Live data from Hacker News

Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

lwn.net

131–140 of 624 posts

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a distribution (or whatever one would call it - a Linux) where the aim is to not be managing the whole end-user system of OS+Apps, but just the OS. E.g. similar to Windows, or Android?

Fedora Silverblue https://silverblue.fedoraproject.org/ You're expected to run most apps as flatpaks.

Silverblue doesn't get a lot of press but it makes a really solid desktop OS.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#132
post #56

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.

The problem with that model is that it puts the burden on the distro maintainers to package every possible application for their distro. And application developers have to essentially wait for each distro to repackage their app before it becomes available on that distro. Or start messing with alternate repositories for each distro they want to support. The old model works for established software, but breaks down a l…

>> The problem with that model is that it puts the burden on the distro maintainers to package every possible application for their distro.

That's kinda what the distros ARE. Also, if you're debian based and debian packages are not compatible with your distribution you're actively fucking something up for "reasons" - stop doing that.

If an app can't use a standard .deb or .rpm then the distro is doing something wrong. If dependency version management is too hard, someone is doing something wrong - not sure who, could be a library maintainer or an app maintainter. Let's not ship half an OS with every app to avoid this stuff.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#133

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.

What you are really saying is you want all software developers to publish Debian packages (no such thing as "apt" packages) compatible with your particular Debian distribution, even though they might be using a different Debian based distribution, a completely different altogether, maybe even a different architecture, even though that compatibility isn't their primary concern.

As someone who does this for a lot of distros (ZeroTier), I can say that it is hell and I understand why devs don't want to do it.

Two specific examples:

(1) For some reason a lot of Debian distros decided to rename and/or re-version-number OpenSSL for no good reason (pedantry is not a good reason), meaning if you depend on OpenSSL/libcrypto your packages will mysteriously break all over the place because you're not using the versioning scheme or naming convention. We're not doing it now but we may switch to statically linking this.

(2) We use a UPnP library called miniupnp in the current version. We have to statically link it because of issues like (1) and also because some distros were for a time stuck on a version that had security bugs that they would not upgrade because it would break other packages.

So imagine (1) and (2) ad infinitum times a hundred little distributions and Debian forks and... it's completely untenable. Static linking solves many of the problems but that defeats some of the purpose of package management.

We do it for all the major Debian and Ubuntu distributions by using a qemu-chroot based build farm that builds on each distribution+architecture combo with actual qemu binary emulation. It's over 200 gigabytes of chroots and takes two hours on a 64-core Threadripper to build all the artifacts. We tried cross compilation and had too many problems: it builds fine, seems to run fine, then users complain that some mysterious glibc symbol was missing on their system. We switched to building on actual chroots and most of those problems went away. Most of them.

Snap, FlatPak, and Docker are all variations on the same basic conclusion that many developers reached long ago: "fuck it, just distribute software in the form of tarballs of entire Linux installs."

The only thing worse is Windows MSI installers and Windows drivers, though with those at least there's less platform variation so once you battle those horrors the result mostly works on most systems. Mostly. But whoo boy is the Windows installer system horrific. I shall quote Pinhead: "I have such sights to show you..."

Apple is the easiest because they have less legacy baggage than Windows and only one "distribution." They do have some horrors around signing and notarization and we don't distribute in the Mac App Store (yet?).

A major reason SaaS delivered through browsers is eating the world is the immense and totally unnecessary pain of distributing apps for major OSes. Even Apple is quite a bit harder than making a web site that you visit in a browser. All this pain is 100% the fault of OSes not caring about developer experience and in the case of Linux the multiplication of endless "vanity distributions" to no benefit to the community.

If you want packages instead of tarballs of OSes, Linux distributions could (1) consolidate and (2) invest some time in the very boring totally un-sexy work of massive amounts of clean-up and standardizing things as much as possible. But it's more fun to make another vanity distribution I guess. You'll get it right this time and everyone will switch to your distribution.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#134

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.

