5 ms·

$100,000 to build up a system that totally ignores the system package manager? Sounds great!

Gigachad 4y ago
Good. The “system package manager” is good for updating the OS, it’s not good for packaging desktop applications, especially proprietary ones. If you use the gnome Software app, it merges flatpak, dnf, and the firmware updater in one “updates” page with a single button to update it all.
- crispinb 4y ago
  That very incoherence is probably why it rarely works.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    I completely know what you are talking about, I’m used to the Software app virtually never working, although I came back a few months ago and it all seemed to be working perfectly fine. So perhaps there have been some major improvements in this space. At any rate, the problem is not unsolvable, it was mostly just bad UX where underlying errors were not surfaced and the app would get stuck in an endless loading spinner.
    - crispinb 4y ago
      > the problem is not unsolvable Perfectly true, and my comment was the kind of irritated snark about imperfect open source software that I don't like hearing from other people! It just so happened that I had launched Software literally about 5 minutes previously for the first time in months and it .. sat there and did nothing. I do think it's a good idea though, at least while we have this hopefully transitional period of multiple overlapping packaging/update systems. I get a bit tired of having to think in terms of flatpack and dnf and asdf and cargo and pnpm and .. not to mention all the odd bits and pieces I install & compile from source and forget to update.
- c-hendricks 4y ago
  I don't even know what I get out of the system package manager these days. Apps are mostly flatpak / appimages, dev tools I'm using Homebrew. I guess it's mostly the kernel and my DE these days.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    Traditional package managers like dnf and apt are probably not even the best way to update the kernel and OS these days. Immutable images like what’s used in Fedora Silverblue (as well as android and iOS) are much more reliable and probably the way distros will move
- alerighi 4y ago
  Having two ways to update the system doesn't either seem great to me. Having the same software that can be installed from two sources neither. Also as far as I remember flatpack is something more complex than a simple package format, it has a runtime where each application runs in an isolated container where it can access only some of the resources (e.g. the filesystem). This adds to me useless complications to a system. I think that the best approach to the integration of third party software is the one followed by ArchLinux, that is the AUR: a series of build instructions, maintained by the community, that allow you to package practically any piece of software that exists.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    The requirements for something that updates the OS and updates/manages applications/games is extremely different. Traditional package managers work but they are far from ideal. They are completely inadequate for closed source software like games. Flatpak provides a stable platform you can target and it just keeps working across distros and in to the future while rpm/deb packages require constant maintenance. Flatpak also provides a long list of essential features like permissions, sandboxing, portals, etc which most other OSs do. The future of linux is likely immutable OS images with something like OSTree, and then flatpak for end user apps.
    - alerighi 4y ago
      > They are completely inadequate for closed source software like games Why? What difference does make the license of the software? The only trouble is that the developer of the proprietary software has to package it in a number of formats and have repositories to download updates (that are HTTP servers with some special files in it). In reality to this day you just have to package a .deb, and if you want .rpm. For other distros these packages can be converted practically automatically (this is what is done with ArchLinux AUR for proprietary packages like Spotify or Chrome that are installed from the deb version). > working across distros This doesn't have a lot to do from the packaging format but on how you write the software. If you dynamically link 2000 system libraries you can as well use flatpack but the software will not work since typically on Linux the ABI is not that stable. If you have a single statically linked binary with MUSL libc you can as well package it as a deb and run it on Debian 4 that it will probably work. > Flatpak also provides a long list of essential features like permissions, sandboxing, portals, etc which most other OSs do They are not essentials. And they cause more problems to the user than what they solve. And don't talk me about using containers for security, since they don't provide any useful and proven safe isolation. On the other end you have SELinux/AppArmor that you can apply easily on any executable regardless of the packaging format. > The future of linux is likely immutable OS images with something like OSTree, and then flatpak for end user apps. This is wanting to go in the direction of what Apple does on macOS/iOS where the / is immutable. I think that people use Linux because it's different, if not they would just buy a MAC. These are complications that gets you in the way. Linux users wants to be able to build the system by picking the components they want, not the components that Canonical or Red Hat decided that they must be present in their distribution.
jug 4y ago
A Flatpak proponent would tell you that's the whole point. But that’s not where the cost lies, but staffing and running a store.
eikenberry 4y ago
The system package manager is useful for updating the underlying system, not necessarily the user's environment. Think of it as a in the classic root/user divide. The system package manager is there for updating the core system and things like flatpaks/toolboxes are there for the users. They don't follow the same updating patterns so it makes sense to keep them separate.
- mtrower 4y ago
  What do you mean, they don’t follow the same patterns?
- progman32 4y ago
  What is the dividing line between user applications and system applications? Is bash a system application? OpenSSL? FUSE?
  - LinAGKar 4y ago
    The system and applications doesn't need to share the same copy of those
bjourne 4y ago
Unfortunately, even after all these years Linux distros couldn't settle on a standardized packaging format so distributing software for N different Linux distros is still a massive PITA. Ignoring distro packaging might be the next best thing.
diego_sandoval 4y ago
Yes, please. The system package manager is not an appropriate tool for installing applications.

