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

471–480 of 624 posts

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#471

Post by JohnFen »

wing-_-nuts wrote: post #351
7speter wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gnome keeps me off of pop. I look forward to the popos team are ready to ship cosmic as the default desktop. Have you tried OpenSuse Tumbleweed or Gecko Linux? Tumbleweed is a rolling distro but the maintainers apparently test all of the updates they push. OpenSuse can feel a but clunky (it asks for passwords for “everything” for instance), but theres Gecko, which acts a bit as a wrapper of a distro to make OpenSuse…

I don't understand the hate for gnome, but xfce / kde / i3 or whatever is just a sudo apt install away. I've heard good things about tumbleweed and it even has support for WSL, so I might try that if I ever build a gaming pc and have to main windows.

> I don't understand the hate for gnome

I avoid it because I find it hard to use and hard-or-impossible to configure adequately. It takes a "my way or the highway" approach. If you like how it does things, it's great. If you don't, you're better off using a different DE, which is what I do.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#472

Post by wootland »

vetinari wrote: post #178
lapinot wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Also void and alpine. Which have simple, no-nonsense package formats. We get it that deb and rpm are a hassle to learn and write, but it's completely a false dichotomy to say snap or flatpak are the only alternative. In fact they push a widely different model of software distribution, one that completely destroys "user unions" which is a crucial aspect of what distributions are.

> We get it that deb and rpm are a hassle to learn and write, They solve problems that arch/pacman didn't start even thinking about. Like reliably updating an installation, that wasn't kept in a tight loop with the upstream repo. > false dichotomy to say snap or flatpak are the only alternative we are slowly moving into the world of immutable base systems, like fedora silverblue for example. The last thing you want i…

> They solve problems that arch/pacman didn't start even thinking about. Like reliably updating an installation, that wasn't kept in a tight loop with the upstream repo.

So they've decided to degrade the baseline UX because they want to optimize for people who don't keep their system up to date? As someone who has no problem keeping my system fresh, this isn't a use-case I want prioritized in my package manager.

> we are slowly moving into the world of immutable base systems, like fedora silverblue for example. The last thing you want is for a random app package to modify your base system. Separating system and apps is a good thing.

The "last thing I want" is a package manager that's invasive to use, doesn't have the latest software and is slow. Immutable systems can be a nightmare to actually use. Wrote your own software? Copying to /usr/local/bin is no longer an option, hope you like packaging up your one-off tool!

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#473

Post by JohnFen »

zorr wrote: post #56
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.

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.

But isn't that the primary job of a distro?

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#474

Post by JohnFen »

ranger207 wrote: post #376
ninkendo wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless you're statically linking against distro policy they have dependencies on the particular version of the distribution they are built for. The irony here is that we’re discussing flatpak/snap, which take the idea of static linking to the absolute extreme by doing something closer to a container where every dependency is part of the package. Maybe static linking being “against distro policy” is tossing the baby…

Static vs dynamic linking is the core of the packaging debate isn't it? Like, distro maintainers say that dynamic linking is better because it lets them swap out libraries underneath the app in case of like security vulnerabilities and stuff. Devs don't like that because inevitably minor version changes break stuff unexpectedly, plus devs prefer to use shiny and new libraries that distros often don't have. Containers…

As both a dev and a user, I prefer dynamic linking over static linking. Usually.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#475

Post by jklinger410 »

remram wrote: post #211
jklinger410 wrote: post #198

I'm not sure if Ubuntu realizes that the entire Linux ecosystem is moving away from them because of this flatpak vs snap situation. I'm sure their enterprise side is fine, but their consumer side is disappearing rapidly.

I don't think the Linux ecosystem likes Flatpak that much more than Snap. They are both pretty terrible.

People love flatpak and hate snap, actually.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#476

Post by tcmart14 »

conor- wrote: post #430
eYrKEC2 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me a noob if you like, but I don't like hunting down drivers. Tried to go to debian on my last dev machine upgrade, but reverted straight back to ubuntu. I may be lazy, but I really don't want to hunt down drivers. I'll try debian again next cycle.

I feel like hunting down drivers hasn't been an issue on Linux for any relatively modern machine I've run in over 10 years. If it really is something that you have had problems with, maybe try PopOS instead of Debian. The restricting non-free repos by default out of principle with Debian can sometimes get annoying when you need to install certain non-free drivers (looking at you Nvidia), but PopOS is a really well-po…

Or another recommendation. If you want all the drivers and you want to run Debian, use the non-free image which I believe they just decided to make it easier to find?

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#477

Post by Daegalus »

nunodonato wrote: post #269
joao_lopes wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've moved from Ubuntu to Fedora and it's been more stable while also being more up-to-date without rolling-release distros headaches. Strongly recommend it.