[deleted]

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snaps/Flatpacks/other binary-containerised stuff is one of the major reasons why I abandoned Linux distributions after 22-odd years (1999-2022), and am now a happy Apple user (the other one being abandoning X11 in favour of Wayland, and a switch to laptop-first usage, on which Linux still has horrible power-consumption). Linux distros have a history of abandoning useful, well-understood technology for fads that then…

> Snaps/Flatpacks/other binary-containerised stuff is one of the major reasons why I abandoned Linux distributions after 22-odd years (1999-2022), and am now a happy Apple user (the other one being abandoning X11 in favour of Wayland, and a switch to laptop-first usage, on which Linux still has horrible power-consumption). Flatpaks/Snaps are almost exactly the same, conceptually, as apps on MacOS. Go look inside some…

Mac and iPhone apps don’t automatically update unless you tell them to.

The goal of systemd is to make everyone do everything the way Lennart Poettering likes it on his personal laptop. Perhaps some of it is nice but also some of it is not nice. And his holier and smarter than thou attitude is off putting and rightly so.

And don’t handwave away wasting my resources just so you can avoid work. That’s how we end up with Microsoft Teams.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#136
I wonder if these developments won't eventually result on a split, when at some point Ubuntu would rather not keep up with Debian packages, or talk things through upstream. Perhaps when there are some fundamental differences of direction at the packaging level.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#137

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.

What you are really saying is you want all software developers to publish Debian packages (no such thing as "apt" packages) compatible with your particular Debian distribution, even though they might be using a different Debian based distribution, a completely different altogether, maybe even a different architecture, even though that compatibility isn't their primary concern.

The last app image I've installed took 800 MB. It was approximately 720 MB of libraries, and just 80 MB of core program. Using self-contained images is simply not scalable.

I have some experience with packaging, and if we talk about standalone applications, dependencies aren't a big deal; producing deb packages for different targets is not difficult. The last (only) breaking change across different targets I can remember was old graphic libraries (I think it was gtk2-based WxWidgets, removed in newer Ubuntu versions).

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#138
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that model is that it puts the burden on the distro maintainers to package every possible application for their distro. And application developers have to essentially wait for each distro to repackage their app before it becomes available on that distro. Or start messing with alternate repositories for each distro they want to support. The old model works for established software, but breaks down a l…

>> The problem with that model is that it puts the burden on the distro maintainers to package every possible application for their distro. That's kinda what the distros ARE. Also, if you're debian based and debian packages are not compatible with your distribution you're actively fucking something up for "reasons" - stop doing that. If an app can't use a standard .deb or .rpm then the distro is doing something wrong…

> That's kinda what the distros ARE.

What things are can change, sometimes for the better. Imagine if distros maintainers could spend their time doing something more productive than doing the same work as hundreds of others are doing.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#139
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had some success with Nix. Still I would only generally recommend it for development (even though I use NixOs)

Also a Nix/NixOS user/contributer. I feel like Nix+nixpkgs could become the universal packaging solution adapted to build deb, rpm, etc packages. Through nix-env it even already has the idea (albeit discouraged) of imperative package management like apt. Having spent a while with NixOS, running containers for user applications seems like using a cannon to kill a fly. The 'simple' alternative is to drop FHS altogether…

The one advantage Flatpak provides for me over Nix is containerisation. Not the bullet-proof kind, which allows you to run malware, but of the "reasonable" kind, which stops apps from storing to any directory they like just like that (only chroot level of "security"/isolation would be fine for me).

When there's a package manager / runtime that does both then I'm extremely interested.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#140
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that model is that it puts the burden on the distro maintainers to package every possible application for their distro. And application developers have to essentially wait for each distro to repackage their app before it becomes available on that distro. Or start messing with alternate repositories for each distro they want to support. The old model works for established software, but breaks down a l…

>> The problem with that model is that it puts the burden on the distro maintainers to package every possible application for their distro. That's kinda what the distros ARE. Also, if you're debian based and debian packages are not compatible with your distribution you're actively fucking something up for "reasons" - stop doing that. If an app can't use a standard .deb or .rpm then the distro is doing something wrong…

Ah, a bunch of “you’re holding it wrong”s, completely devoid from reality. This certainly is an argument about Linux.
Post reply on HN