←back to thread

The Future of Flatpak

(lwn.net)
306 points dxs | 1 comments | 22 May 25 23:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.201s | source
Show context
dismalaf ◴[23 May 25 00:52 UTC] No.44068733[source]▶
Interesting read. While Flatpak does work nicely for a lot of things, the downsides are real and have me almost preferring Snap for the most part. Flatpak terminal apps are annoying, the permissions thing is annoying, sound, etc...

Interesting that the creator is thinking about the next thing already.

replies(2): >>44068847 #>>44069132 #
OsrsNeedsf2P ◴[23 May 25 01:57 UTC] No.44069132[source]▶
> Flatpak terminal apps are annoying,

They could have been good, but they chose not to go down this route. This is one area Snap shines. Flathub rejects terminal only apps for this reason as well

replies(2): >>44069737 #>>44073407 #
1. linmob ◴[23 May 25 03:57 UTC] No.44069737[source]▶
Yet, there are a select few non-gui flatpaks. One I use frequently is Zola [0], a static site generator that I use because it's significantly faster in building my site with 'zola serve' than the native Alpine Linux package. All I had to do to make it convenient was aliasing flatpak run org.getzola.zola to zola.

[0]: https://flathub.org/apps/org.getzola.zola