KDE Plasma Leaning Towards Focusing On Flatpak Over AppImage/Snaps

[CapsAdmin]

I really like Snap's syntax more than Flatpak's.

I also don't understand why packages installed via Flatpak also have to be run via Flatpak?

i.e.

flatpak run application

Seriously, just compare how you install the same package on Flatpak and Snap. Flatpak first:


flatpak --user remote-add --no-gpg-verify tutorial-repo repo

flatpak --user install tutorial-repo org.test.Hello


Snap:


snap install hello


How on earth is flatpak better?

The underlying technology is probably better/more advanced I guess. If was "flat install hello" would you be fine with flatpak?

From what I understand by reading this thread flatpak doesn't have a main repo like snap so adding a repo seems like a necessary step. A distribution could maybe add a default repo though. Im guessing non terminal users will be able to use a gui for these things.

[Sesivany]

flatpak --user remote-add --no-gpg-verify tutorial-repo repo

flatpak --user install tutorial-repo org.test.Hello

This is no longer needed. Now you can just:

flatpak install app-xy.flatpak
or
flatpak install app-xy.flatpakref

Or just double-click the files and install them in GUI (GNOME Software) if your distro has new enough flatpak and GNOME Software.

[rabcor]

I don't know much about flatpak, but what I do know is that Appimages never seemed to work right for me. So good for them to go another route.

[boxie]

incredible how misinformed people are on this board

amazing the unquantified passive aggressive statements anonymous people make on the Internet!

[FishPls]

This is no longer needed. Now you can just:

flatpak install app-xy.flatpak
or
flatpak install app-xy.flatpakref

Or just double-click the files and install them in GUI (GNOME Software) if your distro has new enough flatpak and GNOME Software.

Do you still need to run the Flatpak packages with flatpak run though? That part confuses / irritates me a bit. Snaps just allow you to launch the program like it's always been done, by writing the program name and pressing enter.

[bug77]

The post explains the danger...

> by adopting a technology for a process as important as software distribution that could be switched off by a single company. This would pose an unacceptable risk, and it would send the wrong signal to the rest of the Free software community.

Also you could look at past example of Canonical splitting from community efforts, i.e Wayland -> Mir and Gnome -> Unity

Minix -> Linux
Oh, wait...

Doing things on your own is supposed to be what Linux is about, it's amazing how this becomes evil the minute you don't like one project or another. And I'm a KDE guy, I don't care about Unity/Mir in the least.

[Sesivany]

Do you still need to run the Flatpak packages with flatpak run though? That part confuses / irritates me a bit. Snaps just allow you to launch the program like it's always been done, by writing the program name and pressing enter.

Why would one care? It creates a .desktop file, so you get a nice launcher in the DE. And if you really want to run apps from the command line you can always create an alias.

[Sesivany]

Snaps do not require any connection with Ubuntu or Canonical but they do require some sort of central distribution, by design. It's a requirement of secure distribution to only accept updates from an authenticated and authorized source, as has been proved frequently by exploits seen in the wild on things like routers and cameras. You still get your freedoms protected if you're the legitimate owner of a device designed to use snaps, but your security in enjoying those freedoms is enhanced by the inbuilt ability to trust the source of software updates.

This is one of the salient and most important differentiators between snappy and flatpack.

With Flatpak, you can, of course, have centralized distribution. EndlessOS is doing just that. AFAIK all their apps are packaged in flatpak and the user can install them from their official repo. It supports GPG signatures etc. So I don't understand what flatpak is missing here.

[FishPls]

Why would one care? It creates a .desktop file, so you get a nice launcher in the DE. And if you really want to run apps from the command line you can always create an alias.

Because I often launch apps from the command line and I don't want to have to remember which ones I've installed via flatpack just so I can launch them in their own special way. And no way I'm going to create aliases for every single program I install.

It's an inconvenience that somehow doesn't exist with Snaps.

[Niarbeht]

I really like Snap's syntax more than Flatpak's.

I also don't understand why packages installed via Flatpak also have to be run via Flatpak?

i.e.

flatpak run application

Seriously, just compare how you install the same package on Flatpak and Snap. Flatpak first:


flatpak --user remote-add --no-gpg-verify tutorial-repo repo

flatpak --user install tutorial-repo org.test.Hello


Snap:


snap install hello


How on earth is flatpak better?

The thing you're missing here is the assumption that snap already has it's repos set up. I mean, technically someone might make a flatpak repo for an entire distribution, and consequently that would make flatpak's installation process just a single command.

On the other hand, though, flatpak has the ability to keep programs up-to-date directly from upstream, and doesn't depend on someone keeping the distribution's repo up-to-date.

Or at least that's how things appear.