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

551–560 of 624 posts

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#551

Post by bombolo »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #446
m4rtink wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention it introduces a single point of failure, that once compromised can start pushing malware directly to user. With maintainers in the loop, there is at least one more person that can notice something is fishy. Not to mention there is usually so time before packages are updated, so there is more time to notice an attack.

> With maintainers in the loop, there is at least one more person that can notice something is fishy Also one more person who can inject malware or break something. How did that Debian keygen issue happen again? Oh right.

> How did that Debian keygen issue happen again?

The people on the openssl mailing list said it was fine. That's how it happened.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#552

Post by bombolo »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #95
bayesian_horse wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a very good and strong use case for a "distribution" of packages working well together. But those packages need to be selected carefully.

I agree but I don't think the software packages themselves should be held back by the available time and attention of packagers. In the new world a packager or distro creator can just pick and choose what flatpaks, snaps, appimage, etc. sources they deem good enough to push to users. They shouldn't be a roadblock in the way of users getting the latest version of software.

Then you install the new version, find out it requires a new version of python and all its libraries, but you can't install it because pytorch only works on old versions of python.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#553

Post by bombolo »

ranger207 wrote: post #391
qbasic_forever wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot take: package distributors are 'fake jobs' that don't need to exist, or exist only for the make-work of packaging. Tools like flatpak, snap, appimage, containerization, etc. have made the need for adapting software to different distributions unnecessary.

I agree. Devs would like to statically link and have their app work. Maintainers don't want that to happen for IMO reasons that have far less benefit than claimed. flatpak and snap are ultimately efforts to get around the vortex of maintainers, maintainer efforts to get things not to be statically linked, and all the complexity that entails. I think there's still currently value in distro maintainers that do things l…

> Maintainers don't want that to happen for IMO reasons that have far less benefit than claimed.

You have apparently no idea how much it costs to recompile everything, every single time that openssl fixes a bug.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#554

Post by alkonaut »

JohnFen wrote: post #525
alkonaut wrote: post #60

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?

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.

I'm curious what a Linux would look like that behaved more like windows or android in the sense that there isn't such a blurry line between the OS and its applications. For example, installing a C# or Go compiler on Linux is great with a package manager. But doing the same with a C or Python is different? This is basically the Unix "I'm not just an OS, I'm a platform for building and running C programs" heritage that isn't properly hidden I think.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#555

Post by CoolCold »

groestl wrote: post #223
CalRobert wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I left Ubuntu server and lxd because of it. Maybe a bit emotional, but f*ck that, I don't need this in my life.

Can you share bit more details? I have no issues with that setup or at least I cannot notice the issues.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#556

Post by CoolCold »

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…

I feel one day you will make step further and join me on Windows desktop path:)

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#557

Post by groestl »

josteink wrote: post #460
groestl wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I left Ubuntu server and lxd because of it. Maybe a bit emotional, but f*ck that, I don't need this in my life.

I’ve switched everything off Ubuntu but my servers. That bit is just too much effort and I can’t be bothered yet. Next server though. Not Ubuntu for sure. Probably Debian?

I chose Debian, FWIW.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#558

Post by npteljes »

bravetraveler wrote: post #543
npteljes wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, me too. I don't like to adopt early, don't have the energy, I'll just let them figure it out.

Ouch, and still some woes? The latest (37) wasn't too monumental if memory serves. 38 is being tested now, I'm not ready!

Yeah, this last time I went from a pristine Fedoda 35 to 36. There was some error upon login, I couldn't open the file manager, and the Night Light feature didn't work afterwards.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#559

Post by Iolaum »

AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #411
beardbound wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been considering switching and haven’t used fedora in years. I’ll have to give it another chance. Snap has seriously annoyed me.

Just be aware that Fedora's got a six-month release cycle rather than whatever Ubuntu's LTS lifetime is (4 years?), and Fedora only supports current release and one back. So realistically, you've got a year a month to upgrade your workstation. I've had Fedora for over five years and I've never had my laptop get completely borked by an upgrade, but I've had just enough things break between releases in the past that I…

Actually regarding upgrades Fedora Silverblue - which I currently use - may be better.

Key benefits: - Applications through flatpak don't depend explicitly on system libs so there's less chance of breakage. - If upgrading to new fedora version breaks anything, switching back is just one command away (rpm-ostree rollback). I don't think going back is so easy on normal fedora.

Re: Ubuntu stops shipping Flatpak by default

#560

Post by creshal »

account42 wrote: post #333
creshal wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No distribution forces you to use package managers for everything. Even before flatpak/snap, distributing (especially commercial) software as just archives or executable installers was/is perfectly possible. The caveat is, there's no common baseline for libraries. Graphics libraries, the libc itself, GUI widget libraries etc. will appear in different version combinations in different distributions, since they have di…

> they have a higher risk of breaking due to incompatibilities (kernel interface for your graphics driver changed, configuration file syntax for your font renderer changed, etc.) Simply don't vendor glibc and graphics drivers and you will be fine. Vendoring drivers doesn't make sense anyway as your application will be obsolete by the next HW cycle.

glibc breaks regularly, as does mesa occasionally, so it would realistically be required if you wanted win32-style 20+ years of backwards compatibility.

And there is a lot of more obscure examples: fontconfig e.g. at some point changed their config file format in a not backwards compatible way, and now some Steam games crash on startup because the developers earlier vendored it to get around its ABI breaking repeatedly.

And that sort of software doesn't really obsolete. Steam and GoG allow games to have a 10+ years long tail of slow but steady sales that don't really justify constant maintenance releases but still both let people enjoy good games (those don't really obsolete), and serve as advertisement for the developers' newer games.

Post reply on HN