But I felt this article was written in a sincere spirit to keep Linux open and multiparty. There are obviously many more reasons for such a sentiment than just the natural urge to undress and smoke up (I know, puzzles me too). However in these times of often direct aggression to anything I know and love I welcomed it a sight for sour eyes.
Try Arch Linux. First setup in VM, then on your computer. Been ~8 years on it. Tried to distrohop multiple times - still going back to it.
Plasma is awesome DE which requires bare minimum setup. plasma package pulls basically everything - bluetooth, pipewire, sddm and so on. Then you just have to enable sddm/bluetooth services are you are done.
Fixing broken system is also very easy. :) Just try, don’t be shy!
I haven’t used any flatpacks, mostly because they don’t seem to have a good solution for running terminal programs. (Also I don’t like that the application developer chooses the permissions to expose rather than the user.
However, I have been using bubblewrap which is what flatpack uses under the hood to sandbox. This allows me to run both gui and non-gui programs, and I have the control of exposing the minimum required permissions that I’m comfortable giving an untrusted piece of software.
I will be honest and reveal my naivete about the permissions. I don’t really mess with permission for any program, but I can see how some defaults may be bad.
I will look into bubble wrap, since the sandboxing is important, but the sheer convenience and availability of software is what is appealing.
I’m conflicted on this. I 100% think CLI applications should remain as packages but Flatpak IMO is superior for GUI. It just has a lot of “step in the right direction” sorts of things that address some of Linux’s faults.
The big two positives for me are:
Makes it easier for developers to publish their own software and reach many distros at once. This has really helped with software availability and updates.
Sandboxing (although not perfect and Flatseal is kind of essential here, I hope this gets rolled into software centers or something).
I am on Fedora Silverblue and the concept of a base OS + Flatpaks just feels right for workstations. OCI containers (podman/docker/distrobox) as a bonus for development environments without borking your host.
But with this recent Fedora news (I know nothing has changed YET but I am just sussed out tbh), I am considering switching to OpenSUSE Aeon/Kalpa.
Your 2 big positives are stuff I agree with wholeheartedly. But I’m still holding out on using flatpak because it feels like an incomplete solution still. There’s many things with it I could work around, definitely, but it feels annoying and with NixOS I don’t have to worry about those issues because stuff just works for me.
As for FS, I wanted to love it, but doing some stuff with it is annoying. I wish it let you install stuff with dnf to /usr/local (like how it is on bsds or also macs with brew iirc).
Organizing my thoughs: I would love a future where flatpak just works, the sandboxing is nice and all you need is to click “yes” or “no” when an app wants/needs something, where you don’t even need to use your distro’s package manager (or you can’t even use it because the distro is immutable and it updates on its own), but we’re not yet there. Installing fonts on FS was a nightmare, and I had to layer stuff like powertop and other stuff I don’t remember right now. Also flatpak isn’t yet a good solution for development with VScode or similar stuff.
Win 10 IOT Enterprise LTSC will be my last Windows. I’m fairly sure Linux will be significantly greater in 2032, so I can avoid this spyware trash. Unfortunately my area of expertise is C#/.NET, so I’m stuck with this trash when I will be a working citizen.
People keep recommending it, I guess I will give it a try.
For a minute I was fascinated by GOBO Linux, and I really thought it would take off, but I think the developers must have moved on since there have been no updates. However, the ‘recipes’ seem to get actively updated, so maybe it is a stable enough system.
I get it that they need to find a way to fund their R&D team.
I get that there is also some people willing to pay top-dollar for some specific features which can not be had on commodity phones Linux-based, fully assembled in the US, etc. Which is going to be impossible to fulfill at scale.
What I don’t get is: why can’t they offer something that makes this explicit? I for one have no interest in a $2k phone, but I would gladly give them $50 per month and in exchange I’d get the right to participate in some periodic (monthly, quarterly, yearly?) dutch-style auction when they had a new update to their phone. Perhaps a percentage of the money that I had given could be used to pay for the device, etc.
