←back to thread

306 points dxs | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.003s | source
Show context
ndiddy ◴[] No.44068778[source]
> Wick started his talk by saying that it looks like everything is great with the Flatpak project, but if one looks deeper, ""you will notice that it's not being actively developed anymore"". There are people who maintain the code base and fix security issues, for example, but ""bigger changes are not really happening anymore"". He said that there are a bunch of merge requests for new features, but no one feels responsible for reviewing them, and that is kind of problematic.

I think Red Hat should really be stepping up more here, especially since with RHEL 10 they stopped maintaining a ton of desktop packages with the advice for users of those packages being "get the package from Flathub instead of from us" (see https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_... , search for Flathub). If that's Red Hat's attitude towards desktop software, they should be providing the resources to make Flatpak a viable alternative.

> A user's Linux distribution may still be providing an older version of Flatpak that does not have support for --device=input, or whatever new feature that a Flatpak developer may wish to use. Wick said there needs to be a way for applications to use the new permissions by default, but fall back to the older permission models if used on a system with an older version of Flatpak.

I'm glad he brought that up as a problem. I maintain a game on Flathub that has audio and controller support. Because of the limited permissions granularity, that means that the game is displayed as requiring arbitrary device access (--device=input is too new, so the Flathub maintainers don't allow it in packages yet) and being able to listen to your device's microphone (the audio permission doesn't allow only accessing speakers but not microphones). I hope that Flatpak adds backwards compatibility for permissions so newer Flatpak versions can start having more granular permissions.

replies(1): >>44068921 #
bigfatkitten ◴[] No.44068921[source]
Red Hat has since walked some of this back. Firefox and Thunderbird were supposed to go Flatpak only for RHEL 10, but they eventually shipped rpms for GA.

Seems there were a myriad of causes for this including lack of Native Messaging, no ability to deploy policies centrally, and broken integrations with various other parts of the desktop ecosystem.

replies(1): >>44069144 #
ndiddy ◴[] No.44069144[source]
They walked back Firefox and Thunderbird, but Evolution, LibreOffice, GIMP, Inkscape, and Totem have all been dropped. Red Hat no longer packages an office suite, a raster image editor, a vector image editor, or a media player for RHEL. This means that even people using RHEL as a development workstation or something will have to download software from Flathub if they don't want to use a second computer for all their general office tasks.
replies(2): >>44069214 #>>44069231 #
mbreese ◴[] No.44069214[source]
Given the target of RHEL, I can’t say that I disagree with their decision to not package those applications for RHEL 10. RHEL isn’t really designed to be a user desktop. Ever since RH split out workstation and server versions of the OS, RHEL has always been targeted for servers. I don’t think the lack of an office suite will really be that impactful towards users.

This is just made all the more true if there is an alternative source for these tools, like Flathub.

replies(3): >>44069229 #>>44069613 #>>44072803 #
1. ndiddy ◴[] No.44069613[source]
> This is just made all the more true if there is an alternative source for these tools, like Flathub.

The point I was trying to make is that Red Hat is deprecating graphical desktop programs on RHEL and telling their customers to switch to getting them from Flathub, while a Red Hat employee giving a talk about the future of Flatpak is saying that it's not actively developed anymore and that there's nobody responsible for reviewing MRs for new features. I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing that Red Hat stopped packaging graphical programs. I'm saying that since they've endorsed Flatpak as their alternative to packaged graphical programs, I wish Red Hat would put some of the development resources they've saved from no longer packaging/supporting those graphical programs into helping to improve Flatpak.

replies(1): >>44069694 #
2. mbreese ◴[] No.44069694[source]
> I wish Red Hat would put some of the development resources they've saved from no longer packaging/supporting those graphical programs into helping to improve Flatpak.

I very much agree with this. It would be nice to see some better coordination and support, especially for those who are able to leverage Flatpaks to reduce their own overhead.