I gave Fedora a try some years ago (4-5?) and had a couple of issues with nvidia drivers. Whats the status these days? I also have a long history with debs, so going to rpm is a mystery for me :)

It's vastly better nowadays.

Also with `dnf` RPMs are as easy as DEBs. And some of the commands are similar.

I find dnf is even smarter and better at managing dependencies.

I only ever run 2-3 commands. `dnd install` `dnf update` and `dnf remove`. Update handles the repo refresh and actually updating packages. And force refreshing repos you just add `--refresh` to the command. Otherwise it does it every few hours on its own (the refreshing of repos, not installing updates)

Fedora is a breath of fresh air after decades of Ubuntu, and then Manjaro. I wouldnt go back and I have used Ubuntu since 5.04 til 22.04

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#478

Post by vetinari »

wootland wrote: post #472
vetinari wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We get it that deb and rpm are a hassle to learn and write, They solve problems that arch/pacman didn't start even thinking about. Like reliably updating an installation, that wasn't kept in a tight loop with the upstream repo. > false dichotomy to say snap or flatpak are the only alternative we are slowly moving into the world of immutable base systems, like fedora silverblue for example. The last thing you want i…

> They solve problems that arch/pacman didn't start even thinking about. Like reliably updating an installation, that wasn't kept in a tight loop with the upstream repo. So they've decided to degrade the baseline UX because they want to optimize for people who don't keep their system up to date? As someone who has no problem keeping my system fresh, this isn't a use-case I want prioritized in my package manager. > we…

> So they've decided to degrade the baseline UX because they want to optimize for people who don't keep their system up to date? As someone who has no problem keeping my system fresh, this isn't a use-case I want prioritized in my package manager.

So, they decided that the update path is always defined, from any state to the latest, without having to update the packages in specific order, where some steps needed may disappear. You know, being robust.

If the year of linux desktop has to happen, not borking the system during updates is a requirement. You don't have a problem with daily updates? Congratulation, but your grandma probably has.

> mmutable systems can be a nightmare to actually use. Wrote your own software? Copying to /usr/local/bin is no longer an option, hope you like packaging up your one-off tool!

Immutable system does not prevent writable /usr/local/bin. Your one-off tool has no business messing with /usr/bin or /usr/lib.

Immutable systems are also minimal; they don't care about your additional software, as it is separated from the base system. You can update your software at any pace you want; nightlies if you want. It just cannot touch anything in /usr (with /usr/local being exception).

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#479

Post by Daegalus »

nunodonato wrote: post #269
joao_lopes wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've moved from Ubuntu to Fedora and it's been more stable while also being more up-to-date without rolling-release distros headaches. Strongly recommend it.

I gave Fedora a try some years ago (4-5?) and had a couple of issues with nvidia drivers. Whats the status these days? I also have a long history with debs, so going to rpm is a mystery for me :)

Also to add. Fedora has a 6 month release cycle for versions and a version is supported for about 13 months I think.

But during this time they regularly update packages. My kernel is always the latest version.

But I trust it because Fedora has a massive testing automated update and testing system. Every package is thoroughly tested for regressions and other things. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ to look for yourself.

It is also integrated into their bug and other systems so it's a very well oiled machine.

It's been rock solid stable for me and I've been running it since 35. And upgrades are super easy.

There is also COPR which is their AUR/PPA hybrid system that lets them provide a way for users to setup their own repos but build using Fedoras learnings and systems. It's pretty cool.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#480

Post by Karunamon »

cardanome wrote: post #370
Karunamon wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mass proliferation of electron and other such webpages-as-desktop-applications would seem to indicate that the average user doesn't care for any of those things.

So much weird assumptions. First of all, there is no such thing as an average user. Also, it is not relevant to the discussion. I care about what I want in a system, not what some imaginary users want. Now, we could stop there but I will play: Electron solves a real problem for developers. Writing cross-platform GUI apps is a real pain. Yes, there are native solution but ensuring the user has the exact same experienc…

>First of all, there is no such thing as an average user. Also, it is not relevant to the discussion. I care about what I want in a system, not what some imaginary users want.

In which case I hope you are prepared for software to get many times worse, because the software industry doesn't give a tuppeny fuck what you want in a system, they care what sells to the lowest common denominator. And that means slow, bloated electron web sites shoehorned into the desktop because the pool of mediocre JavaScript developers that can extrude a minimum viable product is huge compared to the pool of native developers of any language.

And it will continue this way for as long as it's accepted. So, forever basically, because the average user you claim doesn't exist will put up with anything placed in front of them without significant enough complaint to impact profits.

Post reply on HN