←back to thread

The Future of Flatpak

(lwn.net)
306 points dxs | 1 comments | 22 May 25 23:51 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
conradev ◴[23 May 25 00:44 UTC] No.44068680[source]▶
The permissions issues are real.

It still isn't possible to package Tailscale or anything that creates a virtual interface as a Flatpak because there is no permission for that. macOS has an API to ask for permissions to add an interface/change routes.

replies(5): >>44068857 #>>44069176 #>>44069413 #>>44069472 #>>44071203 #
1. klabb3 ◴[23 May 25 03:02 UTC] No.44069472[source]▶
Im not really much of a flatpak user but to me it seems like permission system on top of Linux is an incredible undertaking. Solving both packaging and retrofitting permissions at the same time seems too big of a cookie to swallow. I don’t know whether the permission system is what killed the momentum and caused this seeming burnout. But it seems incredibly complex.

To me, Linux doesn’t have a granular modern permission system, and I don’t expect my package manager to solve it for me. I still run proprietary software on it, because I kind of have to. Is that an ideal situation? No. But I rather have a distribution system and vet vendors (which I’m doing anyway) than wait another decade for permissions to be perfect. Distribution, packaging and updates is the pressing need imo.