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

201–210 of 624 posts

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#201

Post by coldpie »

jovial_cavalier wrote: post #175
minimaul wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm genuinely curious about this, as I see people say it a lot but it's not my experience at all. I have an Arch Linux desktop (KDE + AMD), I update it every few days, and it's always fine. I also have a shell VM that runs IRC etc that often isn't updated in months, and I run `pacman -Syyu` and everything works fine. I've never had the infamous 'Arch updates are unreliable' issue. Is it certain packages that are more…

It's probably because you run updates every couple of days that you don't have the issue. For me, I have a laptop that can go untouched for up to a month, and it's not fun catching up on a month's worth of updates. Lots of packages have been replaced, I usually have to futz with the keyring, etc. Also worth pointing out - the fact that you can so easily perform a partial update with pacman and totally break your syst…

> If an upgrade fails, it should revert to a cached package database.

I'm prettttty sure it does now? When did you run into this problem? It definitely used to be a problem, a long time ago (I ran into it once when I ran out of disk space mid-upgrade), but I think system updates are atomic now.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#202

Post by ripley12 »

sergiosgc wrote: post #38
codedokode wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This puts too much unnecessary burden on developers and maintainers. It doesn't make sense to adapt software to tens of distributions (and then to different OS like FreeBSD). Apt should be used only for system software (like init system, system libraries) but not for applications. Also apt allows to run scripts as root during installation and this is not secure.

There's a Pareto effort, of course. If you release Debian and Redhat packages, you cover 80% of the user base. It's not hard to maintain, if you compare to building msi installers. Further, the process of generating packages for derivatives of debian or redhat can be mostly automated, so user coverage is bound to grow if your package is popular. As for root requirements, what you are asking for are (non privileged) u…

> It's not hard to maintain, if you compare to building msi installers.

I don’t think building MSI installers is especially difficult; it’s kind of a set-it-and-forget-it thing. Configure Wix or Inno Setup once and then you’re good to go (on every Windows machine, no need to worry about multiple distros).

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#204

Post by noloblo »

Gracana wrote: post #184
CalRobert wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snaps are getting me off Desktop Ubuntu after 12 years of happily using it.

Same here. I was a happy Ubuntu desktop user for over a decade. Now I’m a happy Arch user.

Same here off Ubuntu and onto centos/fedora rpm dnf world

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#205

Post by FpUser »

I think it should remove both - Flatpack and Snap. Stick to apt, improve it if you wish.

">This adds fuel to the fire that Canonical is doing this largely to further its own interests."

What a surprise, companies (excluding rare exceptions) are there to make money, not to give it out. Interests of the customers are taken into account only as far as it helps to increas income and satisfy legal obligations.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#206

Post by rvz »

nicolaslem wrote: post #86
rvz wrote: post #27

The Linux desktop stack fragmentation continues.

That is just Ubuntu doing Ubuntu things. Like most of their other endeavors, like Upstart or Unity, they will eventually get bored with snap and adopt the most common tool instead.

My point still stands.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#207

Post by pydry »

CalRobert wrote: post #165
wilonth wrote: post #161

Wow they're still pushing snaps, the project with some the worst engineering I've ever seen. - Extremely slow at doing anything, even the most basic commands. - Ridiculous auto-update mechanism (you can't even disable it wtf). - Random, nonsense limitations (why can't I open dot files and dot directories???). So terrible that for most apps that I installed with snaps I end up installing the deb version later on. What…

Snaps are getting me off Desktop Ubuntu after 12 years of happily using it.

Same here. I used to use it coz it was one of the better debugged distributions that "just worked" and I didn't want to futz with deep config files like I would with arch or gentoo or deal with some confusing "nonfree" workarounds like with Debian.

These days it's looking like Fedora holds that crown.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#208

Post by phkahler »

veeti wrote: post #157
phkahler wrote: post #132

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. 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…

Have you ever actually worked on distribution packaging? There is no such thing as a "standard" .deb or .rpm. Unless you're statically linking against distro policy they have dependencies on the particular version of the distribution they are built for. You can't take a "standard" .rpm from the Fedora repositories and install it on CentOS. You can't take a .deb from Debian 11 and install it on Debian 10.

>> There is no such thing as a "standard" .deb or .rpm. Unless you're statically linking against distro policy they have dependencies on the particular version of the distribution they are built for.

If you're using a "Debian based" distribution, the "standard" .deb is the one shipping with Debian. If it doesn't work on the derivative distro, they are doing something wrong. Or like I said, maybe the dependencies are doing something wrong.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#209

Post by IceWreck »

SSLy wrote: post #71
necovek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put things into context, snaps were created before flatpak: in a sense, RedHat wanted to go at it "alone" (or at least separately from Canonical) with xdg-app/Flatpak. These ideas were already present even before those times and outside of both RH/Canonical, so it was more of a who's committed first. Basically, Ubuntu phones were using click packages (predecessor to snaps) back in 2011 and 2012, with snapcraft shi…

snap's original sin was the moat of server being closed source and client /really/ wanting to talk only to the Canonical's instance. The latter is shared by Docker, in a way.

I dont use docker anymore (podman ftw) but that is unfair criticism of docker.

You can use any container registry (including self hosted) with docker and it will work. Last I checked, you cannot use any other repo at all with snap without recompling it to add support for your snap repo.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#210

Post by prmoustache »

tapoxi wrote: post #166
mulmen wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if hundreds of distro maintainers don’t do it then millions of users have to do it.

No, users don't do it. The application developers do it in their CI pipelines. Application developers should be the ones building and testing the app, not distro maintainers responsible for a dozen other applications.

History has shown that application developers are very bad at releasing good deliverable without too much security holes in the packaged libraries or bad practices. And the sandboxing in flatpak is actually meant to protect users from harm done by clueless devs but it fails because devs can actually build non sandboxed flatpaks and they will do it because they don't care
Post reply on HN