3 ms·

Because there are pros and cons for each type of packaging but native distro packages and Flatpak will go-exist. It does already on my machine. Distribution pa

Because there are pros and cons for each type of packaging but native distro packages and Flatpak will go-exist. It does already on my machine. Distribution packages: + necessary for base system + small memory requirement + small package size + all checked by distro + work well together + on fix, fixes it for all o lot of work for maintainers downstream - bugs hard to figure out for upstream - problematic with closed-source Flatpak: + programmer packages is/her software once and only once + support all distributions i.e. Linux + use selected dependencies + control-groups and namespace are in place for lock-in + autonomous offline package handling e.g. “storeable on thumbdrive” - huge maintenance burden, especially security, on programmer - higher memory usage - big package size Usually if I see something entirely new (e.g. Marker some years ago) or something using Qt-Libraries (e.g. Zeal) instead of my native Gtk based environment, it is a candidate for Flatpak. Marker is now in native repos of Arch, therefore is use it now from there. While I kept OpenRA as Flatpak because I need usually the on provided by upstream. I think Flatpak is ideal for new stuff and especially closes-source software. Programmers cannot do the repeated error of supporting some special outdated distributions. It is a miracle to me how anyone can think that packing for a specific distro is their job? It is not. The job is documenting how to package the software and allow redistribution. With Flatpak we allow them to do package themself if desired but just once and for all. A weak point of Flatpak is that facepalm Canonical is doing it very own show with Snap. How often does Canonical need to fail with Mir, Unity, Upstart and now Snap? The server is closed-source and it is against the community. Even if it would be better it is dead. And no, we don’t need two competing…please just commit fixes to GNOME e.g. type-ahead-find? And I don’t want to hype Flatpak: GNOME-Software could use less memory itself, we need an easy approach for payment (and repeated payment?) and it stores many small file on disk. And I wonder which security requirements the Flathub requires?

ilyt 3y ago
> A weak point of Flatpak is that facepalm Canonical is doing it very own show with Snap. How often does Canonical need to fail with Mir, Unity, Upstart and now Snap? The server is closed-source and it is against the community. Even if it would be better it is dead. And no, we don’t need two competing…please just commit fixes to GNOME e.g. type-ahead-find? Hey now, Canonical provides valuable service of researching how to not do something so others can avoid those mistakes.
George83728 3y ago
> It is a miracle to me how anyone can think that packing for a specific distro is their job? It is not. The job is documenting how to package the software and allow redistribution. I think the mentality of authors who package their projects for a specific distro comes from their familiarity with Windows, where there is only one distribution (more or less) and packaging for it is naturally the responsibility of software authors. They mistakenly apply their windows experience to the new task, probably entirely unaware of the faux pas. Often, knowing that there are a myriad of Linux distros, they mistakenly assume that the community of linux users are expecting them to support dozens of distros individually, testing on each one, and they become reasonably upset with that (mistaken) obligation. So they stamp their foot down and say "I support Ubuntu 13.04 specifically but if you use another distro then you're on your own!!" Then they go on to complain about fragmentation and say that linux users need to pick one distro and stick with it. Really, nobody expected them to support any specific linux distro in the first place but that is poorly communicated to otherwise experienced programmers who are new to linux.
- ho_schi 3y ago
  I also think it are developers familiar with Windows but didn’t want to start…with that. I did wonder how even companies like Amazon came up with that approach? For example their own MP3-Downloader back then. So someone else has written “clamz”. Even Valve was on that train with Steam, first only shipped for Ubuntu until Arch and others nudged them and asked them “to allow redistribution.”. At least this shows, talking to each other helps :) And now Valve uses itself Arch ^^
jzb 3y ago
“How often does Canonical need to fail with Mir, Unity, Upstart and now Snap?” Until it gets different leadership. The drive to try to keep creating moats around Ubuntu that only benefit Canonical comes from the top.
superkuh 3y ago
The biggest minus of containers for me, including Flatpak, are that even with xdg desktop portal workarounds they still fail to actually integrate into the desktop and make or break features that depend on this simply don't work. And because it's a container it's nigh impossible to debug and find a fix. In the end containers are even more fragile than depending on system libs and fighting future shock.
- flexagoon 3y ago
  > xdg desktop portal workarounds Desktop portals are not "workarounds", they are the new correct APIs to use
  - superkuh 3y ago
    ... the new correct API to use to work around containers and all the problems being containerized causes. >Portals are the framework for securely accessing resources from outside an application sandbox. They provide a range of common features to applications, including: Determining network status, opening a file with a file chooser, opening URIs, taking screenshots and screencasts [...] https://lwn.net/Articles/694291/ https://lwn.net/Articles/694291/ All things being containerized messes up which require workarounds. xdg desktop portal attempts to provide these but most of the time it fails to do so fully.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Says who? They look like workaraounds to me.

