LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General
User Name
Password
Linux - General This Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.

Notices


View Poll Results: Do you use Appimage, Flatpak, and/or Snaps?
Appimage 12 9.16%
Flatpak 4 3.05%
Snap 3 2.29%
More than one of the above 6 4.58%
None of the above 106 80.92%
Voters: 131. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 09-15-2017, 07:19 PM   #16
Timothy Miller
Moderator
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Arizona, USA
Distribution: Debian, Fedora, Arch, & KDE Neon
Posts: 2,760

Rep: Reputation: 788Reputation: 788Reputation: 788Reputation: 788Reputation: 788Reputation: 788Reputation: 788

I've played around with flatpak, but don't really see the point for what I use my systems for yet.
 
Old 09-15-2017, 08:38 PM   #17
albinard
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Distribution: Xubuntu Core
Posts: 184

Rep: Reputation: 59
None of the above, so far no need for any. I might try one to see how it runs, if I could find one that did something that was challenging or not possible with my existing setups.
 
Old 09-16-2017, 01:58 AM   #18
josephj
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2007
Location: Northeastern USA
Distribution: kubuntu
Posts: 170

Rep: Reputation: 93
The only one of these I've even heard of is snap. While the basic concept is intriguing, my main concern is with security.

If component A is found to have an exploit/vulnerability in it, a patch usually comes out before I even hear about it (and usually gets installed on my system within a day). But with snap, I might have several older versions of A installed and I have no idea when or if they will get fixed.

OTOH, I still have an old flip phone and I use bitpim to connect it to Linux. When I want to run it, I boot up kubuntu 12.04 where bitpim still works. That's a PITA and the only reason I haven't erased 12.04 yet. Having a snap for that would be great.
 
Old 09-16-2017, 01:59 AM   #19
fatmac
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Upper Hale, Surrey/Hants Border, UK
Distribution: AntiX
Posts: 2,347

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
All I need is within my distro - no idea what any of those are, so obviously I don't need any of them.
 
Old 09-16-2017, 10:11 AM   #20
BillF59
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: May 2016
Location: Toronto, Canada
Distribution: Ubuntu GNOME 16.04 LTS
Posts: 8

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I have several Snaps installed...

...the main one being Canonical's LivePatch service for Ubuntu. It does seem to "just work," but I prefer to use .deb files where I can see exactly what's going on during an install or upgrade.
 
Old 09-16-2017, 10:22 AM   #21
Ads20000
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2017
Distribution: Ubuntu 17.10, Fire OS 5.6.0.0
Posts: 5

Rep: Reputation: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by josephj View Post
The only one of these I've even heard of is snap. While the basic concept is intriguing, my main concern is with security.

If component A is found to have an exploit/vulnerability in it, a patch usually comes out before I even hear about it (and usually gets installed on my system within a day). But with snap, I might have several older versions of A installed and I have no idea when or if they will get fixed.

OTOH, I still have an old flip phone and I use bitpim to connect it to Linux. When I want to run it, I boot up kubuntu 12.04 where bitpim still works. That's a PITA and the only reason I haven't erased 12.04 yet. Having a snap for that would be great.
As detailed in my (rather long) comment earlier, yes there is a security concern here, but the fact that snaps are confined by AppArmour should help relieve those fears somewhat (maybe not entirely). Snaps are rather well contained. People making snaps for their applications are increasingly able to depend on a platform snap (e.g. gnome-3-26-1604, though that's a work-in-progress) which should have updated dependencies in it (and this is better than the status quo with packaging because if the app doesn't work with those dependencies then one can quickly change the snap to not rely on that platform snap but bundle its own dependencies). When snaps bundle their own dependencies, which ensures that the application won't be forced to run on dependency versions that the app developers don't expect, then yes it may be using outdated dependencies if the app developers haven't got their software working with newer dependencies yet. Usually, though, snaps are built using Ubuntu 16.04 Debs as dependencies (this is what's used by the snappy build service), but app developers can choose to build against specific releases of dependencies manually. Maybe you're worried that things are taken out of the hands of distro maintainers, but in my view that's one of the biggest weaknesses with the Linux desktop at the moment. So much hinges on the distro maintainers (and there's so many distros) and the shared dependencies provided by the distro that it's very difficult to get a stable (in the noob sense) and up-to-date applications. Snappy resolves this by putting dependency management in the hands of the app developers/snapcrafters. If you see a `snapcraft.yaml` using an outdated dependency then you should challenge upstream (or whoever made the `snapcraft.yaml`, but ultimately we're trying to remove that middleman) to fix that themselves or submit a PR to fix it yourself, but it's good that app developers can get closer to guaranteeing quality on all distros themselves - no distro maintainer middleman.

