There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

user ,

flatkill.org

Itdidnttrickledown ,

I’ve never used it. Its like all the others though and I have been forced to use snaps. Those I slowly replace every time I decide to start fresh.

amw3i7dwgoblinlabs ,

False, if it exists in the Linux ecosystem it also exists in AUR

wuphysics87 ,

The broader meta point is that X thing you want isn’t the devs job, btw.

SpaceCadet ,
@SpaceCadet@feddit.nl avatar

X thing you want isn’t the devs job

Well, it is if they decide it is, and it isn’t if they decide it isn’t.

That said, I do appreciate devs who put up native deb or rpm repos for the most common distros.

bruhduh ,
@bruhduh@lemmy.world avatar

openbuildservice.org

Skyflare ,

Bottle’s developers disagree with this meme

tiziodcaio ,

I cannot use bottles since months due to their faltpak monogamy policy :/

OsrsNeedsF2P ,

…explain? It literally has Flatpak as first-class support, i.e. it’s guaranteed and only guaranteed to work on Flatpak

tiziodcaio ,

Because I use it from the AUR…

OsrsNeedsF2P ,

Try using the Flatpak

56_ ,
@56_@lemmy.ml avatar

They do? I’ve always seen that as being up to distro maintainers, and out of control of the devs.

superminerJG ,

And this, this is why I love the AUR

corsicanguppy , (edited )

I think no one said it needs to be ON a distro’s repos. That’s a straw man.

A package should be available in a native package format in a way that doesn’t cause conflict with what’s in the official repo. The reasons for a single source of truth on installed status should be obvious; but given the format of some packaging and the signed assurance of provenance, thr advantages to a native format can be leaves ahead of even that.

Wow, is this meme a really naive take that is contradicted by - oh god, everything. Can someone know about enterprise Linux and also be this naive?

kuberoot ,

The responsibility to figure out the dependencies and packaging for distros, and then maintain those going forwards, should not be placed on the developer. If a developer wants to do that, then that’s fine - but if a developer just wants to provide source with solid build instructions, and then provide a flatpak, maybe an appimage, then that’s also perfectly fine.

In a sense, developers shouldn’t even be trusted to manage packaging for distributions - it’s usually not their area of expertise, maintainers of specific distributions will usually know better.

raspberriesareyummy ,

While I agree that developers (like myself) are not necessarily experts at packaging stuff, to conclude that it’s fine that a developer provides a flatpak is promoting shitty software. Whether a software should run in a jail, or within user space is a decision that - for most use cases - should be made by the user.

There is absolutely no reason not to provide software as a tar.gz source code archive with a proper makefile & documentation of dependencies - or automake configuration if that’s preferred.

From that kind of delivery, any package maintainer can easily build a distro-package.

kuberoot ,

I think you’re actually agreeing with me here. I was disputing the claim that software should be made available in “a native package format”, and my counterpoint is that devs shouldn’t be packaging things for distros, and instead providing source code with build instructions, alongside whatever builds they can comfortably provide - primarily flatpak and appimage, in my example.

I don’t use flatpak, and I prefer to use packages with my distro’s package manager, but I definitely can’t expect every package to be available in that format. Flatpak and appimage, to my knowledge, are designed to be distro-agnostic and easily distributed by the software developer, so they’re probably the best options - flatpak better for long-term use, appimage usable for quickly trying out software or one-off utilities.

As for tar.gz, these days software tends to be made available on GitHub and similar platforms, where you can fetch the source from git by commit, and releases also have autogenerated source downloads. Makefiles/automake isn’t a reasonable expectation these days, with a plethora of languages and build toolchains, but good, clear instructions are definitely something to include.

raspberriesareyummy ,

Makefiles/automake isn’t a reasonable expectation these days, with a plethora of languages and build toolchains, but good, clear instructions are definitely something to include.

As for the Makefiles, I meant that for whatever build toolchain the project uses - because the rules to build a project are an essential part of the project, linking the source code into a working library or executable. Whether it is cmake, or gnu make, or whatever else there is - that’s not so important as long as those build toolchains are available cross platforms.