ilyt 3y ago

> A weak point of Flatpak is that facepalm Canonical is doing it very own show with Snap. How often does Canonical need to fail with Mir, Unity, Upstart and now Snap? The server is closed-source and it is against the community. Even if it would be better it is dead. And no, we don’t need two competing…please just commit fixes to GNOME e.g. type-ahead-find? Hey now, Canonical provides valuable service of researching how to not do something so others can avoid those mistakes.

George83728 3y ago

> It is a miracle to me how anyone can think that packing for a specific distro is their job? It is not. The job is documenting how to package the software and allow redistribution. I think the mentality of authors who package their projects for a specific distro comes from their familiarity with Windows, where there is only one distribution (more or less) and packaging for it is naturally the responsibility of software authors. They mistakenly apply their windows experience to the new task, probably entirely unaware of the faux pas. Often, knowing that there are a myriad of Linux distros, they mistakenly assume that the community of linux users are expecting them to support dozens of distros individually, testing on each one, and they become reasonably upset with that (mistaken) obligation. So they stamp their foot down and say "I support Ubuntu 13.04 specifically but if you use another distro then you're on your own!!" Then they go on to complain about fragmentation and say that linux users need to pick one distro and stick with it. Really, nobody expected them to support any specific linux distro in the first place but that is poorly communicated to otherwise experienced programmers who are new to linux.

ho_schi 3y ago
I also think it are developers familiar with Windows but didn’t want to start…with that. I did wonder how even companies like Amazon came up with that approach? For example their own MP3-Downloader back then. So someone else has written “clamz”. Even Valve was on that train with Steam, first only shipped for Ubuntu until Arch and others nudged them and asked them “to allow redistribution.”. At least this shows, talking to each other helps :) And now Valve uses itself Arch ^^

jzb 3y ago

“How often does Canonical need to fail with Mir, Unity, Upstart and now Snap?” Until it gets different leadership. The drive to try to keep creating moats around Ubuntu that only benefit Canonical comes from the top.

superkuh 3y ago

The biggest minus of containers for me, including Flatpak, are that even with xdg desktop portal workarounds they still fail to actually integrate into the desktop and make or break features that depend on this simply don't work. And because it's a container it's nigh impossible to debug and find a fix. In the end containers are even more fragile than depending on system libs and fighting future shock.

flexagoon 3y ago
> xdg desktop portal workarounds Desktop portals are not "workarounds", they are the new correct APIs to use
- superkuh 3y ago
  ... the new correct API to use to work around containers and all the problems being containerized causes. >Portals are the framework for securely accessing resources from outside an application sandbox. They provide a range of common features to applications, including: Determining network status, opening a file with a file chooser, opening URIs, taking screenshots and screencasts [...] https://lwn.net/Articles/694291/ https://lwn.net/Articles/694291/ All things being containerized messes up which require workarounds. xdg desktop portal attempts to provide these but most of the time it fails to do so fully.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Says who? They look like workaraounds to me.