mind, all sorts of bugginess can result That's something the package maintainer should consider. >bundling sandboxing with the package manager Flatpak utilizes bubblewrap for sandboxing that can be used independently. Flatpak merely provides ("packages" someone can say) the instructions for it.