5 ms·

Part of my issue with Flatpak is that it takes these systems that really ought to be managed separately (process isolation, package management, runtime configur

Part of my issue with Flatpak is that it takes these systems that really ought to be managed separately (process isolation, package management, runtime configuration, security, etc.) and makes them one monolith. It's an ok stopgap for people frustrated with software distribution, but it tangles itself up in so much mess that it's hard to promote over it's competitors (even Snap). It's not great. Sometimes it works well, but when the wiccan magic inside Flatpak breaks now you have to debug two runtimes for the price of one!

wiseowise 4y ago
> but when the wiccan magic inside Flatpak breaks now you have to debug two runtimes for the price of one! As a user I couldn’t care less.
- pmontra 4y ago
  Well, if I understood the point correctly and if it happens too often, it could become too much of a burden (as in not enough sales to make it worthwhile.) Developer might end supporting only one runtime, deprecate and put out of support all the old ones. That's a problem for users and eventually for developers too: it they don't know how to create a release for everybody, they won't.
- parineum 4y ago
  Exactly. A lot of Linux users grouse about people not wanting to use their favorite OS but they don't do it because a bunch of perfectly well built software may or may not run depending on some under-the-hood voodoo magic they don't understand and can't fix. Flatpaks fix that. If the pack is well built, it'll work. If it's from a reputable source, it's probably well built.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]