Based on some recent news, and an interaction I had.
-
@nelson@wetdry.world Flatpak W ngl
People that use other init systems always have a stick up their ass about non-native packaging anyways, it won't make a difference@julia@eepy.moe @nelson@wetdry.world flatpak is great , but also isnt this kind of a weird hill to alienate contributors on ?
also , the reason people like native packaging is exactly because of stuff like this .. if flatpak allowed more community input, im sure most people would feel the same way?
-
@julia@eepy.moe @nelson@wetdry.world flatpak is great , but also isnt this kind of a weird hill to alienate contributors on ?
also , the reason people like native packaging is exactly because of stuff like this .. if flatpak allowed more community input, im sure most people would feel the same way?
-
@nelson@wetdry.world @julia@eepy.moe yes i agree , thats how i feel too!! sorry i mightve phrased it wrong
-
@nelson@wetdry.world @julia@eepy.moe yes i agree , thats how i feel too!! sorry i mightve phrased it wrong
-
@julia@eepy.moe @nelson@wetdry.world flatpak is great , but also isnt this kind of a weird hill to alienate contributors on ?
also , the reason people like native packaging is exactly because of stuff like this .. if flatpak allowed more community input, im sure most people would feel the same way?
@fiore@brain.worm.pink @nelson@wetdry.world the point of flatpak is to decrease ecosystem fragmentation and provide stable runtimes for applications
supporting entire different multiple different OS stacks is contrary to that goal -
@fiore@brain.worm.pink @nelson@wetdry.world the point of flatpak is to decrease ecosystem fragmentation and provide stable runtimes for applications
supporting entire different multiple different OS stacks is contrary to that goal@julia @fiore what flatpak does at a fundamental level is setup containers and os-tree, there is no need and there has been no need to depend on systemd as long as the protocols are properly implemented, such as the freedesktop xdg-portal and wayland stuff
what flatpak does amazing is that it was able to support and depend on a specific subset or intersection of several systems at once, it doesn't matter how weird your system is because i'm pretty sure flatpak can be packaged for it, and thus, everything else can work for it
what this is doing is to make it much harder for weirder systems to ever get flatpak and thus lose a lot of support from those with intent of supporting linux as a platform
-
@fiore@brain.worm.pink @nelson@wetdry.world the point of flatpak is to decrease ecosystem fragmentation and provide stable runtimes for applications
supporting entire different multiple different OS stacks is contrary to that goal@julia@eepy.moe @nelson@wetdry.world imean i guess i havent rlly looked into why flatpak would even need to depend on systemd so i dont rlly have anything interesting to reply here
but if the point is cross distro compatibility, deciding to cater only to Some Distros , with a technology that is to be completely honest kinda falling apart on itself (lets face it , systemd is not in its golden days anymore and hasnt been for a while, while alternatives have been getting a lot nicer to use), kinda makes no sense to me ? but idk , i rlly should look more into it i think .
-
@julia @fiore what flatpak does at a fundamental level is setup containers and os-tree, there is no need and there has been no need to depend on systemd as long as the protocols are properly implemented, such as the freedesktop xdg-portal and wayland stuff
what flatpak does amazing is that it was able to support and depend on a specific subset or intersection of several systems at once, it doesn't matter how weird your system is because i'm pretty sure flatpak can be packaged for it, and thus, everything else can work for it
what this is doing is to make it much harder for weirder systems to ever get flatpak and thus lose a lot of support from those with intent of supporting linux as a platform
@julia @fiore what could actually cause some real issues when it comes to "supporting entire different multiple different OS stacks" could probably be drivers or some weird kernel level stuff, but for the most part, most of the userland essentially disappears for an application that's built for flatpak as a platform
-
@fiore@brain.worm.pink @nelson@wetdry.world the point of flatpak is to decrease ecosystem fragmentation and provide stable runtimes for applications
supporting entire different multiple different OS stacks is contrary to that goal -
@julia@eepy.moe @nelson@wetdry.world imean i guess i havent rlly looked into why flatpak would even need to depend on systemd so i dont rlly have anything interesting to reply here
but if the point is cross distro compatibility, deciding to cater only to Some Distros , with a technology that is to be completely honest kinda falling apart on itself (lets face it , systemd is not in its golden days anymore and hasnt been for a while, while alternatives have been getting a lot nicer to use), kinda makes no sense to me ? but idk , i rlly should look more into it i think .
-
@pj@donotsta.re @julia@eepy.moe @nelson@wetdry.world @claude review
-
-
@pj@donotsta.re @julia@eepy.moe @nelson@wetdry.world @claude review
Yeah I don't consider that anyhow related because it does not affect dev process -
@fiore@brain.worm.pink @nelson@wetdry.world the point of flatpak is to decrease ecosystem fragmentation and provide stable runtimes for applications
supporting entire different multiple different OS stacks is contrary to that goal@julia @fiore @nelson julia hi this is an L I thibj.
flatpak itself is the abstraction you as the software dev target to make your software work on the weird distros without needing to care about them in specific. this is counter to pretty much half of the entire selling point of flatpak (the other half is the sandboxing) -
Yeah I don't consider that anyhow related because it does not affect dev process
-
Yeah I don't consider that anyhow related because it does not affect dev process
@pj@donotsta.re in any case , i am a happy systemd user on my servers . what im trying to say is that the push towards alternatives is there , and is something many people advocate for, and work actively towards . binding yourself to outdated technology is a bad idea imo..
-
-
@julia @fiore @nelson julia hi this is an L I thibj.
flatpak itself is the abstraction you as the software dev target to make your software work on the weird distros without needing to care about them in specific. this is counter to pretty much half of the entire selling point of flatpak (the other half is the sandboxing)@kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work @julia@eepy.moe @nelson@wetdry.world this is kinda like what if chromium decided to only work on windows . not rlly but . kinda
-
@pj@donotsta.re in any case , i am a happy systemd user on my servers . what im trying to say is that the push towards alternatives is there , and is something many people advocate for, and work actively towards . binding yourself to outdated technology is a bad idea imo..
Ok, so I'm like with you until "outdated technology" because where in the hell is systemd an "outdated technology" (as a project and its author that always has been striving to provide best Linux Desktop experience)?
@fiore -
Ok, so I'm like with you until "outdated technology" because where in the hell is systemd an "outdated technology" (as a project and its author that always has been striving to provide best Linux Desktop experience)?
@fiore@pj@donotsta.re outdated since alternatives have been consistently been able to provide better performance with simpler and more portable systems.
