Not everyone values the same things you do. Flatpaks aren’t the cause of the fact that different applications don’t function correctly with different versions of libraries; they’re just the solution.
Flatpak is better for normal people. It’s better for most advanced users who don’t want to micromanage compatibility issues. And it really doesn’t have an impact on people who do want to micromanage because all your alternative ways to install software are still there.
Flatpaks aren’t the cause of the fact that different applications don’t function correctly with different versions of libraries
This problem has been solved by Nix and Guix. Nix is as popular among developers as flatpak is. Add bubblewrap to all applications, and you get nearly all the features as flatpaks. Flatpaks, meanwhile are huge and a bit slow to start - problems that Nix and Guix don’t suffer from.
I do use flatpaks extensively. But they are probably not the best solution to the problems you mention.>
Tbh, for me the value of flatpak is in the isolation (great for how easy it is to achieve), rather than the compatibility.
For example, I run obsidian with no network access and fs access to just the path where my notes are stored. This is really reassuring considering I am not really sure what all the plugins might do. While it is not perfect, it’s much better than having it running natively in my box (I.e. root namespaces).
Isolation is easy to achieve. Flatpak’s sandboxing layer is bubblewrap. It’s an independent software. It wouldn’t be too hard to write a wrapper for bubblewrap that acts like flatpak and launches applications in a carefully constructed sandbox.
It’s also not too hard to cook a Dockerfile for it, or even write a systemd wrapper with security settings. However, with flatpak you get this out of the box and mostly in a transparent way, plus you get all the usually annoying aspects (like having GUI applications work in containers) taken care of.
Are those principle still relevant? Particularly with GUI apps? I feel the sandboxing along is a good reason to switch to flatpak (or even snap if you know).
Flatpak itself is a layer of software. You could do that for regular apps too - to take away the hassle of having to manually set it up for each app. I already have two software that implements that logic in parts.
Disrto theme bugs occur if the dev doesn’t write the app theme agnostic enough. Nothing wrong with flatpak. Those “bugs” will disappear the more flatpak is used
I still don’t understand flatpack on Linux. I see how it makes releasing binaries easy, but the cost and idea is contrary to basic unix principles.
Not everyone values the same things you do. Flatpaks aren’t the cause of the fact that different applications don’t function correctly with different versions of libraries; they’re just the solution.
Flatpak is better for normal people. It’s better for most advanced users who don’t want to micromanage compatibility issues. And it really doesn’t have an impact on people who do want to micromanage because all your alternative ways to install software are still there.
This problem has been solved by Nix and Guix. Nix is as popular among developers as flatpak is. Add bubblewrap to all applications, and you get nearly all the features as flatpaks. Flatpaks, meanwhile are huge and a bit slow to start - problems that Nix and Guix don’t suffer from.
I do use flatpaks extensively. But they are probably not the best solution to the problems you mention.>
Tbh, for me the value of flatpak is in the isolation (great for how easy it is to achieve), rather than the compatibility.
For example, I run obsidian with no network access and fs access to just the path where my notes are stored. This is really reassuring considering I am not really sure what all the plugins might do. While it is not perfect, it’s much better than having it running natively in my box (I.e. root namespaces).
Isolation is easy to achieve. Flatpak’s sandboxing layer is bubblewrap. It’s an independent software. It wouldn’t be too hard to write a wrapper for bubblewrap that acts like flatpak and launches applications in a carefully constructed sandbox.
It’s also not too hard to cook a Dockerfile for it, or even write a systemd wrapper with security settings. However, with flatpak you get this out of the box and mostly in a transparent way, plus you get all the usually annoying aspects (like having GUI applications work in containers) taken care of.
Linux is not Unix if you want to use Unix someone has it on floppy disks.
+1 insightfull
Boom.
Which core Unix principles though¿?
Are those principle still relevant? Particularly with GUI apps? I feel the sandboxing along is a good reason to switch to flatpak (or even snap if you know).
If you’re interested in sandboxing, then you need just the bubblewrap - not the entire bubblewrap.
A bit of a hassle to do for all your apps when it just comes baked in with flatpak
Flatpak itself is a layer of software. You could do that for regular apps too - to take away the hassle of having to manually set it up for each app. I already have two software that implements that logic in parts.
What cost? It works really well, hence why it’s gaining traction so fast.
Well, there’s the increased storage usage, and in some cases, more ram. There can also be issues with integration with your distro themes, etc.
Many people will consider these as a small cost to the benefits of flatpaks, but I can understand the ones who aren’t sold on it.
Storage increase is a myth https://www.ypsidanger.com/wasting-disk-space/
Disrto theme bugs occur if the dev doesn’t write the app theme agnostic enough. Nothing wrong with flatpak. Those “bugs” will disappear the more flatpak is used
Considering how much it is in reality, this is for most users a non-issue. Big issue in embedded devices maybe, but not for desktop users.