Last edited by Ads20000; 09-16-2017 at 10:25 AM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-16-2017, 11:35 AM   #22
DavidMcCann
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Xubuntu
Posts: 5,004

Rep: Reputation: 1652Reputation: 1652Reputation: 1652Reputation: 1652Reputation: 1652Reputation: 1652Reputation: 1652Reputation: 1652Reputation: 1652Reputation: 1652Reputation: 1652
One of the great things about Linux is the packaging system and the "one-stop shopping" concept: getting everything, including security and bug fixes, from a repository. To me, those stand-alone packages are just for ex-Windows users who don't understand Linux.
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-16-2017, 04:02 PM   #23
ChuangTzu
Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, Devuan, FreeBSD
Posts: 858

Rep: Reputation: 618Reputation: 618Reputation: 618Reputation: 618Reputation: 618Reputation: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
One of the great things about Linux is the packaging system and the "one-stop shopping" concept: getting everything, including security and bug fixes, from a repository. To me, those stand-alone packages are just for ex-Windows users who don't understand Linux.
You nailed it! There is a decent video from the openSUSE chairman (an interview with Bryan Lunduke) where he discusses the security problems with flatpack etc... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipgskaR70Ys

This trend of trying to make Linux more palatable to Windows and Mac users is going to seriously harm Linux for years to come. Glad my distro of choice tends to buck (could start with f as well) those trends.

Last edited by ChuangTzu; 09-16-2017 at 04:04 PM.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-16-2017, 05:18 PM   #24
fixitmanarizona
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2017
Posts: 12

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I tried to install something I could not find anywhere else as a .deb, but came as an appimage, however, it would not work! They'd only packaged it as 64-bit! I checked and MANY appimage packages come ONLY as 64-bit even if there is a 32-bit .deb available for them, and of course the 64-bit won't work on a 32-bit system. (The reverse may work, though.) So much for their being "universal." How about those of us who have older systems, or who choose to run 32-bit as 64-bit is really no benefit to us on systems with lower than 4GB (MUCH more than I need) memory installed? How about the MANY people who are running systems that ran XP, where the 64-bit wasn't very popular, and the hardware was mostly 32-bit?
After some searching, I gave up. There was no 32-bit of that particular software. I installed something else, instead, which did the same job, had fewer bugs according to several sites, and came as 32-bit in a deb package (something not in any repository I could find.) I've built from source as well when necessary. No need I can see for these all-in-one packages, which tend to be HUGE if there are very many dependencies the application relies on, when I often have all the dependencies right on my system, or an older version of a library that works with the prior version of whatever I need to run. I don't need the bleeding edge, nor the latest libraries that tend to break systems, and run all my other software that depends on them from the same version.

Last edited by fixitmanarizona; 09-18-2017 at 12:04 AM. Reason: additional info
 
Old 09-16-2017, 11:50 PM   #25
andrerodr
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2016
Location: Europe
Distribution: Opensuse
Posts: 2

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by JZL240I-U View Post
None of those come with Tumbleweed AFAIK. And I see no reason (yet?) for them.
Actualy I'm running Openshot 2.4.0 appimage on Tumbleweed.
 
Old 09-17-2017, 09:14 AM   #26
Allan Gabston-Howell
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Location: 34.033910, -117.313617
Distribution: Debian 8.7.1 (Jessie AMD64 2014.01.14)
Posts: 7

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuangTzu View Post
This trend of trying to make Linux more palatable to Windows and Mac users is going to seriously harm Linux for years to come. Glad my distro of choice tends to buck (could start with f as well) those trends.
My sentiments also. If you are going to transition to Linux/Unix, do the diligence of LEARNING what you will be using. Objectively: Do not expect Linux to change to accommodate your laziness. If you really are *that* lazy, stay with windoze.

IMHO, Canonical has done a disservice to Linux by basically pablum-izing for windoze refugees who really don't want to adjust to a different paradigm--and it does show in the boards and the usenet.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-17-2017, 06:01 PM   #27
revbish
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2008
Location: Bethlehem, Georgia, US
Distribution: Tahrpup-64 6.0.5, AntiX, ROSA
Posts: 37

Rep: Reputation: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertdaleweir View Post
I truly believe that these approaches have great promise, in particular, to allow less balkanization between distros when in some ways that has been the nemesis of success of Linux generally.
Depends on your idea of success I guess.

