731
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 143 points 1 week ago

Flatpaks aren't perfect, but I think it's a good solution to the fragmentation problem that is inherent to Linux.

[-] henfredemars@infosec.pub 89 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Precisely. Flatpaks solve an important problem. Perfect should not be the enemy of good.

Binary compatibility is a sad story on Linux, and we cannot expect developers — many of whom work for free — to package, test, debug, and maintain releases for multiple distributions. If we want a sustainable ecosystem with diverse distributions, we must answer the compatibility question. This is a working option that solves the problem, and it comes with minor security benefits because it isolates applications not just from the system but from each other.

It’s fair to criticize a solution, but I think it’s not fair to ignore the problem and expect volunteers to just work harder.

[-] nexussapphire@lemm.ee 37 points 1 week ago

Also companies are lazy and if we don't want to be stuck on Ubuntu for proprietary app stability. We should probably embrace something like flatpak. Also when companies neglect their apps, it'll have a better chance of working down the road thanks to support for multiple dependency versions on the same install.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Hubi@feddit.org 139 points 1 week ago

I like Flatpak just because it isn't Snap

[-] Norgur@fedia.io 51 points 1 week ago

The enemy of my enemy, eh?

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 30 points 1 week ago

...is my enemy's enemy, no more, no less. (Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries #29)

[-] cley_faye@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

Fair. Also, flatpak does not try to break everything by default, which is a plus.

[-] The2b@lemmy.vg 68 points 1 week ago
[-] smiletolerantly@awful.systems 42 points 1 week ago

Laughs in confusion

(I dont know how i got here)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 52 points 1 week ago

Lol who the fuck is blaming app devs? Also something something arch

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] DmMacniel@feddit.org 49 points 1 week ago

Flatpak is nice but I really would like to see a way to run flatpakked application transparently e.g. don't have to

    flatpak run org.gnome.Lollypop

and can just run the app via

    Lollypop
[-] grue@lemmy.world 43 points 1 week ago

You could make aliases for each program, but I agree, there should be a way to set it up so they resolve automatically.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] d_k_bo@feddit.org 22 points 1 week ago

You can symlink /var/lib/flatpak/exports/bin/org.gnome.Lollypop (if you are using a system installation) or ~/.local/share/flatpak/exports/bin/org.gnome.Lollypop (if you are using a uset installation) to ~/.local/bin/lollypop and run it as lollypop.

[-] ace@lemmy.ananace.dev 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Well, Flatpak installs aliases, so as long as your distribution - or yourself - add the <installation>/exports/bin path to $PATH, then you'll be able to use the application IDs to launch them.

And if you want to have the Flatpak available under a different name than its ID, you can always symlink the exported bin to whatever name you'd personally prefer.
I've got Blender set up that way myself, with the org.blender.Blender bin symlinked to /usr/local/bin/blender, so that some older applications that expect to be able to simply interop with it are able to.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 38 points 1 week ago

If I can choose between flatpack and distro package, distro wins hands down.

If the choice then is flatpack vs compile your own, I think I'll generally compile it, but it depends on the circumstances.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 16 points 1 week ago
[-] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 week ago

Because it's easier to use the version that's in the distro, and why do I need an extra set of libraries filling up my disk.

I see flatpack as a last resort, where I trade disk space for convenience, because you end up with a whole OS worth of flatpack dependencies (10+ GB) on your disk after a few upgrade cycles.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] kenkenken@sh.itjust.works 36 points 1 week ago

Flatpak haters hate new apps anyway.

[-] Norgur@fedia.io 26 points 1 week ago

glibc 2.36 is all you'll ever need, okay? Go away with those goddamn backports!

[-] e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de 33 points 1 week ago

Haters aren't worth listening to. Doesn't matter if it is flatpak, systemd, wayland, or whatever else. These people have no interest in a discussion about merits and drawbacks of a given solution. They just want to be angry about something.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] umbraroze@lemmy.world 32 points 1 week ago

I'm a Debian fan, and even I think it's absolutely preferable that app developers publish a Flatpak over the mildly janky mess of adding a new APT source. (It used to be simple and beautiful, just stick a new file in APT sources. Now Debian insists we add the GPG keys manually. Like cavemen.)

