Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
1–10 of 124 posts
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#2Because they've given up on being able to maintain a desktop distro with a set of system libraries that allow you to run programs. Future shock from the too rapidly changing underlying libs and no thought of forwards compatibility longer than 3 years means no software lasts longer than 3 years, if that. And so, like a fever is a symptom of infection, we have containers as symptom of future shock.
As for which container, it doesn't really matter, and there's been a lot of not-invented here going around creating new containers that muddied the waters. But the truth is they're all symptoms of something bad even if they mitigate a problem temporarily (while making debugging, networking, freedesktop standards, etc incomparably harder).
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#3Part of my issue with Flatpak is that it takes these systems that really ought to be managed separately (process isolation, package management, runtime configuration, security, etc.) and makes them one monolith. It's an ok stopgap for people frustrated with software distribution, but it tangles itself up in so much mess that it's hard to promote over it's competitors (even Snap).
It's not great. Sometimes it works well, but when the wiccan magic inside Flatpak breaks now you have to debug two runtimes for the price of one!
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#4Because they've given up on being able to maintain a desktop distro with a set of system libraries that allow you to run programs. Future shock from the too rapidly changing underlying libs and no thought of forwards compatibility longer than 3 years means no software lasts longer than 3 years, if that. And so, like a fever is a symptom of infection, we have containers as symptom of future shock. As for which contain…
I agree. You've got a bit of a fatalist tone, but you're not wrong either - if Microsoft or Apple announced that they were depreciating all of their prior packaging options in favor of a QEMU image of your application, people would lose it. It's not just about performance or integration or nativeness for most people, it's about the files living in the same spot and not needing extra apps to manage a sandbox.
Flatpak feels like it took the wrong lessons from the past 30 years of software distribution and turned it into a platform. I get that it has to be simplified to be friendly to newer users, but it's also a complete turnoff when you want to fix an issue or edit a config file.
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#5What advantages does Flatpak offer over Nix?
The only benefit(s) I see are:
1. Sandboxed applications (via containers?) - so applications you have don't technically have access to your home directories by default. That's sort of nice - but how many applications really warrant this overhead?
2. Possibly easier to write/package? That said, in Nix you pretty much just need to package once.
I've not used Flatpak - can somebody who is maybe familiar with both technologies comment further? While I may be a big Nix evangelist, it's always confused me a bit why Flatpak exists and I'm curious if it is truly solving a problem I'm unaware of.
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#6Because they've given up on being able to maintain a desktop distro with a set of system libraries that allow you to run programs. Future shock from the too rapidly changing underlying libs and no thought of forwards compatibility longer than 3 years means no software lasts longer than 3 years, if that. And so, like a fever is a symptom of infection, we have containers as symptom of future shock. As for which contain…
What do you think about Nix
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#7Someone needs to slap a comprehensive GUI installer and configuration UI onto NixOS. It solves similar problems in a non-hacky way but is not easy enough for the average user.
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#8Because they've given up on being able to maintain a desktop distro with a set of system libraries that allow you to run programs. Future shock from the too rapidly changing underlying libs and no thought of forwards compatibility longer than 3 years means no software lasts longer than 3 years, if that. And so, like a fever is a symptom of infection, we have containers as symptom of future shock. As for which contain…
What do you think about Nix
Nix is the ultimate expression of this abandonment of the concept of a desktop distro. It doesn't even try to have system libraries. Nix gives up re: future shock. The entire OS is just containers. I'm sure it works fine if you only ever use popular software but as someone that's constantly compiling and adding little .c programs from the 'net to my bin/ having to manually create and specify the entire "system" libraries set bit by bit every time I want to compile (or run!) something is no go. Great for business use as server, bad for human persons as a desktop.
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#9Because they've given up on being able to maintain a desktop distro with a set of system libraries that allow you to run programs. Future shock from the too rapidly changing underlying libs and no thought of forwards compatibility longer than 3 years means no software lasts longer than 3 years, if that. And so, like a fever is a symptom of infection, we have containers as symptom of future shock. As for which contain…
What do you think about Nix
It would be a better solution if it had a proper GUI that auto-generated config for novice users. Until then it's too hard to use for non-technical folk.
Re: Linux desktop leaders unite behind Flathub app store. Here's why
#10Good for them :)
These type of workarounds seems to point to people giving up in having secure applications, so much for the move to rust. So the path is to having applications in a walled garden. But who cares if all the plants in that garden is infested with aphids, at least they can say it won't spread. Well, time will tell on that. But, I hope application developers keep an eye on portability. There is more to the world than Linux.
OpenBSD is avoiding all this complexity of Flatpack, snap, docker and all these attempts at contains. To me, pledge(2) and unveil(2) is far more secure and easier to use than what Linux is doing. And I think for containers, nothing still comes close to FreeBSD jails.