You are replying to a comment explaining to you why Flatpak actually works with a dismissive sentence implying it's just a bad technology. Do you have anything substantive justifying your opinion?
From what I have seen, most of the opposition to Flatpak comes from the same place that the one to systemd: fear of change. Despite being centered around technology, a very vocal part of the Linux community seems to be extremely conservative.
Is it really surprising that we're conservative? Most of what comes out of big tech right now is focused on monetisation and control and when it comes to FOSS a lot of companies are trying to get their IP on the map.
For example Ubuntu is trying very hard to push snaps. In contrast to flatpaks only they can run the store for it so there's clearly a motivation of vendor lock-in.
This kind of thing makes me suspicious and more critical of new tech. I'd first want to see if it offers me any value. In this case I don't see the big benefit even though flatpak doesn't seem to carry the lock-in that snap does. But I like the optimisation of dynamic libraries and the way I can update openssl once and have all the apps patched that use it.
Systemd is a different story. It's open enough but a bit too heavy and complex for my liking. It's not bad though and I use it on some of my boxes. Alpine is working on an alternative based on s6 and I'll probably end up using that when it matures.
Anyway I didn't choose Linux/BSD because I cared about having the same as everyone else :) Being able to deviate from the beaten track is one of the benefits of these. I currently use FreeBSD because it has the least corporate meddling right now.
I never said it doesn't work. And yes, i do have "anything substantive" against it. The fact that, as i mentioned, it is just a package manager. And a bad one.
> From what I have seen, most of the opposition to Flatpak comes from the same place that the one to systemd: fear of change.
This is what pisses me off. You, nor anyone else, can tell everyone else what >I< think or feel. It's not fear, nor fear of change, nor any other dumb ass reason people who think like you think it is. I hate it because it's just a package manager. I hate it because, when all the reasons against it are brought up, something nebulous like "security" or something quazi-psychological like "fear of change" are brought up in defense of it.
The real problem with flatpacks is that they don't solve the real problem, and they do it poorly.
Want to solve the problem of your program not running on multiple distros, or not running in 5 years ? Then look at why that is. For example; it's not that the zip file format will change, so why must i recompile my program every time libzip changes ? Or X11 to wayland transition; why does my program have to even care about that when all i want is a window and an opengl context ? (bdw the solution to the latter is SDL2)
Let's look back when flatpack started. Why did it start ? Maybe because GTK3 changed it's API ever so often ?
Linux doesn't have a good GUI toolkit. THAT is the biggest problem here.
I just fucking hate the "ohh, you just don't like change" people. That dismisses all further discussion. That is the real "hate" that people like you blame others of.
> Despite being centered around technology, a very vocal part of the Linux community seems to be extremely conservative.
A lot of the vocal people who pick linux are people who want complete control over their systems. Things like wayland, systemd, and flatpak take away some of that control.
And a lot of the complaints about both are very generalized. "Flatpack is bad package management technology" tells you very little about what is wrong with it.
Systemd was such an improvement over the existing speghetti for folks selling / supporting linux that it was a pretty clear takeoff.
Flatpack seems a bit more focused than snaps. The usability issues with snaps kind of surprising given ubuntu has usually had a good user focus. One thing, Fedora has their silverblue / ostree type distribution initiative, which may reduce their use case for using things like flatpack for printer subsystems etc (snaps seem more flexible). I moved off linux desktop a year ago though so not at all current unfortunatly.
Hm, I've some problems with nix and desktop apps that needs opengl or similar machine-specific libraries. There are some hacks, and I also think nix comes very close to a good solution, but it's not 100% yet.
Nix seems to be the only approach that has a chance, but having good fundamentals isn’t enough. The effort to improve the UX and usability is underway. I’m working on it; are there use-cases or “blow your socks off” demos that would be compelling to help convince developers and application writers?
FWIW, PhotoStructure has an AppImage edition and it can upgrade automatically in-place.
(There's also a docker image, a macOS DMG, a Windows installer, and other editions as well--and yes, you can configure any edition to _not_ upgrade automatically if you prefer).
WastingMyTime89|4 years ago
From what I have seen, most of the opposition to Flatpak comes from the same place that the one to systemd: fear of change. Despite being centered around technology, a very vocal part of the Linux community seems to be extremely conservative.
GekkePrutser|4 years ago
For example Ubuntu is trying very hard to push snaps. In contrast to flatpaks only they can run the store for it so there's clearly a motivation of vendor lock-in.
This kind of thing makes me suspicious and more critical of new tech. I'd first want to see if it offers me any value. In this case I don't see the big benefit even though flatpak doesn't seem to carry the lock-in that snap does. But I like the optimisation of dynamic libraries and the way I can update openssl once and have all the apps patched that use it.
Systemd is a different story. It's open enough but a bit too heavy and complex for my liking. It's not bad though and I use it on some of my boxes. Alpine is working on an alternative based on s6 and I'll probably end up using that when it matures.
Anyway I didn't choose Linux/BSD because I cared about having the same as everyone else :) Being able to deviate from the beaten track is one of the benefits of these. I currently use FreeBSD because it has the least corporate meddling right now.
gens|4 years ago
> From what I have seen, most of the opposition to Flatpak comes from the same place that the one to systemd: fear of change.
This is what pisses me off. You, nor anyone else, can tell everyone else what >I< think or feel. It's not fear, nor fear of change, nor any other dumb ass reason people who think like you think it is. I hate it because it's just a package manager. I hate it because, when all the reasons against it are brought up, something nebulous like "security" or something quazi-psychological like "fear of change" are brought up in defense of it.
The real problem with flatpacks is that they don't solve the real problem, and they do it poorly.
Want to solve the problem of your program not running on multiple distros, or not running in 5 years ? Then look at why that is. For example; it's not that the zip file format will change, so why must i recompile my program every time libzip changes ? Or X11 to wayland transition; why does my program have to even care about that when all i want is a window and an opengl context ? (bdw the solution to the latter is SDL2)
Let's look back when flatpack started. Why did it start ? Maybe because GTK3 changed it's API ever so often ?
Linux doesn't have a good GUI toolkit. THAT is the biggest problem here.
I just fucking hate the "ohh, you just don't like change" people. That dismisses all further discussion. That is the real "hate" that people like you blame others of.
gopher_space|4 years ago
A working system calls for a conservative viewpoint. I'm only looking to introduce change if my needs aren't being met.
kayodelycaon|4 years ago
A lot of the vocal people who pick linux are people who want complete control over their systems. Things like wayland, systemd, and flatpak take away some of that control.
whoknowswhat11|4 years ago
Systemd was such an improvement over the existing speghetti for folks selling / supporting linux that it was a pretty clear takeoff.
Flatpack seems a bit more focused than snaps. The usability issues with snaps kind of surprising given ubuntu has usually had a good user focus. One thing, Fedora has their silverblue / ostree type distribution initiative, which may reduce their use case for using things like flatpack for printer subsystems etc (snaps seem more flexible). I moved off linux desktop a year ago though so not at all current unfortunatly.
kaba0|4 years ago
The only thing I think actually solves packaging is nix.
krkoch|4 years ago
alvarlagerlof|4 years ago
tomberek|4 years ago
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
tapoxi|4 years ago
My installs of Signal and Firefox are with Flatpaks and GNOME Software transparently handles updating both.
Scramblejams|4 years ago
For example, you mentioned Signal. I stopped using the Flatpak because of this: https://github.com/flathub/org.signal.Signal/issues/181
mceachen|4 years ago
(There's also a docker image, a macOS DMG, a Windows installer, and other editions as well--and yes, you can configure any edition to _not_ upgrade automatically if you prefer).
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]