Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

flatpak.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#21

Post by aroman »

jwildeboer wrote: post #6

Embedded libraries that never get updated. That may expose security vulnerabilities. Different apps including those different versions of libraries. No. That's not progress. That's ridiculous.

I believe you're massively overstating the problem.

Not all of the libraries you use are embedded. Only the ones you need that aren't part of the platform you're targeting are.

For example, if you're building an app on the GNOME 3.28 platform, it would presumably include (for example) an SSL library like OpenSSL. Now, whenever the platform is updated (3.28.x), all of the apps that target that platform (presumably all of them) will get the updated OpenSSL for free.

And if an application really needs a specific version of OpenSSL, then at least you know it's sandboxed, which is much more than you'd get on almost any desktop Linux distro today.

From the website:

"Dependencies that aren't in a runtime can be bundled as part of the app. This makes it possible to use dependencies that aren't in a distribution, and to use a different version of a dependency than the one that's in a distribution."

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#22

Post by wmf »

jkeler wrote: post #14

While I like idea I don't completely understand it. What 'runtime' is actually supposed to be? What if I need two runtimes? I will probably need to bundle one of them with the app. E.g. if I write a C++ Qt application I will use Qt runtime, if I write command line Python application I will use Python runtime, but if I write Qt application in Python I will need to bundle either Python or Qt with my app, correct? Also,…

The runtimes will be GNOME and KDE.

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#23

Post by wmf »

lbenes wrote: post #20
aroman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Update: never mind. I was mistaken about the timeline, click definitely predates xdg-app. If you're implying that Canonical shouldn't be blamed for creating Click as an NIH solution because they released it first, I'd disagree. xdg-app has been a thing for way longer than click. xdg-app was open, the architecture were documented, and Canonical probably could have worked with it if they cared to. Same with Wayland and…

Do you have a source for that? From my investigation, this does not seem to be true. xdg-app's initial release was Dec 17, 2014. [1] While click seems to go back to 2013[2] [1] https://github.com/alexlarsson/xdg-app/commits/master?page=3... [2] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2013-May/0370...

I guess Click was only for phones while Snappy for desktops was released long after xdg-app, but that's splitting hairs.

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#24

Post by knocte »

aroman wrote: post #17
digi_owl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same idea, different implementation. And guess who gets yelled at for NIH-ing...

Update: never mind. I was mistaken about the timeline, click definitely predates xdg-app. If you're implying that Canonical shouldn't be blamed for creating Click as an NIH solution because they released it first, I'd disagree. xdg-app has been a thing for way longer than click. xdg-app was open, the architecture were documented, and Canonical probably could have worked with it if they cared to. Same with Wayland and…

Click from Canonical? I think you're confusing it with Snappy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snappy_%28package_manager%29

Where can I find who wrote Click in the first place? The only reference to wikipedia seems to be about klik, not Click: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppImage_%28packaging_method%2...

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#25

Post by aroman »

lbenes wrote: post #20
aroman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Update: never mind. I was mistaken about the timeline, click definitely predates xdg-app. If you're implying that Canonical shouldn't be blamed for creating Click as an NIH solution because they released it first, I'd disagree. xdg-app has been a thing for way longer than click. xdg-app was open, the architecture were documented, and Canonical probably could have worked with it if they cared to. Same with Wayland and…

Do you have a source for that? From my investigation, this does not seem to be true. xdg-app's initial release was Dec 17, 2014. [1] While click seems to go back to 2013[2] [1] https://github.com/alexlarsson/xdg-app/commits/master?page=3... [2] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2013-May/0370...

You're right, thanks for fact checking.

I was conflating snappy and click. I've updated my original post.

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#27

Post by zxcvcxz »

defiancedigital wrote: post #16

This looks like OSX distribution app. I prefer nix ...

I prefer doing things the way we're already doing them. Linux package management is already better than pretty much every other main stream OS. But that's the good thing about Linux is there is so much choice. I can choose to use state of the art package management or really shitty package management. On some systems you only get to use shitty package management.

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#28

Post by khedoros »

jkeler wrote: post #14

While I like idea I don't completely understand it. What 'runtime' is actually supposed to be? What if I need two runtimes? I will probably need to bundle one of them with the app. E.g. if I write a C++ Qt application I will use Qt runtime, if I write command line Python application I will use Python runtime, but if I write Qt application in Python I will need to bundle either Python or Qt with my app, correct? Also,…

It looks like there would be shared "runtime" packages, in specific versions, installed as part of the flatpak system (that is, not included in the app bundles themselves). Different runtimes could be installed, specific versions would be supported, etc.

The app itself would include any libraries/prerequisites outside of whatever flatpak defines as a "runtime library".

At least, that's my reading of how Flatpak works. I could be wrong on some of those points.

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#29

Post by orangeshark »

nine_k wrote: post #13
Nullabillity wrote: post #2

I'm not at all sold on this idea of "platform" vs "application" that seems to have become so common. I'd much rather have a Nix-like system, where you still get the isolation benefits (each package specifies an exact dependency hierarchy), while also opportunistically sharing stuff that is identical between packages.

You can put a single file on a system otherwise not configured with nix (however nice it is). So it's much more universal, and much easier to make inroads into already established infrastructure without having to disrupt it, or even care much about it.

Doesn't it still require flatpak to be installed? I don't see how much different would it be compared to having Nix installed ontop of a distro.

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#30

Post by Nullabillity »

nine_k wrote: post #13
Nullabillity wrote: post #2

I'm not at all sold on this idea of "platform" vs "application" that seems to have become so common. I'd much rather have a Nix-like system, where you still get the isolation benefits (each package specifies an exact dependency hierarchy), while also opportunistically sharing stuff that is identical between packages.

You can put a single file on a system otherwise not configured with nix (however nice it is). So it's much more universal, and much easier to make inroads into already established infrastructure without having to disrupt it, or even care much about it.

You can install Nix on any Linux system without making it control everything else.
Post reply on HN