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

Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 624 posts

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#121

Post by dTal »

bionade24 wrote: post #103
dTal wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AppImage is not like the other two, it is fundamentally just a way to make a self-contained binary directory into a single runnable file - a way to avoid having to tell the user to extract a tarball and run a particular file inside. Convenience, nothing more. The other two define entire alternate runtimes.

No, an Appimage still ships a dynamically linked executable + lots of dynamically linked libraries, that only link against system libraries when strictly needed, e.g glibc and libGL. Those files are bundled in a squashfs and have a script setting a custom LD_LIBRARY_PATH to the squashfs content for the binary. Snap does use this technique, too, but does more, for worse. AppImages are not comparable with statically li…

I can't make out what you're disagreeing with - you seem to be arguing against something I didn't say? The point is that the contents of an AppImage - "a dynamically linked executable + lots of dynamically linked libraries" - works just as well without all the squashfs backflips. If you can ship an AppImage, you can ship a regular ol' tarball with a binary named "RunMe" inside. The purpose of an AppImage is simply to condense such a tarball to a single runnable file, for convenience - nothing more.

Meanwhile, Snap and Flatpak are package managers - what's more, they're invasive heavyweights with permanent costs that are even worse than distro package managers. Snap permanently runs a daemon, and Flatpak requires you to run programs with "flatpak run" - yuck! They are both trying to impose some dubious vision of sandboxed apps that require bureaucracy to communicate with each other, instead of just tackling the core issue of software distribution. Maybe you even like sandboxing! But I've seen no justification why that should be co-mingled with package management.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#122

Post by rickydroll »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #41
Taniwha wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah lost a day this week to bloody snaps

Is there a single user who likes snaps?

me. They provide solutions that work. There have been some teething pains but for the most part nonissues. It's at the point where I'm considering learning how to build snaps for private products I deliver.

I think the argument over flat pack versus snaps may expressed in technological terms but in reality, it's just your damn ego. Let it go, it's really not worth arguing over. Use what solves your work problem and then go have a life away from computers.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#123

Post by vesinisa »

NayamAmarshe wrote: post #92
vesinisa wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would've appreciated some background how this differs from the next Linux distro, and what's the relation to Ubuntu removing Flatpak?

Some links I'd suggest reading: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2022/01/17/what-... https://www.techrepublic.com/article/zorinos-16-is-exactly-w... https://www.zdnet.com/article/zorin-os-puts-on-a-master-clas... Copy-pasting my comment from reddit: - Interface is amazing. Possibly the most polished and modern UI in any distro. - Nvidia drivers provided by default. - Biggest App store library in any Ubuntu…

Thanks! Yeah it does sound great for someone who wants a Linux that "just works". That was the original selling point of Ubuntu as well, but this seems to be taking it on another level for less technically savy people who want a Linux that just works out of the box.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#124

Post by goodpoint »

Klonoar wrote: post #51
wongarsu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original model is that software developers don't package their software for distributions at all, at best they provide helper scripts that the distribution maintainers can use to do that. That's why distributions are typically either giant volunteer-run organizations like Debian or companies like RedHat or Canonical.

This model doesn't necessarily work for software that developers don't want others shipping for them .

Good, then we stay away from such software.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#125

Post by koolba »

lelanthran wrote: post #104
koolba wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you end up with useless packages like ancient versions of nodejs sticking around for half a decade.

At which point was nodejs five years older than the distro it shipped on? Not being facetious, genuinely curious.

> At which point was nodejs five years older than the distro it shipped on?

https://askubuntu.com/questions/1259840/why-an-old-nodejs-ve...

Nodejs v4.x was "new" when Ubuntu 16.04 LTS came out. It was added to its apt repos, LTS releases are supported for 5+ years, and LTS policy is not to update major versions of software within a release.

So while nodejs was pumping out new major versions every 6-months, people running Ubuntu 16.04 and installing "apt-get install nodejs" were stuck on the same ancient version.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#126

Post by goodpoint »

colonwqbang wrote: post #26
londons_explore wrote: post #3

Can we go back to just shipping apt packages? They worked fine, and I don't feel like having multiple types of containers and update methods and mounted image file systems really made anyone's life better.

Building apt packages isn't the issue, libraries is. Debian ships very old libraries, forcing applications to run in docker. Or bring their own copies of system libraries. Look at Arch Linux, we just write a short AUR script and the package is integrated. Once the script is written, everyone can use it. This is possible because Arch always ships recent libraries.

It's called stability and it's a good thing. And no, nobody is forced to use docker.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#127

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #67
creshal wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of a distribution is that this job is done by the distributors, not the authors.

Hot take: package distributors are 'fake jobs' that don't need to exist, or exist only for the make-work of packaging. Tools like flatpak, snap, appimage, containerization, etc. have made the need for adapting software to different distributions unnecessary.

I agree. Maintainers are useless middlemen (at best) who only exist because of Linux userland's particular diseases and a desire for distros to rule over their own little repo fiefdoms.

No other desktop OS has done it like Linux and for good reason. People have been citing this as a reason they don't want to use Linux as a desktop for decades to mostly deaf ears, who then turn around and wonder loudly why no one wants to use their OS. Hell, even Linus Torvalds himself complained about it.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#128

Post by lelanthran »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #113
lelanthran wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make it sound like so much work, "manual installing". It's as simple as apt-get install $DE

Try that command on Arch, Fedora or OpenSUSE and let me know how it works. Also, having multiple DEs in parallels rarely plays well with most distros. That's why they usually give you a downloads with one or two options already setup and tested.

> Try that command on Arch, Fedora or OpenSUSE and let me know how it works.

Using apt, yum, pacman or the equivalent is still just a single command. Your implication that "manual installation" is extra work when it is a single command on all the desktop distros.

Saying that "executing a single command" is too much manual work is simply delusional.

> Also, having multiple DEs in parallels rarely plays well with most distros.

Nonsense. I'm currently running Plasma, which was not the default. I've installed so many in the past on this machine that I lost track of them.

I've switched DEs and window managers multiples on this machine, with no problems.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#129

Post by daenney »

It speaks volumes to the success of Snap that they’re now moving to ensure Flatpak isn’t part of the default desktop experience.

The only outcome this leads to is monetisation attempts through their store and other OS integrations to try and turn free users into a source of revenue. If you’re using Ubuntu for desktop I’d urge you to start exploring alternatives.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#130

Post by killerstorm »

mg wrote: post #108

I wish there was a solution like flatpak or snap that does make things simpler, not more complex. To begin with: It would be nice if the data of the containerized applications were stored in one place and one place only. Each application should simply be a single directory in /snaps/ or something. At first I thought snap would be like that. But no. When I did some tests, the data of a snap seems to be splattered acro…

Well if the app works with documents I'd like to have them in ~/Documents, not in /snaps/
Post reply on HN