Live data from Hacker News

Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

omgubuntu.co.uk

61–70 of 96 posts

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#61

> Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak Yayy!!! > And to focus their efforts exclusively on deb, Yayyy!!! > and snap. ... oh. Honestly I avoid flatpak/snap/etc like the plague. Every time I've used them, some sort of device or file can't be accessed, or something isn't working. If I need anything that isn't covered by apt repositories, I just compile from source now, and have my own system for detecting updates…

On the other hand, I repeatedly recommend that ordinary users do not install software from third party apt repositories unless they really really have to.

Fundamentally they're a hack, don't work right, and often result in latent packaging problems that cause future release upgrades to explode. People then unfortunately attribute those failures to the distribution rather than the broken hacks they themselves installed from third parties.

It is fundamentally impossible for a third party deb to correctly declare the necessary metadata to avoid breakages on a future upgrade. In distribution packaging this kind of thing is dealt with in metadata provided by the distribution packages being upgraded to, but third party debs don't have that luxury, even when using a third party apt repository. For example, a "Breaks" metadata declaration can only declared from one direction, so if a newer distribution package Breaks a third party package, then it cannot be declared on the third party side so ends up just not getting declared, resulting in breakage.

So apt/deb only really works in the curated distribution model where all your software comes from the distribution.

This doesn't work when users want software newer than their distribution release, or want to install proprietary software that cannot be curated by a Free Software distribution.

Further, third party debs have root on your system, which is terrible for modern security. Installing software from third party sources which aren't sandboxed should really be unacceptable from a security perspective nowadays. For example: do you really want some game to have access to your online banking session? How secure is that game's development infrastructure that will stop a bad update from resulting in you losing money?

On the other hand Snaps and Flatpaks actually provide app sandboxing.

That's the use case for these packaging formats. If you don't need them yourself, then that's fine. But it's disingenuous to declare that there's no need for them.

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's just Ubuntu with another repo added on top, with some different default package choices.

What does that even mean? Is Ubuntu just Debian with another repo on top? Either way, it doesn't change the fact that Pop ships with different functionality and is controlled by a different company that has made a lot fewer user-hostile choices than Canonical in recent years.

Unlike Ubuntu, Pop doesn't really have full control over their users' experience, because their users are configured to consume directly from Ubuntu's repositories.

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#64

> Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak Yayy!!! > And to focus their efforts exclusively on deb, Yayyy!!! > and snap. ... oh. Honestly I avoid flatpak/snap/etc like the plague. Every time I've used them, some sort of device or file can't be accessed, or something isn't working. If I need anything that isn't covered by apt repositories, I just compile from source now, and have my own system for detecting updates…

Docker snap is basically broken out of the box and you need to uninstall it and install a Docker deb from Docker itself to get a working Docker installation. (Insert facepalm)

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#65
post #6

A few days ago I wanted to update an Ubuntu laptop that hasn't been turned on for over a year. I had steam and brave browser installed using snap. Updating these two took as much time as updating everything else in the system (1.6Gb of downloads). Then I uninstalled brave, which took about 6-8 minutes. The laptop has NixOS today. NixOS has official GUI installer now https://nixos.org/download.html#nixos-iso

I think Steam specifically does quite a bit more complicated stuff that can affect the rest of the system just to support games than most other pieces of software. It has its own built-in update mechanism, which I think makes it one of the few pieces of software I'd avoid using the package manager for.

I run a `snap` command to update steam

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I go back and forth between Ubuntu and Debian on various machines and I usually hardly notice the difference in terms of my day-to-day. I just have in the past treated Ubuntu as a Debian with a fancier installer and default desktop. But the push towards snap is frustrating me. Unfortunately Ubuntu pushing Snap means that 3rd parties that would have produced debian-compatible packages before are now moving to ju…

Slack still has .deb files you just need to scroll down and find the small button for it. https://slack.com/intl/en-gb/downloads/linux search for "Download .DEB app". Last I checked they also have an Ubuntu only dependency that has a Debian equivalent but they don't list it so it won't install unless you modify the dependency list. I used the following script to do so, but I haven't updated in a while. #!/bin/sh if […

dpkg tells me I installed a deb called slack-desktop. It boils down to a 150 MB executable in /usr/lib/slack plus some .so and other files.

It's version 4.29.129. No idea if it updates itself.

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#67
post #36

I switched to Arch a few years ago and I regret not having done it sooner. All the things I was assuming about stability being a problem or having to muck around with complex settings, were all wrong. It works extremely well. My OS and all my apps update once a day - no reboots, no loaders. The AUR is great. When I use my macbook or boot into windows the user experience feels outdated by comparison.

Do you use any preconfigured distro like EndeavourOS and Manjaro or from "scratch"?

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#68
post #41
post #36

I switched to Arch a few years ago and I regret not having done it sooner. All the things I was assuming about stability being a problem or having to muck around with complex settings, were all wrong. It works extremely well. My OS and all my apps update once a day - no reboots, no loaders. The AUR is great. When I use my macbook or boot into windows the user experience feels outdated by comparison.

I always hear this and really want to jump in, and then I wasted a full week trying to get Arch to dual-boot on my Framework laptop and just couldn't get it to work. The Arch wiki installation instructions regularly were out of date with the current installer and told you to use flags that didn't exist when setting up your disks. I assume I'd love it once I got it installed, but for everything I hear about how good t…

Perhaps manjaro would be a better fit? Similar to arch but with a good instaler

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#69
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always hear this and really want to jump in, and then I wasted a full week trying to get Arch to dual-boot on my Framework laptop and just couldn't get it to work. The Arch wiki installation instructions regularly were out of date with the current installer and told you to use flags that didn't exist when setting up your disks. I assume I'd love it once I got it installed, but for everything I hear about how good t…

Perhaps manjaro would be a better fit? Similar to arch but with a good instaler

I've been curious about that. Any time I ask about it, a lot of Arch folks come out to explain why Manjaro is terrible and makes all kinds of bad choices similar to the ones TFA is about. How much of that is real vs. overblown purism about Arch?

Re: Ubuntu Flavors Agree to Stop Using Flatpak

#70
post #2

Interestingly, Ubuntu MATE lead at [1] saying it wasn't so much "agreeing" as it was complying with the requested change, for both them and Xubuntu. [1] https://fosstodon.org/@wimpy/109908489437633387

Not too surprising to see that these changes were the result of coercion from Canonical. I don't know why any FOSS distro maintainer would voluntarily stop including Flatpak (which supports multiple repos and has FOSS server and client implementations) only to replace it with Snap (which only supports Canonical's closed source Snap Store server).
Post reply on HN