Does Flathub help with sandboxing? For example, if I download an app, can I know that it can’t access photos, or location, or microphone, etc… without asking first?
Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
11–20 of 124 posts
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#12Because they've given up on being able to maintain a desktop distro with a set of system libraries that allow you to run programs. Future shock from the too rapidly changing underlying libs and no thought of forwards compatibility longer than 3 years means no software lasts longer than 3 years, if that. And so, like a fever is a symptom of infection, we have containers as symptom of future shock. As for which contain…
Forgive me if it seems like this question comes from a place of ignorance and misunderstanding; it probably does.
Why can't we just static link everything, and distribute binaries like we're on win32?
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#13Part of my issue with Flatpak is that it takes these systems that really ought to be managed separately (process isolation, package management, runtime configuration, security, etc.) and makes them one monolith. It's an ok stopgap for people frustrated with software distribution, but it tangles itself up in so much mess that it's hard to promote over it's competitors (even Snap). It's not great. Sometimes it works we…
> but when the wiccan magic inside Flatpak breaks now you have to debug two runtimes for the price of one!
As a user I couldn’t care less.
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#14What advantages does Flatpak offer over Nix? The only benefit(s) I see are: 1. Sandboxed applications (via containers?) - so applications you have don't technically have access to your home directories by default. That's sort of nice - but how many applications really warrant this overhead? 2. Possibly easier to write/package? That said, in Nix you pretty much just need to package once. I've not used Flatpak - can so…
What advantages has Nix over Flatpak? Seems to be just yet another esoteric solution for installing software? Why should one prefer it over other solutions?
How well does Nix integrate packages into the system? Flatpak is integrating apps into the desktop environments. Probably just following standards, but is Nix doing this too?
Are Nix-Installations portable? I use Flatpak to have the same installation on different systems available, just move my SSD between them. How ell would this work with Nix?
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#15Because they've given up on being able to maintain a desktop distro with a set of system libraries that allow you to run programs. Future shock from the too rapidly changing underlying libs and no thought of forwards compatibility longer than 3 years means no software lasts longer than 3 years, if that. And so, like a fever is a symptom of infection, we have containers as symptom of future shock. As for which contain…
Forgive me if it seems like this question comes from a place of ignorance and misunderstanding; it probably does. Why can't we just static link everything, and distribute binaries like we're on win32?
That exists - https://appimage.org/.
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#16I haven't daily driven linux on my desktop on a few years, so flatpak didn't have a ton of traction when I was a target user, but I do think it solves some of the problems I had running linux on my desktop
I liked linux because I considered it to be a great development environment, but I always thought it was annoying as hell to run consumer software on. And I do have to run consumer software, whether it's web conferencing or chat or tools for some of my electronics, etc.
Sandboxing consumer applications would have allowed me to focus my package management efforts entirely on my development environment
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forgive me if it seems like this question comes from a place of ignorance and misunderstanding; it probably does. Why can't we just static link everything, and distribute binaries like we're on win32?
That exists - https://appimage.org/ .
Appimages are not statically linked at all.
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#18What advantages does Flatpak offer over Nix? The only benefit(s) I see are: 1. Sandboxed applications (via containers?) - so applications you have don't technically have access to your home directories by default. That's sort of nice - but how many applications really warrant this overhead? 2. Possibly easier to write/package? That said, in Nix you pretty much just need to package once. I've not used Flatpak - can so…
I don't have to learn a new language to use it and it is integrated with existing GNOME and KDE package install solutions.
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#19Because they've given up on being able to maintain a desktop distro with a set of system libraries that allow you to run programs. Future shock from the too rapidly changing underlying libs and no thought of forwards compatibility longer than 3 years means no software lasts longer than 3 years, if that. And so, like a fever is a symptom of infection, we have containers as symptom of future shock. As for which contain…
Forgive me if it seems like this question comes from a place of ignorance and misunderstanding; it probably does. Why can't we just static link everything, and distribute binaries like we're on win32?
Fwiw, I do this for everything I release. But I doubt that's much "better" than something like flatpack, because just static linking doesn't really help me with dependencies at build time.
Flatpack Runtimes do this for common dependency lists, but still allow some customization, without me having to recompile openssl- or some other annoying upstream.
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#20Part of my issue with Flatpak is that it takes these systems that really ought to be managed separately (process isolation, package management, runtime configuration, security, etc.) and makes them one monolith. It's an ok stopgap for people frustrated with software distribution, but it tangles itself up in so much mess that it's hard to promote over it's competitors (even Snap). It's not great. Sometimes it works we…
> but when the wiccan magic inside Flatpak breaks now you have to debug two runtimes for the price of one! As a user I couldn’t care less.
Well, if I understood the point correctly and if it happens too often, it could become too much of a burden (as in not enough sales to make it worthwhile.) Developer might end supporting only one runtime, deprecate and put out of support all the old ones. That's a problem for users and eventually for developers too: it they don't know how to create a release for everybody, they won't.