Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flathub Has Now Served More Than Two Billion Downloads For Flatpaks

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

  • Flathub Has Now Served More Than Two Billion Downloads For Flatpaks

    Phoronix: Flathub Has Now Served More Than Two Billion Downloads For Flatpaks

    Flathub as the centralized repository for serving Flatpak sandboxed Linux applications crossed the threshold this weekend of serving more than two billion downloads...

    Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite

  • #2
    And yet, still no RISC-V packages

    Comment


    • #3
      I really wish they would have a better tagging system, or at least the applications anyways

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by pierce View Post
        And yet, still no RISC-V packages
        Maybe if some day there is a RISC-V machine powerful enough to run Hello World, then there will be packages.

        Comment


        • #5
          Still waiting on the day I can download a .flpk file from the manufacturer's website and double click to install it, with the ability for the application to grab new versions of the flatpak by itself.

          Until then, it's nice but useless. Flathub is the same as the snap store: a single point of failure run by some randos. In fact it's worse, as it's not run by a trusted company, nor does it have even half the overview of application source verification or update status. And the snap store sucks so what does that make flathub?

          Flatpaks themselves are better than they used to be (though far from perfect) and are apparently the "chosen" solution (as are all RH projects lmao) to the standard linux application install issues... though all it currently seems to do is move dependencies from the package manager to flathub. I'm slowly coming to like them as a format, but they won't truly be any better than standard packages until they are more user friendly.

          Comment


          • #6
            Truly don't know why app images didn't win out. They are the one Linux killer app I miss on other operating systems. Very similar to portable apps for Windows. So simple I could explain to my mom how to install an app image.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
              Truly don't know why app images didn't win out. They are the one Linux killer app I miss on other operating systems. Very similar to portable apps for Windows. So simple I could explain to my mom how to install an app image.
              Appimage is simple superficially, but it has many issues. The containerisation is leaky, unsystematic and the tooling is not very good - it's very easy to build an appimage that actually depends on libs installed on the host, as opposed to including them in the container. There is also no obvious, official and reliable mechanism to update installed appimages automatically. Last but not least, if you want to offer appimages, you need to offer one of amd64, one for arm64 etc., and the user is supposed to pick the right one to download - which many people find confusing, the "how on earth am I supposed to know that" reaction is far more common than phoronix readership would suspect.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
                Still waiting on the day I can download a .flpk file from the manufacturer's website and double click to install it, with the ability for the application to grab new versions of the flatpak by itself.
                you can do that, some projects that aren't yet on flathub distribute .flatpak files which you can install with flatpak install (app.flatpak path).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post
                  Until then, it's nice but useless. Flathub is the same as the snap store: a single point of failure run by some randos. In fact it's worse, as it's not run by a trusted company, nor does it have even half the overview of application source verification or update status. And the snap store sucks so what does that make flathub?
                  Flathub is maintained by the folks from KDE and GNOME, and it's no more trustworthy then the repositories of Fedora or Arch: There are review processes and security checks in place, but you still rely on volunteers. Even Ubuntu or CentOS are not very secure when you enable multiverse or EPEL since those too are community maintained.

                  One of thebrnefits of Flatpak is that a malicious app can do a lot less damage.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by kylew77 View Post
                    Truly don't know why app images didn't win out. They are the one Linux killer app I miss on other operating systems. Very similar to portable apps for Windows. So simple I could explain to my mom how to install an app image.
                    I think you can make the case that flatpaks (or snaps) are easier for computer illiterate folks to install than AppImg. The centralized repo from somewhere like flathub and the software store app from their DE makes the difference. E.g. you can say "grandma click the icon that looks like FOO to open your app store. Type BAR in the search box. Click on it and hit install". They don't have to fuck about with the entire Internet to go find the AppImage, all while hopefully avoiding some malware oozing site with 27 different "download" looking icons that are serving them all kinds of garbage instead of the actual file they want.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X