I think what is really missing in the open source world is a distribution-agnostic standard how to describe application dependencies so that package maintainers can auto-generate distro-packages with the distribution-specific dependencies based on that “dependencies” file.

Similar to debian dependencies Depends: libstdc++6 (>= 10.2.1)but in a way that identifies code modules, not packages, so that distributions that package software together differently will still be able to identy findPackageFor( dependency )

I would really like to add this kind of info to my projects and have a tool that can auto-build a repo-package from those.

rozodru ,

“oh this is a flatpak or hell even a windows exe…” proceeds to search for it on AUR “ah there it is, wonderful!”

Hell I’ve found a god damn windows gaming cheat trainer on AUR and it worked.

lemmyvore ,

The AUR is basically just a script that describes best case scenario for building something under Arch. They don’t have any specific quality rules they have to meet.

It’s super easy to make and publish an AUR script compared to a regular distro package (including Arch packages).

superminerJG ,

Usually they work well enough, especially things that just involve repacking binaries (e.g. printer drivers)

rickyrigatoni ,

People always forget about appimages.

fruitycoder ,

As they should /s

Honestly its neat but I don’t see why I would want it over flatpak ever

azenyr ,

Same app in native format: 2MB. As a flatpak: 15MB. As an appimage: 350MB.

Appimages are awesome, rock solid, and I have a few on my system, but flatpak never gave me any problem and integrates better with my KDE, and is smaller. Both have their advantages tho. I’m fine with using both. If you are a developer, make a flatpak or an appimage i dont really care just make your software available for linux. Both are fine, choose the one that fits your specific app the most.

But I also think appimages deserve the same attention and great integration with the OS as flatpaks. Stuff like that AppImageLauncher functionalities should just be integrated inside the DE itself.

But we need an universal package format for linux asap. Flatpak is on the front in this race, and I’m fine with it. Appimages second, for sure.

rickyrigatoni ,

If you don’t run your install off a 12 zetabyte NAS are you even a real linux user?

corsicanguppy ,

Your security people have not forgotten about appimages. It fills their nightmares.

AstralPath ,

I’m new to Linux. Every time I’ve had a major issue with an application it turned out to be due to a flatpak. I’ll stick with other options for the time being.

Kyatto ,
@Kyatto@leminal.space avatar

Also at least let me compile it myself if not in a repo 😩

iopq ,

Nix: you package it yourself and do a pull request

Sadly, many flatpaks don’t even work on NixOS properly because of assumptions about the file structure or similar

starman ,
@starman@programming.dev avatar

Exactly. And even if one doesn’t know how to package it, they can just open a request issue.

umbraroze ,

I’m a Debian fan, and even I think it’s absolutely preferable that app developers publish a Flatpak over the mildly janky mess of adding a new APT source. (It used to be simple and beautiful, just stick a new file in APT sources. Now Debian insists we add the GPG keys manually. Like cavemen.)

uranibaba ,

And then change where we put them.

jabjoe ,
@jabjoe@feddit.uk avatar

Someone got to say it…

There is no Debian if everything was a pile of Snaps/Flatpack/Docker/etc. Debian is the packaging and process that packaging is put through. Plus their FOSS guidelines.

So sure, if it’s something new and dev’y, it should isolate the dependencies mess. But when it’s mature, sort out the dependencies and get it into Debian, and thus all downstream of it.

I don’t want to go back to app-folders. They end up with a missmash of duplicate old or whacky lib. It’s bloaty, insecure and messy. Gift wrapping the mess in containers and VM, mitigates some of security issues, but brings more bloat and other issues.

I love FOSS package management. All the dependencies, in a database, with source and build dependencies. All building so there is one copy of a lib. All updating together. It’s like an OS ecosystem utopia. It doesn’t get the appreciation it should.

raspberriesareyummy ,

Now Debian insists we add the GPG keys manually. Like cavemen.)

