Live data from Hacker News

Flatpak is not the future (2021)

ludocode.com

31–40 of 166 posts

Re: Flatpak is not the future (2021)

#31
The #1 story on Hacker News at 2023:08:21T15:41Z is a 2021 discussion of Linux desktop packaging tools.

Hypothesis: HN story up-voters are heavily drawn from Free / Open Source Software folks interested in issues that were broadly discussed in "tech" two decades ago (Linux for the desktop!) and are much less broadly discussed today.

Re: Flatpak is not the future (2021)

#32
post #6

Flatpacks solve no problem that I have, and bring their own headaches, so for me, flatpack is certainly not the future. Same with snaps, although I dislike snaps more.

Same for me. I had really weird stuff to debug. Could not save from FF to /tmp for instance (and I really like that for downloads I should use immediately and can be removed).

I found Keepass to be a snap/flatpak once: so many extra layer of complexity for a passwrd manager? No way that's good for security.

Re: Flatpak is not the future (2021)

#33
Neither are snaps. The future, for regular daily use, are appimages. Much like MacOS dmgs, these are a "single" file (from an end user perspective) that you download, double click, and run. That's it. Ideally we'd see more work in this area. I am slowly trying to figure out how to automate builds for GUI apps and I am considering somehow settings up an inexpensive server to pull, package, and submit appimages to appimagehub. A crowdsourced effort would be cool. Imagine a distro where by default if you place apps in ~/Applications you can just execute them. Comes with risks, but having them "signed" by appimage a lot of it would be mitigated. Linux, while excellent as a desktop, and I am referring to the many awesome distros available, is really user friendly. Let's make it even more user friendly.

Re: Flatpak is not the future (2021)

#34

I just want to point out that Windows actually has similar packaging problems. For some reason, Windows didn’t ship with C/C++/.NET runtimes. So practically every app ships with either a copy of the runtime DLLs or an installer to install those runtimes globally. Every Windows installation inevitably gets a million msvcrt dlls across random places, never getting any security updates. I believe this situation is a lot…

That lets Microsoft break ABI on every release if they see fit. I thought the model was to install the runtimes globally, so you only have one copy of each version, but you install whatever version a given program wants. So you end up with lots, all somewhat different to each other.

It has different tradeoffs to the glibc model.

Re: Flatpak is not the future (2021)

#35

Just built a new Gaming Linux PC which is intended to replace my aging Dell XPS 13 as my daily driver. Decided to go all-in on flatpaks, as I've been trying to stay away from rpm-fusion. The Steam Flatpak has been an adventure, to say the least. I added a second SSD just for games that gets automatically mounted on boot, and I gather that having the games installed somewhere outside of steam's /home/ directory was no…

Fine fine-grained permissions systems like selinux end up introducing bizarre error conditions that are outside of upstream's test suite. Those error conditions are often exploitable.

They also assume that having distributions and end users produce a multi-MB security policy written in an arcane, poorly-documented policy language will somehow lead to a correctly configured sandbox.

I greatly prefer the OpenBSD approach, where the upstream application developer builds calls to things like pledge(2) into their program, and then tests that it behaves correctly before releasing it:

https://man.openbsd.org/pledge.2

Re: Flatpak is not the future (2021)

#36

Just built a new Gaming Linux PC which is intended to replace my aging Dell XPS 13 as my daily driver. Decided to go all-in on flatpaks, as I've been trying to stay away from rpm-fusion. The Steam Flatpak has been an adventure, to say the least. I added a second SSD just for games that gets automatically mounted on boot, and I gather that having the games installed somewhere outside of steam's /home/ directory was no…

[deleted]

Re: Flatpak is not the future (2021)

#37

It is strange to watch everyone fight about snaps, flatpaks, silverblue ad nauseam when Nix (or its full-OS version, NixOS, or the GNU alternative, Guix) has already definitively solved this problem but is still considered too arcane for most people to use. It only uses the disk space it must, AND every app only accesses the dependencies it needs. It's the best of all worlds (except for the learning curve, which is o…

I really like Nix, but I think "is still considered too arcane for most people to use" is a contradiction of "has already definitively solved this problem". Being usable for most people is an important part of solving this problem, which I unfortunately don't think Nix has accomplished. Maybe there is some way to improve its UX while keeping the fundamental model intact, in order to solve this problem.

Re: Flatpak is not the future (2021)

#38

Doesn't matter, Flatpak won over Appimages and Snaps in adoption numbers. And the example given here for GIMP having r/w permission to your home doesn't hold water. The distro-packaged app probably has the same permissions in comparison. At least with Flatpak, to deny it this permission is a simple toggle with Flatseal.

[deleted]

Re: Flatpak is not the future (2021)

#39

I think it's an unfortunate necessity for some kinds of applications. Eg, we make this: https://overte.org/ We're currently using AppImage because that was the first thing that worked for us, but most of the reasons are the same either way: We want to spend time developing the software, and that means it's hard to justify packaging every release for a dozen distributions. And I'd say nobody particularly wants to do i…

While the problems you cited certainly need to be solved by the Linux ecosystem, I don't see why that solution should involve the heavy-handed sandboxing with a thousand overlayfs, containers and whatnot. I wish there was a more straightforward solution that didn't have so many complicated moving parts, more like the static binaries that I get from Go or Rust.

Re: Flatpak is not the future (2021)

#40
The fundamental problem to me has always been that people cannot agree on standards, so this a relatively good solution to that problem. I can't think of a better one that doesn't involve people needing to come together to agree on a standard.

Personally I prefer an environment where people are free to experiment and not be held back by backwards compatibility and opinions. Any utility that can automate backwards compatibility is good imo.

Post reply on HN