Its even worse when you force Firefox to use wayland its icon doesn’t even show.

Edit: Oh since everyone now is confused; I only have the flatpak version of Firefox installed yet it doesn’t use the pinned icon and doesn’t even use the firefox icon under wayland at all.

  • λλλ@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just feel like you could have provided alternatives? How is it solved? Genuine question…

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Package managers like apt or rpmn(or whatever for your distro) are the standard way to install software. If there’s a good reason to avoid them, OK, but no good reason was stated here.

      • zbecker@mastodon.zbecker.cc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        @orcrist @lambda

        There definitely is a problem that flatpak is trying to solve. That problem is dependency hell.

        This most often (or rather most famously) occurs with python packaging. Sometimes you can have one package that requires a version that is incompatible with another version that another package requires. That’s why people use python venv these days (or just use pipx).

        IMO a better way of solving this is with nix. With nix, it doesn’t require a container, it just builds in isolation.

        Thing is, this will probably end up a VHS vs Beta Max.

        • λλλ@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I am very impressed by nix. I have tried nixOS and it was very nice. But, I might have to try the package manager as a standalone to see how I like that.

          • zbecker@mastodon.zbecker.cc
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            @lambda a lot of people do nix-env -ia nameOfPackage. I would recommend doing it properly with a file, and you just direct that command to the file (I would probably setup an alias). It gives you that declarative nature that nix is known for.

              • zbecker@mastodon.zbecker.cc
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                @lambda they should if you use the single user command. The command that does it for the whole system requires root access, something you don’t have on the deck.

                • λλλ@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You can get root very easily. But, updates wipe out all but your home directory. So, I think you’d do the single user that you are referencing for that reason.

                  • zbecker@mastodon.zbecker.cc
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    @lambda

                    Oh I didn’t know, I just remembered reading that it utilizes an immutable filesystem and thought that it also doesn’t give root access as well. That’s good to hear though.

    • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Basically you install the application inside a little OS with dependencies each time you install a flatpak, that OS is rarely updated with security patches and most of the time has full access to the host OS. https://flatkill.org/

      This is a lazy and insecure way of distributing applications with no real benefits.

      • Hovenko@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly. The QA of flatpaks is done in “trust me bro” framework. You can just go back to windows at this point.

        If I install a package on my distro I know it went through a shitload of testing and I can be sure I am not installing some crap on my system.

        • λλλ@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t know what distro you use, but packages in their repos have “maintainers” that are usually volunteers. Downloading from repos from the distro is trusting whoever the maintainer is there. I don’t see how that is any better than a flatpak… At least with Flatpak many packages are maintained by the developer. I believe that would be more secure.

          • Hovenko@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Major distros are usually backed by a compamny which provides enterprise version. Maintainers are actually employees paid for their work. Even if you pick a derivate distro you will inherit that testing process. So please get your facts straight before talking, you obviously need it. Here how it is done: https://openqa.opensuse.org Each package update, distro install process goes through automated testing. This detects bugs, dependency issues, you name it. If something fails package goes back for human review. And as you can see it is an open process which YOU can review any time.

            So… how are the flatpaks tested? Please show me some facts. I am interested in this new “trust me bro” QA framework.

            • λλλ@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You are very confrontational. I love being proven wrong so that I can learn more. But, your language is belittling. I hope my message didn’t come across that way.

              Either way, looking at DistroWatch OpenSuse is about the #10 most popular Linux OS. MxLinux, Linux Mint, Debian, and Ubuntu are all debian based and above OpenSuse. Debian is by volunteers according to the Debian Package Maintainers Guide. So, I would think that the most-popular distros (especially in the non-professional world) are maintained by volunteers.

              That comes with nuance though and I understand that. For instance, debian is celebrating 30 years. In that time I am sure many package maintainers have probably done this for very long amounts of time. So they are probably more worthy of trust than some Flatpak maintainers. But, when a flatpak is maintained by the developer (not that common in my experience) I would trust them the most.

              Now, something I wasn’t aware of until someone else linked it is how bad Flatpak is as a sandbox. But, I never used it wanting a sandbox. I like it for the isolation of libraries (Dependency Hell). Updating my OS never breaks any packages, because the libraries are separated.

              As for qa testing. It would be on a per-package stand point. I see how helpful that is. But, I’m not installing any command line utilities through Flatpak. Just desktop apps, like browsers, game launchers, etc. So, maybe we are talking about different types of packages…

              I’m not convinced Flatpaks are inherently worse than packages from the OS’s repos themselves. But, I will be trying nix package manager as a replacement.

              • Hovenko@iusearchlinux.fyi
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You were responding to my reply to someone else… but ok I guess. I am not here to convince you about anything. It’s not my problem what you install on your thing. I just don’t like misinformation spread based on ones believes and feelings, belittling work of whole teams of maintainters and QA staff which is core of why you can trust Linux ecosystem. Them being paid or not is not being relevant.

                • λλλ@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You belittled the work of Flatpak maintainers.

                  Exactly. The QA of flatpaks is done in “trust me bro” framework.

                  Then you belittled anyone using Flatpaks.

                  You can just go back to windows at this point.

                  All I said was that they are not too different. You are right about some OS’s having paid staff who have setup some great QA to handle it though. But, at some point you are "trust me bro"ing someone, paid or not.

                  • Hovenko@iusearchlinux.fyi
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Then you belittled anyone using Flatpaks.

                    Not a single person including you here was able to show any hint of package maintenance process, QA standard any kind of security awareness.

                    All I said was that they are not too different. You are right about some OS’s having paid staff who have setup some great QA to handle it though.

                    And I am saying it’s an uneducated statement which fails to back itself miserably.

                    But, at some point you are "trust me bro"ing someone, paid or not.

                    Dude… really? Quite a desperate attempt to make an argument. Yes at some point people are just atoms stuck together … a human being is not different from rock if you twist the point of view enough. This is just you pushing smoke in the room because you have nothing to back up what you are saying. There is a huge difference in trusting blindly and trusting because you have transparency in processes and standards which are followed.

                    So if flatpak and distro repository is not so different… please show me any published standards or processes that are followed to ensure that flatpak is secure, up to date, without obsolete libraries. Would be cool to see there some transparency. Please show me that I am as secure and stable as while running OpenSuse on my machine at home.

    • zbecker@mastodon.zbecker.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      @lambda @BeigeAgenda

      Imo a better alternative to flatpak is the nix package manager, but as I said to the other guy this’ll most likely end up a VHS/betamax situation.

      Both things are trying to solve dependency hell in different ways. Flatpak just builds and runs everything in a container, where as nix sets up virtual environments and builds things in isolation with per package dependency trees in an effort to make builds entirely reproducible (to the point that no matter what system you compile on, you will get the same hash).

      Edit: as the other guy said, just use your systems package manager unless it doesn’t exist in the repo and you can’t be bothered to package it yourself. It’s the standard recommended method.