4 ms·

Not all of your users can, or are willing to accept, container-like packages.

by FooBarWidget 4y ago

qbasic_forever 4y ago
It's 2023, these features have been in the kernel for over a decade.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  Can Flatpak package system services yet?
  - qbasic_forever 4y ago
    I don't think flatpak was designed or intended for services. What service manager will it depend on? It sounds like you probably want systemd portable services: https://systemd.io/PORTABLE_SERVICES/ https://systemd.io/PORTABLE_SERVICES/
    - smoldesu 4y ago
      If Flatpak wasn't designed or intended for services, I fail to see how it can be recommended as a relevant tool. I get what you're saying about containerization, but Flatpak is as much of a 'solution' to package management as a cork in a bullet wound.
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    CoreOS (not specifically Fedora CoreOS) used to do that with Docker. I believe the OS ran your standard systemd services and all through interconnected containers. As far as I can tell, the project has been abandoned, though. I don't think Flatpak is the right tool for the job, it's clearly optimized for UI tools and the occasional command line invocation. Snap may be better for composing a working systems, though that comes with the obvious Snap downsides. Systemd has some great tools to accomplish image/container based operating systems, though I'm not sure how common it's used.
Xelynega 4y ago
Why would they not accept it when it's functionally the same as "downloading an exe and double clicking" which people seem to like about windows? If they don't want the container, they can typically compile the source too.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Windows executables are not containers, both in the technical and laymen sense.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Because that exe is a gigabyte in size, needs a special globally installed runtime for some reason and conflicts with my firewall rules. Even AppImages somehow manage to extract themselves to locations that conflict with other tools or earlier versions of the same tool. I have one server with a complex firewall configuration that simply won't work well when I install Docker on it. I end up finding a lot of alternatives for what would otherwise be obvious solutions because projects stopped shipping binaries and replaced them with Docker containers. I'll gladly make use of the compilation approach thanks to software available in the AUR. The whole "let's ship a copy of Debian to make my 400kB binary run" approach is as tiresome as "let's ship a copy of Chromium so I don't need to learnddesktop UI". I know how terrible the dependency management situation on Linux is (I myself have had to resort to building software in chroots because of glibc being outdated) but the "modern" approach seems to add more trouble than it solves when I try to run programs like this. On many distros these problems have luckily already been solved. On Ubuntu that means I'll often be using an outdated version of the program that works just as well and on Arch (based distros) that means waiting for a compile every other update, but I've given up on tools that come with an entire ecosystem.
- badsectoracula 4y ago
  That isn't the experience with flatpak though, flatpak is the same as using apt-get or any other package manager except instead of getting stuff from your distro's repositories you get them from some flatpak repository you have to configure (some distros that provide flatpak might have flathub preconfigured, though not all of them do that). AppImage does provide that "download an exe and double click" experience but it assumes you have made said portable Linux binaries (and they still have the drawback of dragging in a bunch of libraries you most likely already have in your distro).

Not all of your users can, or are willing to accept, container-like packages.

qbasic_forever 4y ago

It's 2023, these features have been in the kernel for over a decade.

smoldesu 4y ago
Can Flatpak package system services yet?
- qbasic_forever 4y ago
  I don't think flatpak was designed or intended for services. What service manager will it depend on? It sounds like you probably want systemd portable services: https://systemd.io/PORTABLE_SERVICES/ https://systemd.io/PORTABLE_SERVICES/
  - smoldesu 4y ago
    If Flatpak wasn't designed or intended for services, I fail to see how it can be recommended as a relevant tool. I get what you're saying about containerization, but Flatpak is as much of a 'solution' to package management as a cork in a bullet wound.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  CoreOS (not specifically Fedora CoreOS) used to do that with Docker. I believe the OS ran your standard systemd services and all through interconnected containers. As far as I can tell, the project has been abandoned, though. I don't think Flatpak is the right tool for the job, it's clearly optimized for UI tools and the occasional command line invocation. Snap may be better for composing a working systems, though that comes with the obvious Snap downsides. Systemd has some great tools to accomplish image/container based operating systems, though I'm not sure how common it's used.

Xelynega 4y ago

Why would they not accept it when it's functionally the same as "downloading an exe and double clicking" which people seem to like about windows? If they don't want the container, they can typically compile the source too.

Dalewyn 4y ago
Windows executables are not containers, both in the technical and laymen sense.
jeroenhd 4y ago
Because that exe is a gigabyte in size, needs a special globally installed runtime for some reason and conflicts with my firewall rules. Even AppImages somehow manage to extract themselves to locations that conflict with other tools or earlier versions of the same tool. I have one server with a complex firewall configuration that simply won't work well when I install Docker on it. I end up finding a lot of alternatives for what would otherwise be obvious solutions because projects stopped shipping binaries and replaced them with Docker containers. I'll gladly make use of the compilation approach thanks to software available in the AUR. The whole "let's ship a copy of Debian to make my 400kB binary run" approach is as tiresome as "let's ship a copy of Chromium so I don't need to learnddesktop UI". I know how terrible the dependency management situation on Linux is (I myself have had to resort to building software in chroots because of glibc being outdated) but the "modern" approach seems to add more trouble than it solves when I try to run programs like this. On many distros these problems have luckily already been solved. On Ubuntu that means I'll often be using an outdated version of the program that works just as well and on Arch (based distros) that means waiting for a compile every other update, but I've given up on tools that come with an entire ecosystem.
badsectoracula 4y ago
That isn't the experience with flatpak though, flatpak is the same as using apt-get or any other package manager except instead of getting stuff from your distro's repositories you get them from some flatpak repository you have to configure (some distros that provide flatpak might have flathub preconfigured, though not all of them do that). AppImage does provide that "download an exe and double click" experience but it assumes you have made said portable Linux binaries (and they still have the drawback of dragging in a bunch of libraries you most likely already have in your distro).