Erm. Would you rather have debian auto-trust a bunch of third party people? It’s up to the user to decide whose keys they want on their system and whose packages they would accept if signed by what key.

umbraroze ,

Not “auto trust”, of course, but rather make adding keys is a bit smoother. As in “OK, there’s this key on the web site with this weird short hex cookie. Enter this simple command to add the key. Make sure signature it spits out is the same on the web page. If it matches, hit Yes.”

And maybe this could be baked somehow to the whole APT source adding process. “To add the source to APT, use apt-source-addinate https://deb.example.com/thingamabob.apt. Make sure the key displayed is 0x123456789ABC by Thingamabob Team with received key signature 0xCBA9876654321.”

raspberriesareyummy ,

For the keys - do you mean something like

sudo apt-key adv --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com --recv-keys 00000000 where 00000000 is replaced with the fingerprint of the key you want to fetch?

I do agree - the apt-key command is kinda dangerous because it imports keys that will be generally trusted, IIRC. So a similar command to fetch a key by fingerprint for it to be available to choose as signing keys for repositories that we configure for a single application (suite) would be nice.

I always disliked that signing keys are available for download from the same websites that have the repository. What’s the point in that? If someone can inject malicious code in the repository, they sure as hell can generate a matching signing key & sign the code with that.

Hence I always verify signing keys / fingerprints against somewhat trustworthy third parties.

What we really need though is a crowdsourced, reputation-based code review system. Where open source code is stored in git-like versioning history, and has clear documentations for each function what it should and should not do. And a reviewer can pick as little as an individual function and review the code to confirm (or refute) that the function

  1. does exactly what the interface documentation claims it does
  2. does nothing else
  3. performs input validation (range checks etc)
  4. is well-written (in terms of performance)

Then, your reputation score would increase according to other users concurring with your assessment (or decrease if people disagree), and your reputation can be used as a weighting factor in contributing to the “review thoroughness” of a code module that you reviewed. E.g.: a user with a reputation of 0.5 confirms that a module does exactly what it claims to do: Module gets review count +1, module gets new total score of +0.5, new total weight of ( combined previous weights + 0.5 ) and the average review score is “reviews total score” / “total weight”.

Something like that. And if you have a reputation of “0.9”, the review count goes +1, total score +0.9, total weight +0.9 (so the average score stays between 0 and 1).

Independent of the user reputation, the user’s review conclusion is stored as “1” (= performs as claimed) or “0” (= does not perform as claimed) for this module.

Reputation of reviewers could be calculated as the sum of all their individual review scores (at the time the reputation is needed), where the score they get is 1 minus the absolute difference between the average review score of a reviewed module and their own review conclusion.

E.g. User A concludes: module does what it claims to do: User A assessment is 1 (score for the module) User B concludes: module does NOT what it claims to do: User B assessment is 0 (score)

Module score is 0.8 (most reviewers agreed that it does what it claims to do)

User A reputation gained from their review of this module is 1 - abs( 1 - 0.8 ) = 0.8 User B reputation gained from their review of this module is 1 - abs( 0 - 0.8 ) = 0.2

If both users have previously gained a reputation of 1.0 from 10 reviews (where everyone agreed on the same assessment, thus full scores):

User A new reputation: ( 1 * 10 + 0.8 ) / 11 = 0.982 User B new reputation: ( 1 * 10 + 0.2 ) / 11 = 0.927

The basic idea being that all modules in the decentralized review database would have a review count which everyone could filter by, and find the least-reviewed modules (presumably weakest links) to focus their attention on.

If technically feasible, a decentralized database should prevent any given entity (secret services, botfarms) to falsify the overall review picture too much. I am not sure this can be accomplished - especially with the sophistication of the climate-destroying large language model technology. :/

Liz ,

I know nothing about how flatpak works other than that it’s containerized. But this meme tells me it’s the OS’s responsibility to create the flatpak, and not the developer’s? Is that right?

fruitycoder ,

No the most common way is for devs to package their own software as a flatpak since you can typically choose your preferred packaging tool to use inside of the flatpak.

Traditional package management typically is done by the distro maintainers.

Liz ,

Oh I see, I’ve got it backwards.

uis , (edited )

Meanwhile almost everything I ever wanted is either in main Gentoo repo or in there is overlay with it.

