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

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#11

Post by mixedCase »

iamcreasy wrote: post #7

Does anyone know how it stack against AppImage? I know some applications(i.e. Krita) is already using AppImage.

It seems easier to use AppImage applications (as Flatpak requires its binary to be installed and works like a sort of package manager) and it looks easier to create FlatPak apps (create file, point to specific runtime dependencies, create package) than to create AppImage apps (https://github.com/probonopd/AppImageKit/wiki/Creating-AppIm...).

This inclines me towards AppImage, as the whole point is to have the easiest experience for the user.

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#13

Post by nine_k »

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.

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#14

Post by jkeler »

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, is there support for applications without any runtime?

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#15

Post by mixedCase »

digi_owl wrote: post #12
iamcreasy wrote: post #7

Does anyone know how it stack against AppImage? I know some applications(i.e. Krita) is already using AppImage.

appimage seems to be less elaborate in the security department, but appimage do not require anything preinstalled on a distro to function.

As far as security goes, couldn't this be solved by a separate tool, in the good ol' Unix style?

And it would be up to downstream to handle AppImage files with it for sandboxing, or not.

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#17

Post by aroman »

digi_owl wrote: post #10
sandGorgon wrote: post #3

* Is Flatpak the same as xdg-app? Yes, while xdg-app was a fine name to use during development we wanted something with wider appeal and more sparkle to it than xdg-app could provide. So as part of formally launching Flatpak as ready for use we decided to pick a more accessible and fun name.* Interesting - I wonder how it compares with Click packages.

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 Mir.

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#18

Post by digi_owl »

mixedCase wrote: post #15
digi_owl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

appimage seems to be less elaborate in the security department, but appimage do not require anything preinstalled on a distro to function.

As far as security goes, couldn't this be solved by a separate tool, in the good ol' Unix style? And it would be up to downstream to handle AppImage files with it for sandboxing, or not.

Now i wonder if the likes of Firejail works with Appimage.

As in yes, i see nothing that prevents you from applying existing sandboxing techniques around Appimage distributed software.

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#19

Post by takluyver »

macco wrote: post #5
aidenn0 wrote: post #4

Does Flatpak do anything that nix doesn't do?

It means one package for all Linux systems, which is a huge benefit from the developer perspective.

Assuming that all Linux systems adopt it, which is far from a given. Ubuntu 16.04 already has 'snappy' packages, which seem to have similar goals.

Re: Flatpak – Standalone Apps for Linux

#20

Post by lbenes »

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…

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...

Post reply on HN