# [Fedora 41+] Add the IVPN repository
sudo dnf config-manager addrepo --from-repofile=https://repo.ivpn.net/stable/fedora/generic/ivpn.repo
# [Fedora 42+]
sudo dnf install iptables-legacy
# To install IVPN software (CLI and UI)
sudo dnf install ivpn-ui
# To install only IVPN CLI
sudo dnf install ivpn
A standalone rpm can be installed by double click, Gnome Software will open and offer to install it. But this app requires to add the repo of the vendor first, I don’t know how to do that in Gnome software. I encounter this scenario more often.
Is the same also true for Fedora KDE spin?
I just checked on a VM and it seems it offers the ability to include third-party Flatpack repo’s, but not for rpm’s.
(I use regular Fedora Workstation as my daily driver)
These questions have an underlying aim. I would like Linux as a desktop to be more accessible for the public. For which it is important that Linux can be used without a CLI. That is not the case, in my experience.
Though fedy is a great initiative, it is not a sufficient solution for what I am looking for.
This is my attempt to get a better understanding of how things work.
Note quite an answer to your question but if ivpn supports wireguard and openvpn you may not need their app but just configure the connection in Gnomes Network Manager…
FYI, gnome-software is just a front-end to your distros package manager, any repo has to be added using the package manager directly. For dnf there is no native GUI available like in some other distros.
Thanks, this is helpful, I just realized Gnome probably has to communicate with many package managers ..
I kind of already knew gnome-software to be “(just) a front-end”. But I don’t really know what it implies yet.
Am I correct to presume Gnome-software interacts with dnf to show repo’s and install rpm’s, and that Gnome has to create the same functionality again for each package manager?
If so, is the limit of functionality mainly a matter of trade-off’s for Gnome?
Along the lines of: limiting their workload and/or considering additional features to be the responsibility of the package managers.
Or is there some hard (technological) boundary preventing them from adding this and other features?
Do you have examples of distro’s offering a package manager with a GUI?
It wouldn’t be wise to give people the power, but not the knowledge. While not always the case, and excepting those who just blindly use any terminal commands they find on the internet, it is expected that users going to the terminal better understand what they are doing. There are also higher chances for these users to evaluate and trust a repository before adding it to the system.
Those only using graphical software managers such as GNOME Software, will be able access the software packages which the distribution is providing to the user via its own repositories, as well as those available optionally when installing the system (e.g. RPM-Fusion’s Nvidia repo).
However, with the recent growth of Flathub and Snap Store, as distro-agnostic app stores, Linux desktop users have a much higher chance of accessing the apps they need without a CLI than ever before.
Your argument regarding security has merit, and it stems from looking at the system, as is. I start from a different perspective.
Rpm’s (& co) are effectively the exe’s/dmg’s of Linux. Of course, Linux packages are designed and used differently from exe’s. And it is exactly these design differences and the additional use-cases that makes rpm’s shine in the CLI-realm and heighten the argument of safety. But from the perspective of a mainstream Windows/Mac user, rpm’s (and the like) are the closed Linux has to exe’s (and exe/dmg’s are not void of risk).
Global Linux desktop usage is about 3%. I think GUI installation is a requirement for this to ever change. That could happen if all GUI apps are available through Flatpack. But at present many software vendors don’t offer a Flatpack - for various and understandable reasons. So for now, I consider the possibility that complete Flatpack adoption may be a long way in the future.
A way to mitigate this gap would be to have rpm’s or deb’s to be installed graphically - for the same use-case as exe’s. I am definitely not the first with such a though, neither am I an expert. So I am trying to get a better understanding of what is and is not possible.
I hope people will help me by confirming or correcting my presumptions stated in previous posts.
I would say RPMs and the other similar packaging formats are rather Linux specific than similar to exe’s/dmg’s. They are distribution and distro-version specific, have strong dependency-management, integrity verification etc.
100% true.
Flatpak as a technology and Flathub as its main software store are seeing increased adoption. You might find these stats interesting. And with the increase of image-based Linux offerings, Flatpaks will gain even more traction IMO. RPM’s are here to stay, of course, but the decoupling of the base system and the GUI apps will be more prevalent.
FWIW, IVPN is offering its app as snap, so it’s quite possible that they will deliver it as Flatpak in the future as well.
While I’m sure it could be done, I question whether it would benefit Linux and its users. Linux is a community effort that relies on effective communication among members of the community. At present, text documents are by far the most widely used communication mode. Many Linux howto videos take 10’s of minutes to convey information that is available from text documents that could be read in a few minutes. There are good tools to translate text to many languages. Automated translation of speech are much less reliable and don’t convey spellings. Reading is much faster than speech and conveys precise spelling.