4 ms·

I do like the Flathub. I know a lot of Linux purists are against it, but having all these apps in a distro agnostic package is cool.

by vondur 3y ago

c-hendricks 3y ago
Yeah, between flathub (+ appimage) and linuxbrew, distros mean very little to me anymore. I can finally just work instead of worrying about of the program I'm trying to run has been blessed. I'd also recommend flatseal or flatpak-kcm.
- jcotton42 3y ago
  There's also distrobox https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox.
- Lurkki 3y ago
  > I can finally just work instead of worrying about of the program I'm trying to run has been blessed. That's just because with most distros it's insanely hard to get something you want to use into the distro. It doesn't have to be like that.
- hospitalJail 3y ago
  Love appimage. Windows would always make me install stuff. Appimage? lol click click
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    I have to point out that Windows does in fact have "portable apps" that work the same way
iotku 3y ago
I found it a more practical alternative to the Arch AUR in many cases (especially the -bin packages which don't have any benefit of being a part of a "build" system anyways) Similar (perhaps slightly lower given verification efforts) concerns about integrity/supply chain (who is maintaining this package really? Is it a clean build from the correct source?), but distro independent and often works good enough with some exceptions. Sandboxing is limited but better than nothing. Once I somewhat understood the process and where everything is on GitHub (fairly transparent with CI stuff) I felt a bit more comfortable with things, but a lot of the store interfaces leave a lot of questions unanswered about the source (location) of the software. If something is out of date I can usually make a GitHub issue and it'll get sorted soon enough. Not the worst experience I've had.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  > more practical alternative to the Arch AUR in many cases (especially the -bin packages which don't have any benefit of being a part of a "build" system anyways) The AUR package would still use less disk/network since the flatpak is carrying around effectively its own distro / base image layers. OTOH no sandbox so weigh as you will.
- forgotpwd16 3y ago
  >which don't have any benefit of being a part of a "build" system anyways Building a package doesn't imply compilation of the binaries the package is composed from. Packages are meant to provide easier distribution and maintenance.
  - iotku 3y ago
    I don't particularly disagree, but rather I've viewed the AUR as having value in that you can change build options (for instance enabling/disabling features) that may not exist in pre-existing binary builds. The distribution aspect of the AUR is useful given the various tooling/helper utilities around it, but I don't see it as more effective than flatpak if you're just using binaries that already exist. While the AUR is a bit more of a direct path, you don't have to worry about system level dependencies changing and breaking the binaries with flatpak (even if that does result in more disk usage as a side-effect).

I do like the Flathub. I know a lot of Linux purists are against it, but having all these apps in a distro agnostic package is cool.

by vondur 3y ago

I do like the Flathub. I know a lot of Linux purists are against it, but having all these apps in a distro agnostic package is cool.

c-hendricks 3y ago

Yeah, between flathub (+ appimage) and linuxbrew, distros mean very little to me anymore. I can finally just work instead of worrying about of the program I'm trying to run has been blessed. I'd also recommend flatseal or flatpak-kcm.

jcotton42 3y ago
There's also distrobox https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox.
Lurkki 3y ago
> I can finally just work instead of worrying about of the program I'm trying to run has been blessed. That's just because with most distros it's insanely hard to get something you want to use into the distro. It doesn't have to be like that.
hospitalJail 3y ago
Love appimage. Windows would always make me install stuff. Appimage? lol click click
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  I have to point out that Windows does in fact have "portable apps" that work the same way

iotku 3y ago

I found it a more practical alternative to the Arch AUR in many cases (especially the -bin packages which don't have any benefit of being a part of a "build" system anyways) Similar (perhaps slightly lower given verification efforts) concerns about integrity/supply chain (who is maintaining this package really? Is it a clean build from the correct source?), but distro independent and often works good enough with some exceptions. Sandboxing is limited but better than nothing. Once I somewhat understood the process and where everything is on GitHub (fairly transparent with CI stuff) I felt a bit more comfortable with things, but a lot of the store interfaces leave a lot of questions unanswered about the source (location) of the software. If something is out of date I can usually make a GitHub issue and it'll get sorted soon enough. Not the worst experience I've had.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> more practical alternative to the Arch AUR in many cases (especially the -bin packages which don't have any benefit of being a part of a "build" system anyways) The AUR package would still use less disk/network since the flatpak is carrying around effectively its own distro / base image layers. OTOH no sandbox so weigh as you will.
forgotpwd16 3y ago
>which don't have any benefit of being a part of a "build" system anyways Building a package doesn't imply compilation of the binaries the package is composed from. Packages are meant to provide easier distribution and maintenance.
- iotku 3y ago
  I don't particularly disagree, but rather I've viewed the AUR as having value in that you can change build options (for instance enabling/disabling features) that may not exist in pre-existing binary builds. The distribution aspect of the AUR is useful given the various tooling/helper utilities around it, but I don't see it as more effective than flatpak if you're just using binaries that already exist. While the AUR is a bit more of a direct path, you don't have to worry about system level dependencies changing and breaking the binaries with flatpak (even if that does result in more disk usage as a side-effect).