The tone here is surprisingly negative. Personally I’m happy with the efforts of the Flathub team 🤷
For me on Arch, Flatpaks are kinda useless. I can maybe see the appeal for other distros but Arch already has up-to-date versions of everything and anything that’s missing from the main repos is in the AUR.
I also don’t like how it’s a separate package manager, they take up more space, and to run things from the CLI it’s
flatpak run com.website.Somethinginstead of justsomething. It’s super cumbersome compared to using normal packages.
To everyone saying you can’t mirror a flatpak repo… you’re absolutely right. There should be a far easier way to set up your own mirror without needing to build everything from scratch. That being said, if you wanted to try to make your own repo with every one of flathub’s apps, here you go:
https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/hosting-a-repository.html
Edit: Some did get a flathub mirror working. The issue is that a. Fastly works good enough and b. There is no concept of “packages” on the server side. It’s just one big addressed content store because of ostree, and syncing is apparently difficult? Idk, not being able to sync the state of content is like the entire point of ostree…
As a professor I have to say… the site admin skipped the class that taught them to include always the color bar.
Great opportunity to inject malware to so many vulnerable peeps then
You could say that with any program distribution. At least flatpaks are containerised.
Nah. Most distro package managers verify their packages authenticity with cryptography since the early noughts
Still not as good as native package
Flatpak’s usecase for me is Alpine Linux and other distributions that use musl or other libc implementations. I don’t love it, I think its cli interface and the way you add flatpak servers to be obtuse and annoying, but it is useful for getting glibc dependent software.
Another alternative is distrobox and bedrock linux.
It is noteworthy that builds of Chrome, VLC, Dolphin, Steam and Spotify are created by third-party enthusiasts not associated with the main projects.
What great news, that’s why there is no trust in Flathub.
Funny how it isn’t popular in countries with population several times larger than the USA. I guess every outside of the US can see through the bullshit of corporate-hijacked open-source.
Do you maybe mean snap?
Snaps are a default no, obviously. Most of the points by Flatkill still hold true to this day. Apart from that, I have my own set of disagreements which I’ll not be talking about - basically, stuff like reproducibility, storage space, inconsistent permissions, inconvenient configurations, outdated runtime - well, you get the point, so I’ll not be expanding on that.
My primary disillusionment towards Flatpak has to do with how people with shared backgrounds and vested corporate interests have taken over open-source - in this particular case, I am talking about Big Tech. It’s almost as if the space for a community-developed organization is hijacked by them - by them occupying core positions of the organization.
These organizations do not follow a horizontal approach to decision-making, they often come up with decisions without consulting folks that aren’t within their direct circle, and worst, when they’re held in a tight-spot, they can evade any criticism by appealing to authority - that they’re the maintainers/contributors, and they know what’s best for the project’s future.
The same is true about funding - it is always through members of the company that they’re indirectly funding these projects, that I can’t help but feel that the “community”, aka the outsiders never had the chance to be a part of the decision-making.
Flatpak may have it’s share of poor features that can be fixed - sand-boxing can be improved by using permissive containers that allow particular shell variables, installation will throw dialogue, informing the users beforehand about the permissions these apps will need, developers may be forced to use proper run-times, and perhaps, some of the runtime be eliminated to use system dependencies, thereby complying with storage compliance - I don’t know, but it could be fixed. But this invisible, unspoken flaw in the governance? No way.
Crazy, how our “free world” is centralized
Touche. Centralized and un-mirrorable.
Unmirrorable? The whole thing, including the configs are open source?
Unmirrorable
Yes, unlike apt repositories, it wasn’t designed to be mirrored around, run isolated servers etc.