Good. The “system package manager” is good for updating the OS, it’s not good for packaging desktop applications, especially proprietary ones. If you use the gnome Software app, it merges flatpak, dnf, and the firmware updater in one “updates” page with a single button to update it all.

crispinb 4y ago
That very incoherence is probably why it rarely works.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  I completely know what you are talking about, I’m used to the Software app virtually never working, although I came back a few months ago and it all seemed to be working perfectly fine. So perhaps there have been some major improvements in this space. At any rate, the problem is not unsolvable, it was mostly just bad UX where underlying errors were not surfaced and the app would get stuck in an endless loading spinner.
  - crispinb 4y ago
    > the problem is not unsolvable Perfectly true, and my comment was the kind of irritated snark about imperfect open source software that I don't like hearing from other people! It just so happened that I had launched Software literally about 5 minutes previously for the first time in months and it .. sat there and did nothing. I do think it's a good idea though, at least while we have this hopefully transitional period of multiple overlapping packaging/update systems. I get a bit tired of having to think in terms of flatpack and dnf and asdf and cargo and pnpm and .. not to mention all the odd bits and pieces I install & compile from source and forget to update.
c-hendricks 4y ago
I don't even know what I get out of the system package manager these days. Apps are mostly flatpak / appimages, dev tools I'm using Homebrew. I guess it's mostly the kernel and my DE these days.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Traditional package managers like dnf and apt are probably not even the best way to update the kernel and OS these days. Immutable images like what’s used in Fedora Silverblue (as well as android and iOS) are much more reliable and probably the way distros will move
alerighi 4y ago
Having two ways to update the system doesn't either seem great to me. Having the same software that can be installed from two sources neither. Also as far as I remember flatpack is something more complex than a simple package format, it has a runtime where each application runs in an isolated container where it can access only some of the resources (e.g. the filesystem). This adds to me useless complications to a system. I think that the best approach to the integration of third party software is the one followed by ArchLinux, that is the AUR: a series of build instructions, maintained by the community, that allow you to package practically any piece of software that exists.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  The requirements for something that updates the OS and updates/manages applications/games is extremely different. Traditional package managers work but they are far from ideal. They are completely inadequate for closed source software like games. Flatpak provides a stable platform you can target and it just keeps working across distros and in to the future while rpm/deb packages require constant maintenance. Flatpak also provides a long list of essential features like permissions, sandboxing, portals, etc which most other OSs do. The future of linux is likely immutable OS images with something like OSTree, and then flatpak for end user apps.
  - alerighi 4y ago
    > They are completely inadequate for closed source software like games Why? What difference does make the license of the software? The only trouble is that the developer of the proprietary software has to package it in a number of formats and have repositories to download updates (that are HTTP servers with some special files in it). In reality to this day you just have to package a .deb, and if you want .rpm. For other distros these packages can be converted practically automatically (this is what is done with ArchLinux AUR for proprietary packages like Spotify or Chrome that are installed from the deb version). > working across distros This doesn't have a lot to do from the packaging format but on how you write the software. If you dynamically link 2000 system libraries you can as well use flatpack but the software will not work since typically on Linux the ABI is not that stable. If you have a single statically linked binary with MUSL libc you can as well package it as a deb and run it on Debian 4 that it will probably work. > Flatpak also provides a long list of essential features like permissions, sandboxing, portals, etc which most other OSs do They are not essentials. And they cause more problems to the user than what they solve. And don't talk me about using containers for security, since they don't provide any useful and proven safe isolation. On the other end you have SELinux/AppArmor that you can apply easily on any executable regardless of the packaging format. > The future of linux is likely immutable OS images with something like OSTree, and then flatpak for end user apps. This is wanting to go in the direction of what Apple does on macOS/iOS where the / is immutable. I think that people use Linux because it's different, if not they would just buy a MAC. These are complications that gets you in the way. Linux users wants to be able to build the system by picking the components they want, not the components that Canonical or Red Hat decided that they must be present in their distribution.

jug 4y ago

A Flatpak proponent would tell you that's the whole point. But that’s not where the cost lies, but staffing and running a store.

eikenberry 4y ago

The system package manager is useful for updating the underlying system, not necessarily the user's environment. Think of it as a in the classic root/user divide. The system package manager is there for updating the core system and things like flatpaks/toolboxes are there for the users. They don't follow the same updating patterns so it makes sense to keep them separate.

mtrower 4y ago
What do you mean, they don’t follow the same patterns?
progman32 4y ago
What is the dividing line between user applications and system applications? Is bash a system application? OpenSSL? FUSE?
- LinAGKar 4y ago
  The system and applications doesn't need to share the same copy of those

bjourne 4y ago

Unfortunately, even after all these years Linux distros couldn't settle on a standardized packaging format so distributing software for N different Linux distros is still a massive PITA. Ignoring distro packaging might be the next best thing.

diego_sandoval 4y ago

Yes, please. The system package manager is not an appropriate tool for installing applications.