I've found no need for any of these yet, as I've been able to do what I want without them. And as far as software packages that are "approved" by your distro, so many times I've found the package listed in my distro's repository to be way out of date, so the only option for me was to install the latest version somewhere else, with no ill effect. I will not depend on my distro's maintainers, whomever they may be, to decide what software I can put on my computer, and I take full responsibility for what I install on it. I wouldn't have it any other way, and don't exactly understand the mindset of someone who refuses to install something just because it's not approved by their distro. Is it fear? Laziness? Lack of confidence? Refusal of resposibility, for whatever reason? I don't know. I started using Linux years ago so I could "do things my own way" and I wouldn't give up this freedom for anything. No way would I switch to any of the other operating systems that I know of, and I'll continue to install and use any software I want, distro-approved or not.
 
Old 09-17-2017, 09:04 PM   #28
brashley46
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Distribution: Xubuntu 17.10, Android 5.0.2, Android 7.1.1, Trisquel 7.0 Mini
Posts: 86

Rep: Reputation: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy View Post
Curious about this response: Is your assertion that you don't trust software authors or that you're under the impression that most distros audit software before inclusion? Or something else entirely?

--jeremy
If they don't then I have been seriously misled. At least the major distros (I use the *buntus, and I'd hope somebody at Canonical or in the *buntuverse is watching these things, else why are so many software versions in the repos a year or more behind the latest release?)
 
Old 09-18-2017, 12:15 AM   #29
fixitmanarizona
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Aug 2017
Posts: 12

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Typical User Vs. Elitists

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan Gabston-Howell View Post
My sentiments also. If you are going to transition to Linux/Unix, do the diligence of LEARNING what you will be using. Objectively: Do not expect Linux to change to accommodate your laziness. If you really are *that* lazy, stay with windoze.

IMHO, Canonical has done a disservice to Linux by basically pablum-izing for windoze refugees who really don't want to adjust to a different paradigm--and it does show in the boards and the usenet.
No, I think the typical COMPUTER user now, which means any computer, Android, Windows, Mac, whatever, DO NOT need nor want to know programming, nor do they need nor want to have to enter "commands" in a little box. This isn't the 1980s or even the 1990s. When I see Microsoft or Apple reverting to having all the users compile programs from some little plain text box, then I might change my mind. When I see Android users madly entering plain text on their tablets in a little black box just to check the price of oats in China, I'll change my mind. I really don't see why Linux has to be any different. For those who think Linux should only be for coders and programmers, well, stick to that, and just consider the Linux world has moved on from that.
There is a big difference between Linux Elitists, and those who just want to use their computer, and Canonical has pretty much helped with the latter. Also, one of the reasons there ARE so many boards for users trying to figure out how to use Linux is that you have newbies, whom you should encourage, trying to get something to work. They don't need to spend years trying to learn something that no one except the programmers need to know. Think about the "UBUNTU" philosophy there for a minute, if you don't understand that. There's no room for elitism in it. The idea is an EASY TO USE operating system for EVERYBODY.
If you want to tag "your" distro as user-unfriendly and only for Linux Elitists that know code... fine. In my opinion that's not what computers are for. Turn the damn thing on, and do what you need to do, and move on. If you need some special little program someone else already came up with, bam, install it, and use it. None of this "oh that doesn't work on your system because blah blah blah, what you do is enter a bunch of text in some little black box, then..."
Therefore I see the need for something like the appimage, Etc. but these are still in their infancy and the details are NOT worked out, so if and when it's perfected I might change my thinking on using them. When I can easily install something like that one any system (built for a typical user) and just have it WORK, they'll be mature. So far I haven't found that to be the case.

Last edited by fixitmanarizona; 09-18-2017 at 12:38 AM.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-18-2017, 01:46 AM   #30
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 8,745
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 2141Reputation: 2141Reputation: 2141Reputation: 2141Reputation: 2141Reputation: 2141Reputation: 2141Reputation: 2141Reputation: 2141Reputation: 2141Reputation: 2141
^ whoaa, hold your horses.

as you yourself seem to be saying, the average user doesn't want or need to know what's going on under the hood - but imho appimage/flatpack/snaps aren't the only way to achieve that.
a well-structured GUI package managing system is surely "user-friendly" in every way.

my experience with people changing from windows to a modern gui linux is that they expect software installation to work like on windows: get it on the wild web, double-click it. it will work.
but by changing only this one usage habit, you get a much tighter, well-organized, and ultimately lightweight linux system.
a well-structured GUI package managing system is surely "user-friendly" in every way.

with these appimage/flatpack/snaps, it has finally become possible to bog down linux computers, too.
i see them as emergency solutions, not an everyday way to do things.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Everything You SHould Know About Using AppImage to Install Software in Linux LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 08-03-2017 06:50 PM
VLC Flatpak SML Linux - Software 2 01-21-2017 03:32 AM
LXer: digiKam Recipes 5.0.1 Released and digiKam AppImage Package Coming LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-26-2016 04:30 PM
LXer: Explore Flatpak in Fedora 24 LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-24-2016 08:02 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:02 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration