Free and Open Source Software

17953 readers

167 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Gaywallet@beehaw.org

alyaza@beehaw.org

What is the point of Flatpak, AppImage, Snap, etc? (beehaw.org)

submitted 1 year ago by hypevhs@beehaw.org to c/foss@beehaw.org

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I don't understand what problem they are meant to solve. If you have a FOSS piece of software, you can install it via the package manager. Or the store, which is just a frontend for the package manager. I see that they are distribution-independent, but the distro maintainers likely already know what's compatible and what your system needs to install the software. You enjoy that benefit only through the package manager.

If your distro ships broken software because of dependency problems, you don't need a tool like Flatpak, you need a new distro.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Shaul@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

BSD is FOSS, unless you are an idealogue.

BSD does not have distributions, those don't exist.

[–] yozul@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

BSD totally has distributions. Some versions of BSD are separate operating systems from each other, not distros, but things like GhostBSD or MidnightBSD are absolutely FreeBSD based distros.

[–] Shaul@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wrong, guess again. Read the websites.

[–] yozul@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You mean like where immediately on the front page of the GhostBSD website it says that it's built on top of FreeBSD code? Just because they don't use the term distro doesn't mean they're anything different.

[–] Shaul@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You stuck in the cult of Linux and projecting your mentality onto other things without deciphering each on their technical marits. You look at all software in Linux terminology rather than making a distinction to articulate correct phrasing in a cohesive manner.

[–] yozul@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

I call a spade a spade. If you can't handle two binary compatible versions of BSD being called distros just because it's a Linux term even though by every possible definition of that term that doesn't include the word "Linux" they absolutely are distros, that's your problem.

[–] furrowsofar@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It is now. It took most of the 90s for that to sort out plus a big lawsuite. The FSF started in the early 80s and Linux in the early 90s. Not sure BSD was available free to just anyone in 1991 when Linux became a thing.

[–] Shaul@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Linux is a bad attemot at copying UNIX. BSD comes from the orginal UNIX of the 70's. BSD was a summary of the patches, fixes, and other developents that was applied to the Unix codebase and then after the lawsuit took the original UNIX patches and started BSD 4.4-lite