/tech/ - technology

Actually, now that I took a closer look at their featured "apps" lists, it seems more to be an attempt to normalize proprietary garbage on GNU/Linux than something that fulfills an existing need.

>>1856

Indeed, it is an attempt to normalize proprietary software on Linux so people other than the GNU garbage can use it to fulfill their existing needs.

let's talk about Nix and Guix then!
I've only ever used guix, I like that the kernel itself (or the toolchain) is a package, as well as the package manager and the exact build. Though doesn't that bloat the disks?
I dislike the base software on which it is all made though, so I don't use it.

I feel like nix and guix's model is probably more suited and geared to things like server deployments (at least naively). A very deterministic computer system defined by a simple uniform configuration system is very attractive for people who have to manage gobs of servers all at once.

Things like flatpak are targeting a different audience, namely casual desktop users, who want things to just werk, quickly and easily on a single system. Its to some degree an easy way to bypass distribution package managers and make software installation more like windows, download a file from the developer, that is made in such a way that it will work on most modern distros.

You dont even need su, which might make it more attractive still for users of (even single user) systems where they dont have root authorities (if some of the ideas of android start crossing over into the desktop/laptop world this may be the case).

>>1855
>Can someone explain to me what's the appeal of snap and/or flatpak?
From what I understand, the goal is to try and pull repositories of applications away from being distro-specific, which would make it easier to distribute software for Linux. Right now anyone who wants to make a program available to most users would have to (at minimum) produce a large number of different package formats, and then deal with administrators of a number of repositories. With something like Flatpak or Snap they can target a single specification and repository. Also: I don't know about Snap, but Flatpak provides sandboxing, which should be a big win in security as more applications become available.

>It seems to me a step backwards
Why?

> I thought functional package managers like Nix and Guix are the future.
They address very different issues. (From what I understand) the goal of projects like Nix is to allow the package manager to describe the current state of the system much more clearly, and to enable rolling forwards/backwards into states. The goal of things like Flatpak is to separate out the distribution and installation of applications from the rest of the OS.

>>1859
> Things like flatpak are targeting a different audience, namely casual desktop users, who want things to just werk, quickly and easily on a single system.

I'm not sure that this audience even exists. I feel like the sorts of people who would prefer snap/flatpak over nix/guix would probably also prefer windows/mac over linux anyways. I don't think Linux will ever be the "I want it to work without having to understand how it works" platform of choice.

>>1982
"The year of the Linux Desktop" is always supposed to be soon. I dont know if you need an actual audience inorder to convince people to pay you to make a product for that audience.

Furthermore, I know a lot of people who use LInux on some machines for work, yet arent programmers, linux geeks, or things of that nature. They just have to use some software that happens to run on linux, or run better on linux.

If people like that are given private accounts on linux machines, and are trying to install some of their own software on them, they wont know how to do that as a user, but they can likely sort out how to install one of these.

>>1982
I wouldn't assume that people who want things to "just work" don't understand WHY those things work. Using myself as an example: I've found installing Flatpak applications on Debian to be very convenient, because Debian is a great OS with frustratingly out-of-date applications in its repositories. I know how to install newer stuff, but it's just more work than "flatpak install blah".

I've never felt the need to use snaps. All the soykaf I want to do already works.

>>1856

I notice most of the packages that aren't proprietary are already in my repos…

>>1855
It's just the next step of the march towards the death of general purpose computing.

>>1981
>the goal is to try and pull repositories of applications away from being distro-specific
This is the primary reason that the devs of snap/flatpak say.
So instead of porting to different flavors of Linux, software devs can just do snaps/flatpaks and it will run across all distributions provided they too, have snap/flatpak installed.

I think I've read somewhere that it is also possible or planned to enable the installation of different versions of the same software, and the advantage is that the user doesn't have to worry about conflicts anymore, since you're installing the whole thing plus dependencies

Ah, BTW IIRC, they also make the programs run in their own namespace, or was it firewalled? For security.

>>2055
>It's just the next step of the march towards the death of general purpose computing.
What does application sandboxing have to do with the death of general purpose computing?

>>2059
>What does application sandboxing have to do with the death of general purpose computing?
Because it's just one step away from "app stores" for walled gardens.

>>2060
>Because it's just one step away from "app stores" for walled gardens.
The problem with app stores / walled gardens is the centralization of power, not that they distribute self-contained applications.

Looks like some people are not happy with how flatpak handles security: https://flatkill.org/