Illecors ,

Honestly, main + guru has not made feel like anything’s missing at all.

uis ,

Main + kdab + steam

Ephera ,

I am inclined to write “Main +” and then just some random words, to see if you guys could tell they’re not repos. 🙃

uis ,

Guru is Project:GURU, kdab is KDAB overlay for hotspot profiler and steam is steam-overlay

Ephera ,

Sure, but through your link, I found the list of projects. In hopes that a project always has a repo associated, here comes the quiz: Can you guess which 2 of these projects I made up? 🙃

Main + Artwork + Astronomy + Biology + Chemistry + Electronics + Geosciences + Mathematics + Physics + Psychology + Science + Retirement + Emacs + GNU Emacs + Spacemacs + XEmacs

I did expect there to be lots of random words, but man, I seriously had to think for a moment to find a field of science that isn’t covered…

uis ,

I seriously had to think for a moment to find a field of science that isn’t covered…

And you choose phsycology… Medicine would be less obvious.

For my second guess I was choosing between retirement and spacemacs. As it turns out, Project:Retirement is a thing.

Also Project:Main doesn’t exist. So you made up 3 projects.

That list I and person I replied to posted was list of overlays.

Ephera ,

Welp. I didn’t want to make it too difficult either, especially with how funky some of the real projects are. Would be cool, though, if more psychology software existed. Surely, there’s a lot you could do with video games / simulations.

gh0stcassette ,
@gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

If you really hate flatpak just make an arch distrobox and download off the AUR. Or install Nix or something

TheRedSpade ,

That’s what I’ve done with my deck. Some things just aren’t available through discover, and the Firefox build on there has behavior that I don’t like or know how to correct. Distrobox gives me access to the Arch repos + AUR with persistence that you can’t get on SteamOS without it.

gh0stcassette ,
@gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

SteamOS is an arch derivative, so you could also just install arch, add the SteamOS repos, and set the steam UI in gamescope to launch on login

Presi300 ,
@Presi300@lemmy.world avatar

Or just use Arch… only for half of your AUR packages to be broken and end up still using flatpaks anyways.

ILikeBoobies ,

I do sort of wish Nix was a more popular distro agnostic solution

gentooer ,

Install Gentoo and put the package on GURU, it’s really easy (and .ebuild > PKGBUILD)

e8d79 ,

Haters aren’t worth listening to. Doesn’t matter if it is flatpak, systemd, wayland, or whatever else. These people have no interest in a discussion about merits and drawbacks of a given solution. They just want to be angry about something.

renzev OP ,

I know, right!? Add gimp to that list as well. I can go on and on about shortcomings of gimp despite being a happy user. The average gimp hater, on the other hand, doesn’t have anything to say besides “the UI is dumb and I can’t figure out how to draw a circle”

Feathercrown ,

“The UI is unintuitive” is a legitimate complaint

uis ,

“Intuitive UI” results in Gnome.

gh0stcassette ,
@gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Is it really intuitive if I have to open dconf-editor to change the system font?

uis ,

They call it “intuitive UI”, Linus calls it “‘users are idiots, and are confused by functionality’ mentality of Gnome”

Feathercrown ,

It’s not always a zero-sum game.

uis ,

Elaborate? Most of good UI comes from KDE.

Feathercrown ,

What I mean is, makingg a UI more intuitive does not necessarily make it more… Gnome-ey? It can still be effective, customizable, etc.

uis ,

“Intuitive UI” crowd usually means Gnome-ey/Apple-ey design.

In reality customizable design is more intuitive, because you can customize it to your intuition.

raspberriesareyummy ,

kate editor would like to have a word… They did my lady kate dirty with the latest updates :( The top level File menu was so much better and now I don’t know where to find the configuration to get that back, and have on my work computer a stupid single button in the top right corner which opens the “menu bar”, except vertically…

someacnt_ ,

Wayland gets the hate because compositors are authoritative so you cannot e.g. install your own window manager, taskbar, etc. It would be good if there were specifications governing these, but there isn’t.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •