this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
21 points (75.6% liked)

Linux

48356 readers
712 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r
21
Why can't flatpaks just work (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by ErnieBernie10@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I usually try to stay out of the whole snap vs flatpak discussion. Although I am just really confused as to why flatpak just does not seem to care about usability. You're trying to create a universal packaging format I would think the point of it is that a user can just install an app and after reviewing permissions it should "just work".

There are so many issues that yes, have simple solutions, but why are these issues here in the first place.

These are the issues that I have encountered that annoy me:

  • Themes, cursors being inconsistent (needs to be fixed manually with flatpak --user override
  • IDE's are unusable without extensions

At least snap provides an option --classic to make the app work. Please explain to me why flatpak just evidently refuses to take this same approach.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't say with any specifics but flatpaks are sandboxed on purpose, when you override something you're giving it more (or less) permissions than the developer thought they'd need. "Automatically giving permissions the developer didn't think they'd need" seems like a crazy thing to try to automate, no?

Check out Flatseal if you haven't already. It's a GUI for flatpak permissions. Might make your life easier in the future.

[–] ErnieBernie10@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah I understand the reason why it is the way it is. I think it should be simplified. Just a pop-up box asking the user if it's ok if flatpak gains Access to path x. That's what I have in my mind. Maybe with time it will improve.

[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you propose that they trigger that popup? How would flatpak or the application know to ask if you wanted to add those extra permissions?

[–] ErnieBernie10@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't know. It's only an idea.

[–] BaroqueInMind@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I can feel your anger and frustration in your messages here and I just wanted to say I think your idea is fantastic and you have an ally here to fight with you.

[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

It was mostly rhetorical. There's no way to know that you want the application to have extra access to some folder needed for your theme. That's the exact kind of thing that would be better handled on a user-input level. You applied your theme, you notice that it is broken with the app, you apply the new expanded permissions to get it to work with your theme.