No announcement yet.

Team Silverblue Succeeds Fedora Atomic Workstation, Aims To Be In Great Shape By F30

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Anvil View Post
    Microsoft are making the Money on the Desktop, , linux will only make money on Servers, thats bout all.
    did you hear that desktop market is shrinking and the only growing desktop segment is linux(chromebooks)? we also can discuss microsoft's great successes in smartphone market


    • #62
      Originally posted by calc View Post
      With all those different versions of runtime
      why do you need different versions of runtime? stop doing that


      • #63
        Originally posted by Candy View Post
        When I install a Gimp flatpack then I would at least expect that it installs the smallest amount of subset there is to get Gimp running. Nothing more!
        you are misguided. to make that work someone has to test gimp on all possible combinations of system sets. nobody will do that, so gimp installs the one and only runtime it was tested on. runtime is shared among users, so other apps will not need separate copy.
        Originally posted by Candy View Post
        Flatpak installs GNOME as core "root" or "chroot" system. The first thing it does!
        it installs required runtime. if you were using kde app, it would install kde runtime. your complain is baseless
        Originally posted by Candy View Post
        Now I rightfully ask myself how "baobab" (is it called that way) or "gnome-maps" (I memorize having read that name, from yesterdays experiment) is related to the execution of Gimp
        if they are related to some other user of gnome platform then you either have one full platform or several smaller. then you have to download and test more platforms. and for what? does baobab presence break gimp?
        Originally posted by Candy View Post
        If you want to set up a base chroot system for the user then go with regular packages. Glibc, Coreutils, Bash, ... Glib2, GTK2+ along the chain to get exactly Gimp runing.
        you are not paying someone to make work tailored for you. so you have to use work tailored for everyone. or you could build gimp from git and qa it yourself if you find it easier
        Originally posted by Candy View Post
        I would want to see something like "resolving dependency chain for gimp.flatpak" "installing glibc.flatpak, coreutils.flatpak, bash.flatpak ... gimp.flatpak".
        it does exactly that. just its chain consists of "gnome runtime"
        Originally posted by Candy View Post
        I don't want to have or see things, that are not related in any ways to the execution of Gimp. Same applies for other flatpaks.
        why stop at packages? i'm pretty sure some coreutils files are not needed for gimp, so you must demand only needed coreutils files to be present. and why only files? i'm sure as hell gimp does not use all libc functions, so it must have only used glibc functionality installed, or i'll quit!!!111
        Originally posted by Candy View Post
        Imagine your customer tells you to strip down RHEL as much as possible.
        tell him how much it will cost and most customers will reconsider. others can make their own distro, but how is it irrelevant for flatpaks?
        Originally posted by Candy View Post
        I find a soldier playing "sudoku" that came "mandatory" bundled as part of a "chroot" environment with flatpak, during military operation.
        instead of drawing pictures in gimp or masturbating? maybe sudoku is not so bad
        Originally posted by Candy View Post
        Guess how long industry is going to get along with this ? Everything what happens inside Fedora is an indicator of what *may* happen with RHEL. Guess how long customers are going to follow this road.
        my guess is redhat will soon be $3bn company, then $4bn and so on. what is your guess for the record?


        • #64
          Originally posted by pal666 View Post
          why do you need different versions of runtime? stop doing that
          Because flatpak changes the packaging model to distributed where anyone can build a package against any version of the runtime, and doing so is considered a base feature of flatpak. You end up with lots of cruft instead of properly maintained packages like is currently done.
          Last edited by calc; 03 May 2018, 01:19 PM.


          • #65
            I like to quote a comment that I just read at the Debian Users Forum.

            "flatpak" seems to be an intentional misnomer, creating an illusion of lightweightness, distracting from the harsh facts.


            • #66
              As a Distro user I don't like Flatpak but as a Developer I love Flatpak. It is close to Apple's *.app setup. Apple 3rd party software does not share 3rd party libraries but includes them with-in their applications, just like flatpak, because it works. Qt Creator includes it own version of clang and other libraries and binaries independent of Xcode.

              I don't want to waste my time maintaining distros but improving and adding to the code base. Nothing like finding out the distro used for development has all I need but the one used by a colleague's does have 1st party support for Qt 5 WebEngine. Instead of making my code base work with their distro, just flatpak it and let them start using the software they need.

              If a distro wishes to maintain applications as a 1st party, they have the ability to do so and are not limited by Flatpak, since the source is out there.

              Distro I use stopped maintaining MonoDevelop but I still use it through flatpak, without issues.

              Dream world, all code would work with all distros and all libraries would be shared no matter version differences. Real world, you need to get shit done and waiting on others is not always an option.

              I will still mostly choose distro version over flatpak when I have the option, and the distro has the verison I need, but will not limit myself by saying NO or NEVER.


              • #67
                That's the problem with people coming from Windows or Apple to Linux. They don't want Linux, they want to have it work like Windows or Apple.


                • #68
                  Does this seem to essentially just be a different reimplementation of United Linux / LSB to anyone else?

                  I suspect it will fail for similar reasons, no one really wants to cede their distribution to someone else and users don't want the huge overhead involved in this version of the attempted unification.