Snaps are disliked because the store is closed-source and run by Canonical. Snaps are also disliked simply because Canonical is pushing them so hard, forcibly replacing native packages that exist and work fine. For example, there was a debacle a while back where running apt install firefox still installed the Snap version instead of the native version.
Flatpaks are disliked because they sometimes struggle to integrate into a system well. For example, Discord Rich Presence doesn’t work for the Flatpak version of Discord unless the thing you want Discord to detect is also a Flatpak, and even that detection is shaky.
Snaps and Flatpaks are both disliked because they contain frameworks and runtimes that some users consider bloat.
To further explain, when you use a native package, it and its dependencies get installed on your system. If any other package in the future requires one of those dependencies, awesome, it’s already there. But for Flatpaks and Snaps, each app has to bundle its own dependencies. Sometimes they can be shared with other Flatpaks/Snaps, depending on the dependency, but they still require at least a little extra storage space.
There are probably details I’m forgetting, but those are the main arguments. My advice is if you’re happy with the way your system is running, don’t worry about it. My personal preference is Flatpak first, native second, Snap never. I don’t have anything against native packages, but some software I use is exclusively distributed as Flatpak, so I switched most things over for consolidation.
Afaik snaps can’t share depending packages, making it store the same dependency multiple times. Flatpak can share the depending package+version, sharing it to every app it needs and store it once.
The Golden advantage I see is not having issues installing multiple versions of the same dependency, which would be kinda hard for a native system depending on the type of package an app is depending on. Like Python and Java could easy have multiple same versions on a native system, but other things may be too difficult to realize except you use Flatpak
Flatpak sandboxes too, but it at least is fully Open source, you can create your own Flatpak Repository and add it to your flatpak to grab and install new packages you made yourself. For Snap… it implements not that good into the desktop I heard but may have changed, you can’t create your own repository nor see the servers code as there is only 1 single server for Snap, and its canonicals Closed Source Snap Server. But hey, it at least got the super cool Hologram Open Source Sticker on it, because the client is at least Open Source… No thanks
I use PrismLauncher (Minecraft Launcher) inside Flatpak for example because it sandboxes the app so no stupid mod can infect me that easy now, haha! But generally its kinda comfy to use Flatpak because it has less dependency issues compared to Native Packages because Flatpak has its own Packages which Flatpak Apps can share to each other. Snap on the other hand can’t have dependencies shared between Snap Apps so they all have duplicate dependencies.
I don’t think the current Red Hat controversy will have much impact on Fedora. There are the three reasons why I think so:
While Fedora is not a fully independent distribution, the Fedora Council has both members from Red Hat and members from the community. It may be wishful thinking, but I believe that, if Red Hat tried something iffy with Fedora, the community (including people in leading positions) would protest.
Fedora is upstream from RHEL, so it doesn’t directly profit from RHEL source codes being fully open. Instead, it’s the other way around; Fedora’s sources are the basis of CentOS and then RHEL, so any bugs fixed in Fedora benefit RHEL.
Fedora is also Red Hat’s tool for influencing the Linux ecosystem at large. When they want other people start using some technology (Flatpak, PulseAudio etc.), Fedora is a good way of disseminating it.
P.S. There might be some inaccuracies. I am just a user; I am neither a developer nor in any leadership role.
P.P.S. Please excuse any spelling and grammar mistakes. English is not my first language.
The non-root user probably doesn’t have permission to run the sudo command as www-data user, but root does.
You are wrong. E. g. in Debian (and Ubuntu) the default sudoers file contains
<pre style="background-color:#ffffff;">
<span style="color:#323232;">%sudo ALL=(ALL:ALL) ALL
</span>
that means that any user in the sudo group is permitted to execute any command as any other user. The same for redhat/fedora, but the group name is wheel there.
linux
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.