←back to thread

The Future of Flatpak

(lwn.net)
306 points dxs | 5 comments | 22 May 25 23:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
binkHN ◴[23 May 25 01:28 UTC] No.44068949[source]▶
Nice breakdown. I'm new to Linux and didn't know about this:

> Flatpak still uses PulseAudio even if a host system uses PipeWire. The problem with that is that PulseAudio bundles together access to speakers and microphones—you can have access to both, or neither, but not just one. So if an application has access to play sound, it also has access to capture audio

That's a pretty decent sized hole.

replies(1): >>44069013 #
gjsman-1000 ◴[23 May 25 01:37 UTC] No.44069013[source]▶
I sometimes see Linux users sneering at Windows and Mac design mistakes or lack of “freedom”… but then there’s stuff like this.

Of course, Linux is then conveniently redefined in a way that nobody can be responsible, with finger pointing on every issue, rather than admit design flaws like this plague Linux as a whole.

replies(3): >>44069126 #>>44069129 #>>44069527 #
bee_rider ◴[23 May 25 01:56 UTC] No.44069129[source]▶
I get that you already preempted this, but: Flatpack is a weird extra layer on top of Linux. Most distros have package managers that work just fine. These package managers predate Flatpack and basically are the main thing that the distro provides (other than the community, of course).
replies(4): >>44069155 #>>44069490 #>>44069854 #>>44071245 #
frollogaston ◴[23 May 25 02:02 UTC] No.44069155[source]▶
Many Ubuntu or Debian users still use Flatpak, don't they? Even though there's already apt-get.
replies(5): >>44069210 #>>44070775 #>>44070818 #>>44072376 #>>44072409 #
1. binkHN ◴[23 May 25 02:12 UTC] No.44069210{3}[source]▶
You, kind of, don't have much of a choice. There's thousands of packages and it's a ton of work. In addition, as Linux continues to get more popular, more vendors are releasing software that doesn't care to work with newer libraries, so Flatpack handles this nicely.
replies(1): >>44069276 #
2. frollogaston ◴[23 May 25 02:24 UTC] No.44069276[source]▶
I only use Linux on servers, so the kind of stuff I need is always traditional apt-get, but yeah I always assumed using it on a PC would involve tons of snap or flatpak apps where they don't want to deal with the complexities of dependencies.

Ok, I do have one spare Linux laptop in my garage that I barely use, and I'm pretty sure how ever I installed Chromium used snap.

replies(2): >>44070595 #>>44074327 #
3. pjerem ◴[23 May 25 07:06 UTC] No.44070595[source]▶
In my experience, most of the apps, even the desktop ones, are still packaged by the distribution.

Flatpack is useful for the few ones that aren’t or for actively developed apps that get new useful features frequently.

4. bee_rider ◴[23 May 25 16:38 UTC] No.44074327[source]▶
I mostly use Linux on my laptop. I thought you server folks needed this kind of functionality—you guys have to, like, serve stuff, be visible on the network, install weird software for business needs, right? As an individual, I can crank up the firewall, trust all of the people who use my laptop (it is just me) and not install sketchy software.
replies(1): >>44075810 #
5. frollogaston ◴[23 May 25 19:28 UTC] No.44075810{3}[source]▶
I'm not a server pro, I just use some dev servers at work and have home servers. Most I did was administer the dev servers for small startups where I was mainly a SWE. So what I mean is, I've mostly only used Linux remote+headless and not on my laptop/desktop.