Flatpaks aren’t perfect, but I think it’s a good solution to the fragmentation problem that is inherent to Linux.
Precisely. Flatpaks solve an important problem. Perfect should not be the enemy of good.
Binary compatibility is a sad story on Linux, and we cannot expect developers — many of whom work for free — to package, test, debug, and maintain releases for multiple distributions. If we want a sustainable ecosystem with diverse distributions, we must answer the compatibility question. This is a working option that solves the problem, and it comes with minor security benefits because it isolates applications not just from the system but from each other.
It’s fair to criticize a solution, but I think it’s not fair to ignore the problem and expect volunteers to just work harder.
Also companies are lazy and if we don’t want to be stuck on Ubuntu for proprietary app stability. We should probably embrace something like flatpak. Also when companies neglect their apps, it’ll have a better chance of working down the road thanks to support for multiple dependency versions on the same install.
I like Flatpak just because it isn’t Snap
…is my enemy’s enemy, no more, no less. (Maxims of Maximally Effective Mercenaries #29)
Laughs in AUR
I like the aur too but a proprietary app that isn’t updated to support newer dependencies, it most likely won’t run anyway. At that point it’s either broken app, broken system, or you don’t have anything else installed using that library(yet).
Not great to laugh at the mess Linux is in, due to people paddling in different, incompatible, directions. Users can’t choose the package format. They have to take what they are given. Good or bad. I don’t care which format. As long as it works. But this is a good way to scare more people off of Linux.
laughs at people scared of choice and “mess” . . .
If they’re switcing to linux they should first come to know about open source forking around - arguably - one of the most important features of the whole thing.
If they don’t wan’t that choice and all that inevitable open source forkery, they probably should go for an apple mac or windows or something like that. And maybe they will have to pay for some software for the privilege because it takes work to do those things. They can of course try plain old ubuntu and do stuff the way canonical wants, that removes quite a bit of choice if it is otherwise too terrifying for them.
But in general, I don’t think its a good idea to to try to sell pig-carcasses to vegans by painting them the colours of broccoli.
Lol who the fuck is blaming app devs? Also something something arch
aur is the only thing I miss. I do like fedora with i3 very much but rpm can be pain in the ass sometimes
Yes! This is something I do on 3 of my machines. My ArchLinux Distrobox with paru works like a charm. (so far)
Flatpak is nice but I really would like to see a way to run flatpakked application transparently e.g. don’t have to
flatpak run org.gnome.Lollypop
and can just run the app via
Lollypop
You could make aliases for each program, but I agree, there should be a way to set it up so they resolve automatically.
You could possibly also make a shell script that does this automatically. I believe most flatpak ids follow a pattern such as com.github.user.package, for github projects for example. So you could loop through all installed flatpaks, extract the name, and then add the alias.
Well, Flatpak installs aliases, so as long as your distribution - or yourself - add the <installation>/exports/bin path to , then you’ll be able to use the application IDs to launch them.
And if you want to have the Flatpak available under a different name than its ID, you can always symlink the exported bin to whatever name you’d personally prefer.
I’ve got Blender set up that way myself, with the org.blender.Blender bin symlinked to /usr/local/bin/blender, so that some older applications that expect to be able to simply interop with it are able to.
Is there some way to set an install hook that automatically makes those symlinks when you install a flatpak?
Well, Flatpak always builds the aliases, so as long as the <installation>/exports/bin folder is in there’s no need to symlink.
If you’re talking specifically about having symlinks with some arbitrary name that you prefer, then that’s something you’ll have to do yourself, the Flatpak applications only provide their canonical name after all.
You could probably do something like that with inotify and a simple script though, just point it at the exports/bin folders for the installations that you care about, and set up your own mapping between canonical names and whatever names you prefer.
I just run them raw, like just
org.gnome.Lollypop
Not ideal, but it’s what I do
