191
Signal usage survey, what versions do you use? Wanted for potential Flatpak adoption (community.signalusers.org)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
116 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

There are big wishes for Signal to adopt the perfectly working Flatpak.

This will make Signal show up in the verified subsection of Flathub, it will improve trust, allow a central place for bug reports and support and ease maintenance.

Flatpak works on pretty much all Distros, including the ones covered by their current "Linux = Ubuntu" .deb repo.

To make a good decision, we need to have some statistics about who uses which package.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Oh, the user above was mentioning slack, sorry.

Pycham is also proprietary. This is an unofficial repackage of the app done by volunteers.

It probably works fine just not for your workload. But I can imagine why someone would want to sandbox Pycharm...

And to your issues, have you even tried to poke holes in the sandbox? You can use KDEs settings or Flatseal.

Launching a terminal can be done via flatpak-spawn.

I think you dont get this. Flatpak is important. Linux is completely powerless, there are people installing invasive apps which then can do what they can on Windows. Compare that to Android (which is obviously way less complicated because of how apps are used).

Flatpak is a new system to build apps, of course it cant read some ~/.config directory thats the point. If you store stuff there you are used to a different way and will need to adapt. Or you use their official binaries.

Just because apps are not ready this doesnt mean it is not clearly the way we will do GUI apps. 800+ apps officially verified. We are approaching official universal Linux support here!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    No, I haven't tried to poke a hole in a sandbox. Generally speaking, if I have a choice between pacman -S <app> or "install with Flatpak and then fiddle with sandbox settings" I opt for the former. I get that you think this is important, and Flatpak is a nifty idea, but in terms of usability, it has failed me repeatedly to the point where I don't want to use it, so I don't.

    You seem to be coming from a position of "Flatpak good, so everyone must use it", which is nice, but it's naïve. Flatpak is ok, but it has usability problems, and since you want people to use it, usability is kind of important. It also introduces a frustrating divide from a user perspective. The idea that "desktop apps" should be installed via Flatpak, and everything else with a proper package manager is madness from a user's perspective. I don't understand how you can't see that, but you're going to have to accept it 'cause newsflash: not everyone thinks like you.

    Finally, packaging for Flatpack is a Pain In The Ass. I say this as someone who's tried it. The build system is clearly biased toward particular use cases and particular languages, which is great if you're in that camp, but for everyone else it comes across as impractical for the intended purpose.

    So yeah, it's great that this is important to you. Go ahead and develop the shit out of Flatpak, and maybe even work on the user experience some more. I'll keep having a look from time to time, but for now, it's not happening, and this attitude of yours, that the rest of us will just "need to adapt" to your preferred way of working... if I wanted that I'd use a Mac. GTFO.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Its easy. If you have a problem, report it. Instead of arguing about it they may have already fixed it.

    If you want to run a proprietary app unconfined, do so.

    But you also have to admit that reading some git config in a non flatpak directory is actively against the sandboxing principle, and thus requires manually allowing that access.

    Sure, flatpaks need more popups that do exactly that.

    Dividing "GUI apps" and other packages is easy. Go to a store, if it has an icon, install it via flatpak, if it has no icon, then you may not do that.

    Appstream metadata so to speak.

    Finally, packaging for Flatpack is a Pain In The Ass

    Agreed.

    okay maybe stop being so rude? Flatpak is the possibility for a secure system. We see how painfully slow adoption for that is on every Desktop, mac and windows too.

    But it is great to have this, and I am sure we could make your Pycharm work by applying that override. The rest has to be done by the developers and it is important to care.

    It is the same as with wayland, people need to change their software to ask for permission, follow standards and dont do weird shit. Only then the UX is solved.

    And by the way what is stopping you from just using some apps as native system apps, and flatpak for the rest?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Dude, you're the one being rude. I was done with this conversation yesterday and you just keep coming back like it's an argument you can "win" by insisting that I think like you and change my behaviour to be like you.

    You started the whole thread looking for input and when you didn't get the response you wanted you just berated the respondents telling then how wrong they were.

    I'm done here. You've forced me to go digging around Lemmy to see if there's a block function.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 years ago*

    Ok strange. I gave you a good and not one sided response.

    Like, totally strange. I dont see how my comment could have been offending in any way. You had a specific problem leading to a generalized conclusion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent