| 1 |
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:25 PM, J. <jyo.garcia@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> They say it's not a GNOME thing only, but born in the GNOME project, |
| 5 |
> Quote from their FAQ: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> "Is Flatpak tied to GNOME? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> No. While Flatpak has been developed by people with a long involvement |
| 10 |
> in the GNOME community it is not tied to any desktop. In fact, it was |
| 11 |
> designed with the explicit goal of allowing it to build applications |
| 12 |
> using any library stack or programming language an application author |
| 13 |
> might want." |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Marketing's-speak is marketing speak... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
AFAIK, the only current implementation of a GUI from which to install |
| 18 |
a Flatpak is Gnome Software, with KDE apparently working on something |
| 19 |
similar. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
So, unless you want to download a file and double-click on it, it's |
| 22 |
Gnome for now and KDE soon. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> The flatpak packages take less space because there's a separation |
| 26 |
> between runtimes and applications, with the runtime(s) containing many |
| 27 |
> of the libraries/packages required by an application, and intended to |
| 28 |
> be used by many of these, and the application package only containing |
| 29 |
> the remaining required libraries, or maybe only the app, so it could |
| 30 |
> reduce but not eliminate the problem previously discussed of |
| 31 |
> dependencies being left unmaintained and not upgraded with security |
| 32 |
> fixes. IMHO Flatpak seems a better option than Snap, and certainly |
| 33 |
> reducing file system and device access is a good thing about both, but |
| 34 |
> with these advantages some other problems are created, so it's a trade- |
| 35 |
> off. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
If you start relying on too many libraries in the runtimes, you end up |
| 38 |
with the same "problem" as non-Flatpak, non-Snap packages. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> Maybe we will see Snaps/Flatpaks of popular proprietary software that's |
| 42 |
> only available for Windows and MacOS right now that has no real FOSS |
| 43 |
> competitor e.g. AutoCAD and family, I often hear the excuse of these |
| 44 |
> vendors not supporting Linux because of the many distributions. Getting |
| 45 |
> LibreCAD to the level of AutoCAD would take a decade or more at the |
| 46 |
> pace it is going, right know it reminds me of AutoCAD 2004, and it |
| 47 |
> isn't even a that level. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Linus has complained that the dive software that he created had |
| 50 |
nightly or weekly (I forget) builds for macOS and Windows but not for |
| 51 |
Linux because of the multitude of distributions. So he and those now |
| 52 |
maintaining that app'll be happy. |
Archives