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

521–530 of 624 posts

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#521

Post by vetinari »

wootland wrote: post #516
vetinari wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm a professional dev So you have particularly skewed perspective; you should try a bit of operations, or at least devops, to normalize it. > Arch perfectly suits my needs Good for you. You just need to realize that you are minority. Do you notice that Arch is not the dominant distro? There's a reason for that. > where as Flatpak/Snap... cause excruciating pain every time I'm forced to interact with them You are h…

> So you have particularly skewed perspective; you should try a bit of operations, or at least devops, to normalize it. I didn't say that you should use Arch on the server, but it's great for the desktop. You can refer to this entire thread to see how well Flatpak/Snap... are working out. Pretty much universally reviled by developers (people who actually use Linux on the desktop).

> I didn't say that you should use Arch on the server, but it's great for the desktop.

And I said that apt/dnf solve problems that pacman didn't start thinking about yet. So we are in agreement here.

Flatpak seems to be working out pretty fine.

> Pretty much universally reviled by developers (people who actually use Linux on the desktop).

Two things:

1) Reviled by some very conservative types, often not willing to consider things from different perspective than what they are used to. If they would build the desktop, it would end up like Homer's dream car.

2) Don't you think that it is a problem when only developers use the desktop as it is? (Not really true, but let's consider that for the sake of argument).

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#522

Post by JohnFen »

zorr wrote: post #371
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…

> That's kinda what the distros ARE For the base system and libraries, yes. But why should the distro maintainers be burdened with additional work for every possible enduser application out there? If I write a GTK app and want to make it available for Ubuntu/Debian users through official repositories, I need to make sure it gets added to the official package list, and every time I make a new release, someone else som…

> If I write a GTK app and want to make it available for Ubuntu/Debian users through official repositories, I need to make sure it gets added to the official package list, and every time I make a new release, someone else somewhere else has to do additional work just to repackage the application so it is available in the repository.

Yes, and that's a good thing for a whole bunch of reasons.

If you don't want to leave it up to the distro maintainers, nothing's stopping you from standing up your own repo to distribute your software to a particular distro. It's a one-liner for users to add your repo to their list so they can use their package manager to install and update your software as usual.

> Essentially, something like Flatpak is a middle-ground solution

Yes, I get that it's convenient for maintainers. But it kinda sucks for users (at least for me), which is why I avoid using software packaged that way.

I'll give flatpack this much credit, though -- it's not a nightmare like snaps are.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#523

Post by JohnFen »

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 .

Such developers can stand up their own repository and distribute their software there, where they have complete control. And users can still install and update that software as normal.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#524

Post by JohnFen »

indymike wrote: post #180
koolba wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 run…

This is what is expected on LTS releases and is what is expected by people that highly value long term support releases. That said, I think modern security and modern software development practices have obsoleted a lot of the thinking behind LTS releases.

Sadly, modern software development practices have neutered a lot of LTS releases -- but the need for real LTS releases is stronger than ever.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#525

Post by JohnFen »

alkonaut wrote: post #60
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.

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?

Slackware, perhaps?

Honestly, if you just want the naked OS, you don't need a distro at all.

Or just don't use the package manager.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#526

Post by wootland »

vetinari wrote: post #521
wootland wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you have particularly skewed perspective; you should try a bit of operations, or at least devops, to normalize it. I didn't say that you should use Arch on the server, but it's great for the desktop. You can refer to this entire thread to see how well Flatpak/Snap... are working out. Pretty much universally reviled by developers (people who actually use Linux on the desktop).

> I didn't say that you should use Arch on the server, but it's great for the desktop. And I said that apt/dnf solve problems that pacman didn't start thinking about yet. So we are in agreement here. Flatpak seems to be working out pretty fine. > Pretty much universally reviled by developers (people who actually use Linux on the desktop). Two things: 1) Reviled by some very conservative types, often not willing to co…

> 1) Reviled by some very conservative types, often not willing to consider things from different perspective than what they are used to. If they would build the desktop, it would end up like Homer's dream car.

I would consider myself non-conservative to the extreme, which is exactly why I don't like Snap since it's built out of fear of problems that I simply don't have. I want the latest versions of any given piece of software and I want my package manager to be performant. I don't think those are conservative values.

> 2) Don't you think that it is a problem when only developers use the desktop as it is? (Not really true, but let's consider that for the sake of argument).

I don't think developers having a great computing environment is a problem at all, quite the opposite. I think it's very desirable and I think efforts that hamper that for the mythical "grandma" are indicative of the core UX problems that plague the "desktop linux" community.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#527

Post by [deleted] »

Saris wrote: post #238
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…

My favorite experience with snaps is Firefox just closing in the middle of doing something because it wanted to update, and it didn't even bother to check if I was using it first.

[deleted]

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#529

Post by mulmen »

zorr wrote: post #519
mulmen wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s called a distribution . Literally distributing the software. The distro deals with integrating all the packages into a single compatible system. This includes setting options to maintain system compatibility. Packaging is not required for testing individual applications. That happens at build time and the developer writes the tests. These are not distribution specific. The separation of concerns is very clear. I…

The discussion is mostly about what a distribution should contain. I don't think a distribution has to contain all the possible software applications in existence. Instead, I think distros have to provide the base packages like desktop environments and related software. All configured for compatibility and complying with the distro philosophy. But third party desktop applications that are not directly related to the…

That’s a reasonable position but it puts developer and maintainer experience ahead of user experience.

Flatpak and friends are a pain in the ass to use and offer a shitty UX. Having a single point of contact and well understood mechanism for software management is a feature for users.

I don’t expect my distribution to have every software package ever. I do expect it to fulfill my needs. As long as there are applications in the repository that do what I need I am happy.

Post reply on HN