FLATPAK ?

ZekeMX · 02-27-2019, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caltrop

The new Linux Mint 18.3 & 19.0 have FLATPAK. Some developers have fully embraced FLATPAK and that irritates me, that & the new 4.15 kernel.

It is bad enough installing programs. You either use the repository (adding repositories) or manually install. Now we have FLATPAK, yet another way to install stuff. The repositories have dependencies that are checked when installing, so why FLATPAK?

Will I soon not be able to install a program unless I have FLATPAK?

I thought the whole idea of Linux was that stuff would run the same on different systems. But I was wrong, turns out different desktops do not work the same; a KDE app will not run well in GNOME/GTK. I don't mind desktops being different but the way a program runs should be the same for all Linux systems. 2 + 2 should always = 4, not 3 or 5 or anything but 4!

So instead of getting desktops unified, the powers that be are throwing a layer on top to do the unifying. Adding a layer to an OS to force things to run the same is like putting a bandage on a wound, you need to fix it, not patch it. And that is what FLATPAK looks like to me, a patch.

It also sounds to me like FLATPAK is running a virtual machine, like Virtual Box. Why? A Linux program is not something like DOS or Windows that needs a virtual machine to run. So we need FLATPAK running native Linux programs virtually... more complication!

FLATPAK is just complicating things like Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) do. 4,000 lines of CSS Code cascading into 4,000 lines of CSS Code cascading into 4,000 lines of CSS Code just to find the background color for the window. And of those 12,000 lines of CSS Code only about 20 lines are actually needed.

Web Pages are the same XML/CSS - thousands & thousands of lines of crap! And don't get me started on Object Oriented Programming (OOP) like C++. Some OOP stuff is neat but things just get overly complicated and bloated.

I guess most modern programmers have not heard of "Keep It Simple, Stupid (KISS)"!

Soon Linux will be nothing but another bloated Windows 10 or a cumbersome Steam which will only run on the newest of systems.

I guess I need to look into another Linux Distribution, something simpler without FLATPAK, something more open as it should be in Linux.

I weep for todays' systems users...
Liz
Electrical Engineering / Computer Science
Old School C Coder

Hello,

I was looking for help on flatpak and I read your message.

It's been more than a year since you posted this message and still linux has not unified in to one package like flatpak or snap.

I use Mageia Linux and it still uses .rpm packages and ubuntu / mint still uses .deb files.

For me it is not a big deal, some programs are not available in .rpm and I just use "alien" to convert them from .deb. Sometimes I do get an error saying that a dependency is not available because of dependency name differences but that's not a problem. I either install them manually or just force install the package.. for example: on Fedora a package is called qt5-quickcontrols while on mageia it's qtquickcontrols5.. So in the case of Teamviewer (Which requires this dependency)...I just install on mageia using urpmi --force --allow-nodeps.. <packagename> and teamviewer works great since once installed the libraries have the same name on /usr/lib64

What flatpak is doing is creating packages with all dependencies included. The only thing I don't like is that you will end up having duplicates on the hard drive.

It would be nice to have standard names.. That way it would be easier to convert .deb <-> .rpm or just make rpm-deb installers on all systems.

I hope you are still using linux.. I bet you now feel more comfortable.

And by the way. you're a C Programmer, so you're a PRO... ;-)

Regards

ondoho · 02-27-2019, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZekeMX

It's been more than a year since you posted this message and still linux has not unified in to one package like flatpak or snap.

well, apart from the obvious faux-pas that "Linux" is a kernel and not a "Linux distro":
Thank $DEITY for that!
flatpak or snap are not meant to replace a distro's packaging system; they can be helpful in certain circumstances, that's all.
if you ever bother to read up on how they actually work, you will understand that they create much more problems than they solve.

jefro · 02-27-2019, 04:05 PM

Here is the deal.

(I'll say without metrics) Half of the linux users want full control over all aspects of their distro. They want to have full source, they want full dependency H E double hockeysticks.

The other half are windows or mac people who have no desire to learn code or build a program. They just want it to work easily and quickly. I have to say that I don't believe that all distro's will go to some unified grand scheme. I do believe that common, user oriented, easy to use distro' will try to use these type of program install models.

I don't see any downside to letting those folks that just want stuff to work as a negative.

I was once thrilled to learn of a new "write once, run everywhere" language. See where that got us?

ondoho · 02-28-2019, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jefro

I don't see any downside to letting those folks that just want stuff to work as a negative.

are you saying a fully containerised package management is the solution here?
let's think about this for a while...
what would that require? you cannot run & upgrade & install everything like this.
i mean, the kernel, the init system, and i bet quite a few "low level" applications cannot work in a containerised flatpak or snap manner.
so in order to have this "unified package" you'd need to totally separate one (the base system) from the other ("applications"), with an additional layer that makes the latter talk to the first.
i can think of a hundred reasons why that is not good (for me), but most of all:
we have that system already - it is called android!
and what i see is that even people that belong in the other half (of the 2 user categories you mention) often moan about how restricted android is etc.

it's actually even worse in GNU/Linux - I see it so often - clueless newcomers want systems that

Just Work and Are Easy to Setup & Use
Have All the Freedom to Tinker and Install and Change Things

both!
and complain if it isn't possible, breaks, they have to type instead of click etc.

ok, this needed to be said.
rant over.

jefro · 02-28-2019, 03:17 PM

It is a solution for those folks that want it. Not everyone wants it nor do I believe it will take over the world. Not sure there is a realistic fear from it. Just change. Just an option.

A lot of regular computer users simply don't have the ability to use computers and many may be quite scared of Linux for not only install and update but applications/programs. Certain kiosk instances may be helped with these tools.

I'd guess many of the members at LQ may not have a great need for these types of solutions.

rant

Sadly Android is maybe the worst product ever offered. How many billion systems are out there that have no way to update?

mrmazda · 02-28-2019, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZekeMX

The only thing I don't like is that you will end up having duplicates on the hard drive.

But more RAM consumption and more time spent downloading and updating is OK? This is bloat. We need more RAM, more storage, faster CPUs, faster GPUs, faster RAM, and faster net connections to overpower the bloat, and the manufacturers and providers are only too happy to sell it to us, nevermind the landfill bloat or dead dinosaurs expending moving this stuff around.

ondoho · 03-01-2019, 12:23 AM

^ exactly.
it's that windows mindset i'm so happy to have escaped from almost a decade ago.

another rant:
many of the linux podcasts out there are so superficial. they just repeat news items and feelgood phrases about the release of some new shiny gui software. no in-depth reviews, and often even outright false statements.
it's these types of people that advertise snaps and flatpaks, because their need to gratify themselves and their audience constantly overpowers their ability for rational thinking.