Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Better Flatpak Support For Firefox Appears To Be Coming

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

  • Better Flatpak Support For Firefox Appears To Be Coming

    Phoronix: Better Flatpak Support For Firefox Appears To Be Coming

    One of the best and most practical use-cases for sandboxed Linux apps via Flatpak or Snaps is certainly web browsers. There has been unofficial Firefox Flatpaks offered to this point but it's looking like better support for a Flatpak'ed Firefox could be coming down the pipe soon...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...latpak-Firefox

  • #2
    i wonder if things like plasma browser integration still works with a flatpaked FF?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Termy View Post
      i wonder if things like plasma browser integration still works with a flatpaked FF?
      No reason it shouldn't work if it uses sockets/dbus.

      Comment


      • #4
        Is there stable Chromium flatpak anywhere? Or maybe timely updated deb repository? (Besides Google Chrome repository, of course.)

        I asking because updating Ubuntu to 19.10 forcefully replace Chromium deb package with Chromium snap.

        Comment


        • #5
          I would like to see this for Mozilla Thunderbird too.

          Also for media players that open media files downloaded from the internet, so would be good with Flatpak for VLC media player too.

          Totem is available on Flathub.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
            Is there stable Chromium flatpak anywhere?
            Nope, last time I tried it didn't work. The browser simply crashed. That was after disabling Chrome's sandboxing, which doesn't work in a sandbox.

            Snap works here, as it's sandboxing is optional, AFAIK.

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't care about flatpak, I want appImage.
              But if I need to choose between flatpak and snap then I would chose flatpak.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by oleid View Post

                Nope, last time I tried it didn't work. The browser simply crashed. That was after disabling Chrome's sandboxing, which doesn't work in a sandbox.

                Snap works here, as it's sandboxing is optional, AFAIK.
                There's patches from a KirbyFan606OS that add Flatpak support to Chromium, and they support sandboxing.

                Originally posted by Danny3 View Post
                I don't care about flatpak, I want appImage.
                But if I need to choose between flatpak and snap then I would chose flatpak.
                AppImages are awful technology.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by oleid View Post

                  Nope, last time I tried it didn't work. The browser simply crashed. That was after disabling Chrome's sandboxing, which doesn't work in a sandbox.

                  Snap works here, as it's sandboxing is optional, AFAIK.
                  See? And this is why I don't like Flatpak at all. Sandboxing is mandatory in it and I hate it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Danny3 View Post
                    I don't care about flatpak, I want appImage.
                    But if I need to choose between flatpak and snap then I would chose flatpak.
                    The problems with AppImage:
                    - Qt applications have the ancient Plastik theme applied to it by default, and I don't think there is a way to change this. Krita and Kdenlive look horrible in my desktop now 😢
                    - You must ship every single library with the AppImage, sometimes even shipping over 80% of the contents in /lib. This causes AppImages to be much bigger than macOS bundles or Windows counterparts.
                    - Make it executable. Oh, this one really disturbs me to no end. Why would you want to make it executable before you can run it? I understand it's for security reasons, but couldn't I just double-click on the AppImage and let that be it, Windows/macOS way? Average Joe doesn't want to mess up with a terminal or with the Properties menu. He wants to download and just run. Even on macOS despite the procedure being a little more complicated it's still comprehensible; open the .dmg, drag the app somewhere else (they sometimes even symlink the Applications directory and add an arrow icon that points to it to make it even easier) and run.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X