Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flatpak 1.2 Released For This Widely-Used Linux App Sandboxing & Distribution Tech

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Flatpak 1.2 Released For This Widely-Used Linux App Sandboxing & Distribution Tech

    Phoronix: Flatpak 1.2 Released For This Widely-Used Linux App Sandboxing & Distribution Tech

    Red Hat developer and lead Flatpak (formerly XDG-App) developer Alexander Larsson has announced the stable Flatpak 1.2.0 release...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...k-1.2-Released

  • #2
    How does Flatpak compare with Snap?

    Ubuntu uses Snap for GNOME Calculator and it takes a long time to start. 😢

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by uid313 View Post
      How does Flatpak compare with Snap?

      Ubuntu uses Snap for GNOME Calculator and it takes a long time to start. 😢
      Flatpak is specifically made for desktops where as Snap isn't. Flatpak uses namespaces where as snap uses bind mounts, I think.

      Comment


      • #4
        Still can't use flatpak for anything that relies on udev.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
          How does Flatpak compare with Snap?
          Well the first named one has Red Hat labeled all over its place.

          But infact no one is using either of it besides a small size of users that come from Windows and want some sort of setup.exe because they can't deal with apt-get or dnf.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by uid313 View Post
            How does Flatpak compare with Snap?

            Ubuntu uses Snap for GNOME Calculator and it takes a long time to start. 😢
            Their internals are drastically different, and IMO Flatpak is largely superior. Snap's sandboxing still requires AppArmor to work (meaning you don't get full confinement on other distros), Flatpak uses OSTree (meaning atomic upgrades, easy to roll back, and automatic file deduplication), Snaps only allow one store vs Flatpak allowing multiple sources (e.g. the Flathub remote + another one for nightly builds), and Flatpak has a pretty fast startup time.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Candy View Post
              Well the first named one has Red Hat labeled all over its place.

              But infact no one is using either of it besides a small size of users that come from Windows and want some sort of setup.exe because they can't deal with apt-get or dnf.
              If they want setup.exe, they need to distro-hop to Q4OS. They have similar setup installer for various pieces of Linux software.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Candy View Post
                Well the first named one has Red Hat labeled all over its place.

                But infact no one is using either of it besides a small size of users that come from Windows and want some sort of setup.exe because they can't deal with apt-get or dnf.
                Ignorant.

                Flatpak uses packages repositories (mainly flathub, but you can have your own) like apt and if you want a setup.exe on Linux, it is possible since long. GOG uses .sh setups for its games, so did AMD with defunct fglrx, but maybe you also think that no one uses shell scripts except users coming from Windows. Well, I think that most Linux users also used Windows in the past, or still use it, so, it's probably true that most shell script users are ex-Windowsians.
                Actually, since .deb/.rpm packages can be installed without relying on repositories (but maybe you don't even knows that ; Brother uses this for its printers drivers), the main difference with Flatpak is that Flatpak packages are not distribution-specific and that apps are sandboxed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ALRBP View Post
                  GOG uses .sh setups for its games [...]
                  The .sh setups are quite old. I used them when I was in university back in the end of 90's installing JVM on Linux. Sure GOG games (as I own some) also comes with .sh files. But none of them requires you to install a Linux eco system inside an already installed Linux eco system as Flatpak requires it (they call it runtime but in reality it's an entire Linux system with a shitload of GNOME3 stuff). I did install GIMP from flatpak a few months back (wrote about that experience here on Phoronix) and it was a disaster. I instantly grabbed one of my backup Linux systems and restored the entire harddisk with it. So comparing GOG games .sh files with flatpak is misleading since GOG doesn't require you to install an entire Linux over an existing Linux system (as flatpak installs in in /var/lib/flatpak).

                  Flatpaks are NOT flat! It's an misleading name!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Flakpaks have multiple issues which I find annoying from user perspective (I won't argue about technical superiority):

                    1. Flatpak GTK apps don't use themes out of the box under Plasma desktop, an ugly workaround is required with xsettingsd. Snaps look fine right after installation.
                    2. Need to create shell aliases to start the apps from command line. Snaps just put them under /snap/bin so they are accessible immediately.
                    3. I really don't get those com.xxx.Client namespaces. Why not just call it 'skype' or 'slack' instead of bs 'com.skype.Client' or 'com.slack.Slack' or whatever other stuff.
                    4. When running an app from command line (e.g. sublime editor) it is supposed to be started quietly in the background. Flatpak's packages spew some warnings to the terminal. This is just ugly.
                    So once those fixed I will reconsider, for now snaps are working fine under Ubuntu and openSUSE (for latter snapd.apparmor.service unit must be enabled).

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X