Flatpak was designed to be decentralised, Flathub is just the main repository offering flatpaks and yes, probably 99% of all Flatpak applications are downloaded via the main repo but it is technically possible to just launch your own if you are unhappy with the main repo. The Flatpak team literally has this info page for hosting a repository
I for example, am taking AAGL from their own flatpak repo because they are not offering their launcher via the main one (even tho they also tell you to link the main repo - I guess for dependency reasons - but theoretically you could open your own repo and throw all dependency related packages in there or am I getting something wrong here)
Sorry to ask, I’m not really familiar with Linux desktop nowadays: I’ve seen Flatpak and Flathub talked about a lot lately and it seems to be kinda a controversial topic. Anyone wanna fill me in what’s all the noice about? It’s some kind of cross-distro “app store” thingy?
Flatpak is a universal application packaging standard for Linux. It allows devs to create a single application that gets bundled with all necessary dependencies including versioning.
These apps run in their own semi-isolated “container” which makes immutable distros possible. (Distros like Fedora Silverblue that are effectively impossible to break by installing or removing critical system files.)
This means that a Linux app doesn’t have to have a .deb version, an .rpm version, or be pre-compiled for any other distros. A user can simply go to Flathub, (the main repository for Flatpak apps), download the flatpak, and install it on their distro of choice.
It’s quickly becoming the most popular way for users to install apps on Linux because it’s so easy and quick. But there are a few downsides like size on disk, first party verification, per-distro optimizations, and the centralization of application sources. That’s why some users aren’t fully endorsing or embracing how popular they are becoming.
Cool, thanks for the explanation.
a single application that gets bundled with all necessary dependencies including versioning
Does that mean that if I were to install Application A and Application B that both have dependency to package C version 1.2.3 I then would have package C (and all of its possible sub dependencies) twice on my disk? I don’t know how much external dependencies applications on Linux usually have but doesn’t that have the potential to waste huge amounts of disk space?
Essentially yes, if you start using lots if older applications or mixing applications that use many different dependency versions, you will start to use lots of extra disk space because the different apps have to use their own separate dependency trees and so forth.
This doesn’t mean it will be like 2x-3x the size as traditional packages, but from what I’ve seen, it could definitely be 10-20% larger on disk. Not a huge deal for most people, but if you have limited disk space for one reason or another, it could be a problem.
It CAN get pretty wild sometimes, though. For example, Flameshot (screenshotting utility) is only ~560KB as a system package, while its flatpak version is ~1.4GB (almost 2.5k times as big)
Flameshot is 3.6MB on disk according to
flatpak info org.flameshot.FlameshotWeird, the software manager (using LM 21.3) reports 1.1GB dl, 2.4GB installed (which is different from when i checked yesterday for some reason?).
flatpak installreports around 2.1GB of dependencies and the package itself at just 1.3MBEDIT: nvm im stupid, the other reply explains the discrepancy
I’m gonna be honest I’ve never had a flatpak version of something ever work properly.
There was even one popular media player that only came in flatpak form or otherwise build from source.
So obviously, for no reason at all, it barely functioned compared to other applications I had already tried.
Congrats to you people put there somehow running things like Steam with no problems lmao.
Your system might be messed up
I have like 20 flatpak software products running without any problem for 2 years now.
I’m gonna be honest I’ve never had a flatpak version of something ever work properly.
As someone once involved with OS Security, I beg you not to use FlatPaks.
Flatpak is not perfect security-wise but is a step in the right direction
You can’t just make a statement like this without giving a hint of evidence or justification
Why?
Google is better at advertising anyways. No sane being has ever heard of flathub. Qndroid has billion downloads every week.
North Korea: 316 downloads
Interesting…
In all seriousness, in both my home country and the country I live in, the number of downloads surpasses the population numbers which is kinda insane.
I think they count every download of every package, every version, every time. It’s not the number of unique users or even packages.
If you install 3 apps you might need to download 3 versions of graphics driver, 3 versions of desktop environment libraries and so on, It won’t count as one user installing 3 apps, it will show up as 10 -20 downloads. And that’s just the initial install, every time you update them it counts another 10-20.