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 30 points 1 week ago

If you're separating your application from the core system package manager and shared libraries, there had better be a good and specific reason for it (e.g. the app needs to be containerized for stability/security/weird dependency). If an app can't be centrally managed I don't want it on my system, with grudging exceptions.

Chocolatey has even made this possible in Windows, and lately for my Windows environments if I can't install an application through chocolatey then I'll try to find an alternative that I can. Package managers are absolutely superior to independent application installs.

[-] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 54 points 1 week ago

Typically Windows applications bundle all their dependencies, so Chocolatey, WinGet and Scoop are all more like installing a Flatpak or AppImage than a package from a distro's system package manager. They're all listed in one place, yes, but so's everything on FlatHub.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 32 points 1 week ago

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Flatpak aren't centrally managed...

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pennomi@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago

I think containerization for security is a damn good reason for virtually all software.

[-] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

Definitely. I'd rather have a "good and specific reason" why your application needs to use my shared libraries or have acess to my entire filesystem by default.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 14 points 1 week ago

I think stability is a pretty good reason

If an app can't be centrally managed

Open Discover, Gnome Software etc -> Click update?

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 1 week ago

If you really hate flatpak just make an arch distrobox and download off the AUR. Or install Nix or something

[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 week ago

I do sort of wish Nix was a more popular distro agnostic solution

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 week ago

I'm new to Linux. Every time I've had a major issue with an application it turned out to be due to a flatpak. I'll stick with other options for the time being.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] 56_@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 week ago

They do? I've always seen that as being up to distro maintainers, and out of control of the devs.

[-] superminerJG@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago

And this, this is why I love the AUR

load more comments (8 replies)

laughs in appimage.

[-] 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 week ago

Are those flatpak haters that say that in the room with us right now? The main difference with distro repos is that packages in it are packaged by the distro packagers and everyone who has an opinion on flatpak should know that this is how it works.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] programmer_belch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 week ago
[-] Norgur@fedia.io 48 points 1 week ago

Back in the day, when I installed my very first Linux OS, I had a wireless stick from Netgear. Wireless Drivers back then were abysmal, so I had to compile them from source (literally 15 mins after seeing a TTY for the first time). After I had found out how build-dependencies and such worked somehow and ./configure completed successfully for the first time, the script ended with the epic line:

configure done. Now type 'make' and pray

[-] ace@lemmy.ananace.dev 17 points 1 week ago

Ah, I had one of those wireless sticks from Netgear as well, probably a different model but still a royal pain to get it working.
Luckily ndiswrapper has become a thing of the past nowadays.

[-] Zacryon@lemmy.wtf 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Because it's always so easy to compile everything you need from source! Just make sure to download, compile and install the dependencies first as well. Oh, and the dependencies' dependencies. And the ones from them. And so on. Unless you're lucky enough that there are already packaged dependencies available for you. Don't know how to compile? No problem, just read the documentation. You can be absolutely 1000000% dead serious sure that everything you need to know is documented and extremely super duper easy to understand if you don't know the source code or barely know how to code at all. And if not, maybe you can find the bits of information on the respective Discord server. It will probably be also very intuitive to know which build options you have to set in which way and which ones even exist. And that without causing conflicts with other packages you need to compile. Still got got problems with compiling? EZ, just open a bunch of issues on the respective GitHub pages. (If present. Otherwise, try to find another way to contact devs and get support, Discord for example.) Maybe, about six months later you're lucky to get a response. And if not, don't worry. Some will tell you, you should RTFM or are an idiot. Some will just close the issue because your platform isn't supported anyway. Then you know, what you did wrong. Also don't mind if your issue gets ignored.
If you finally managed to compile everything from source, congratulations! Now run the program and test if everything is working. If it's not or if it is crashing, don't worry! In developed and civilised countries you can just buy a shotgun and blast your own head away to end this suffering.

EZ! Just compile from source! /s

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] amw3i7dwgoblinlabs@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

False, if it exists in the Linux ecosystem it also exists in AUR

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] uis@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Meanwhile almost everything I ever wanted is either in main Gentoo repo or in there is overlay with it.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
731 points (93.8% liked)

linuxmemes

19825 readers
974 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS