Blockquote Besides security patches. It means you are stuck with whatever software that is in the repository when the release comes out, no matter what and usually that software is already outdated from the start because of the need for “stability”
A lot of Debian distros now use flatpak for their apps, so being limited on old software isn’t as much of an issue as it once was.
I do agree that Gnome can look a little dated compared to KDE IMO. But some users like that as it takes them back to their Windows 7 days and feels comfortable for them. Personally I just like that KDE has everything in it with settings and I don’t have to add 100 add-ons to make it function how I want.
It is not Gnome being “dated”.
It is Debian, it takes too long to get a Stable Release so when it comes it is already outdated, then it takes years to the next Stable and then it gets ancient.
It is not a big deal with some things like XFCE that does not change much but with other things that is a very big issue, the more development is done upstream, the worse Debian release model.
Of course it depends on what each user needs, in my opinion the workstation - desktop can’t be that “stable”.
Flatpak is a very bad idea that pretty much negates the very concept of “distribution”.
What does a “distribution” distribute when you get applications from Flathub?
Debian has always leveraged on its huge repositories.
You take the repositories away because Flathub, what remains of Debian?
Then there is another issue: philosophically Debian has always wanted to distribute only software that can be compiled only from sources hosted on Debian. That is because Debian maintainers “guarantee” the safety and quality of the software. Having flatpaks from external sources is against this basic principle.
If you mean “addons” like Gnome extensions, yes, extensions are another bad idea, same as extensions from Chrome store that is known to store LOTS of malicious extensions and only automated testing. But again, the idea of distributing stuff from a “store” is the same as flatpaks, with the same issues.
Edit: I forgot. All the “atomic” distributions need a way to install software by making changes to the read-only parts of the system, instead of flatpaks and alike. The same software is a problem with Debian because you cannot get an updated version via flatpak so in theory your only option is backporting and that goes against “stability”.
Debian sounds like a safe haven for escaping Flatpak/immutable/Atomic
I preferred Ubuntu for its rep of being more updated than Debian, and haven’t really ran it as a desktop OS. Out of Fedora, openSUSE, and Ubuntu though, Debian was the only thing to boot and install without issue to a 512MB VPS in 2023. I’m not sure what Debian’s stance is on those 3 technologies, but I might give it a desktop-go if they aren’t prioritizing them currently.
GNOME extensions I also agree with being a questionable idea; I only use Hide Top Bar and grab it from GNOME’s extension website without too much concern, but had to compile it a few times for newer GNOME versions and like knowing the source I get the extension from and the details with installing it; I’m just assuming good-faith with GUI browser clicks
I was more referring to normal users. I don’t think developers would be using Debian as their base. When you have a look at what versions there are between the native version of other distros (like Fedora) and flatpak version for Debian, they’re often fairly close
I get that. It’s part of why some choose to use distros like Ubuntu, Linux Mint etc. Personally, it’s not for me and why I’m on Fedora.
Flatpak is a very bad idea that pretty much negates the very concept of “distribution”.
What does a “distribution” distribute when you get applications from Flathub?
Debian has always leveraged on its huge repositories.
You take the repositories away because Flathub, what remains of Debian?
I think that’s more a moral question your asking. A lot of the flatpaks are maintained by the same developers that put out the native versions of their software. Can there be malicious versions out there? Sure. Is there malicious windows software? Even more so than Linux. We could also say the same thing about the AUR in Arch, but that’s one of the drawing features people like about Arch. Flatpaks were designed to combat a problem of old software versions. It’s just one other way of getting the software you need to do the job.
Ubuntu is basically Debian Testing and Unstable.
The difference is Debian does not want anybody to use those instead of Stable.
I guess Debian would like to have an “atomic” Debian if somebody wanted to contribute for it and it doesn’t affect any current Debian. In other words, there are two problems in Debian regardless the technology, attracting contributors and making people do anything they don’t want to do.
About extensions:
Nope it is not “moral”, in my own language, which BTW is close to latin, “moral” means “what is right (to do)”.
Here we aren’t talking about what is right but about the meaning of words.
The word “distribution” means you distribute something. If you provide a link to Flathub you don’t distribute, you link, so we should say “linkibution” insteand of “distribution”.
The idea behind “to distribute” is somebody takes care of what gets distributed, so besides the meaning of the word “distribution”, I have to chose between some Fedora or Debian maintainer or some guy on Flathub.
It is quite explanatory that you wrote Windows, we all know where the “flatpak” idea comes from. You get Program Pinco as “setup.exe” from some download address, you click on it and you get the “installation”, that is a program in itself that executes with the root permissions. What could possibly go wrong, I would say.
Even worse when you write “drawing features people like”. I can think many things people like that at the end kill people. Selling drugs or alchool or guns or whatever is not in the best interest of people who buy those things, it is in the interest of people who sell.
Flatpak is not intended to better handle the updates, it si intended to get rid of the maintainer work and to get rid of repositories. Yes, LOTS of saved man hours. But the drawback is we get the worse feature from Windows.
Edit: sorry I forgot another little issue: bloat. Self contained applications bring all the needed libraries and stuff so again, instead the traditional “shared libraries” and the need to handle dependencies, you get the system with multiple copies/versions of the same resources.
The pros and cons of Flatpaks can long be debated. Flatpak and Flathub are two different things though. It is assumed (and probably confirmed by the maintainers) that Flatpaks from the fedora repo are as rigorously maintained and tested as their RPM counterparts.
Many Fedora project leaders would also argue that Flatpak as a concept, with its sandboxing features, if done right, brings more stability and security than RPMs will ever be able to do.
This is partly mitigated by application runtimes. Fedora does again a good job here, by maintaining one runtime (org.fedoraproject.Platform) for each branch (f40, f41 etc).
Settle down Bud.
Whether you agree how distributions wants to implement solutions in Linux is up to the individual. People are going to use Linux how they want and if it doesn’t, they’ll find a way to make it work. As I said, it’s just another way of getting things done on Linux. And it’s probably not going to be in line with what the distribution believes is the correct way.
You can also debate the pros and cons of flatpaks all day long. The fact is they’re available (as are many other packaging forms). If you don’t want to use that solution, you don’t have to. Nobodies going to die or turn to drugs by using them😁
First, let me say the idea of a distro re-creating a subset of Flathub in order to make flatpaks “trustworthy” goes against the very idea of those “distro-independent” and “self-contained” packaging and distributing technology.
Basically what happens is you have a probably outdated “native format” program (like RPM), a less outdated but still not syncronized and possibly different “distro-specific” flatpak and then the regular “last version” Flathub flatpak.
Then, in my opinion the real goal is to avoid the responsibility. Lets consider the “immutable” distros, the “stability” and “security” is given through the “read only system-image” then if you install some flatpak and if/when that destroys everything who cares, it is nobody’s responsibility but “the user”. It is a bit like my own bank when they say I am given the “app” for accessing my account but then if the phone gets hacked in any way and my banck account is compromised, it is my fault. Then I would need a “safe phone” provided by the bank (like the “immutable phone”) and I should not make any change on it, out of the “bank provided store” and “bank provided updates”, because as soon as I install something from a “generic store” the bank would say “you did it, not my fault” and I cannot go complaing to the “unknown” who provided the software on the “generic store”.
About the bloat, again, it is the wanted side effect of having multiple and async versions of the same stuff. Besides, it is the same for Windows since ever. If you want anybody to distribute software to anybody else you need a way to package it without caring of what is already installed, all you want to avoid is to remove somebody’s else stuff but it doesn’t matter what you add on top. That is the reason why the more stuff you install on Windows, the worse it works, read as “clean (re)install”. Microsoft doesn’t care because “you did it, not my responsibility”.
Well, long time ago I was said “if you don’t like it, code something else yourself”. In theory I could write my own kernel, then my own filesystem, drivers, then my own programs, maybe I should invent my own programming language and so on.
In the real world I need everything provided by somebody else.
The day Fedora quits the “traditional” distro and provides the “immutable” distro only, I must move to another distro because I don’t need either benefit from the “immutable” system features.
I go looking for something else but all the distros backed by big firms tend to converge on the same technologies, so I find like Ubuntu “immutable” with “snaps” or Opensuse with more or less the same and again I don’t need it.
At the end I am forced to Debian, with all the pros and cons and I must prey it works without “read the documentation” then “compile it yourself” which with my current energy state and will would lead to me jumping from the window.
Not sure I agree completely about more stuff = less performance (like, yeah, but nobody uses an OS without apps ), but that freedom is what I’m finding I like about Windows more lately.
The OBS Studio Flatpak ordeal revealed details I don’t like, but mainstream Linux is basically to be behind one of the sides of traditional rpm/deb (seemingly until phased out like Xorg), or Flatpak (and maybe Snap). Flatpak and Flathub are basically like sideloading a 3rd-party app store on iPhone, except it’s being used seriously.
I go to OBS’s website, get their official exe, double-click it on Windows, and it installs (I can practically count the keystrokes and mouse clicks).
AppImage seems like the best format cross-distro; I download an app, make it executable, and the same binary runs Ubuntu and Fedora, no problem, no inconsistency, and no 3rd-party app store with a mega-repo unvetted from my OS attached.
I tried Debian recently, but I got used to stuff being easier on Windows
I have switched from Workstation to Silverblue as my main Linux system less than a year ago. While both traditional and atomic variants have their pros and cons, I think atomic desktops also target an audience that traditional desktops still fail to do so. For instance, I have seen here on the forums almost no report of failed system upgrades from one major version to another in case of atomic desktops, as opposed to traditional ones.
And I have certainly seen no report of Flatpaks “destroying everything”.
There is currently a healthy debate within Fedora’s Workstation and Flatpak workgroups on what the role of Fedora Flatpaks should be going forward. There was no sign of avoiding responsibility in these debates, on the contrary, the common denominator was how to make sure the Fedora user gets the more stable and safe variant of Flatpaks, while adhering to the principle of providing open source software built from source on an infrastructure that can be trusted.
Maybe I cannot explain myself and this is not my native language.
“how to - Fedora user - more stable and safe VARIANTS of Flatpaks” is NONSENSE, the way already exists and it is RPM (or DEP or whatever) packages. It means to reinvent the wheel. The moment Fedora (or any other distro) must re-package flatpaks and must maintain a “local store”, it negates the main point of flatpaks that is “distro agnostic” software distribution, in other words, to give “developers” a way to publish software without caring of versioning and dependencies.
IMHO we are discussing a different topic.
That is THE WHOLE LINUX ECOSYSTEM moving from “traditional packages” to “snaps”, “flatpaks”, “appimags”, and so on.
Which, BTW, obviously comes with a fundamental change in the meaning of “distribution”, since with “atomic” they provide the “read only” system image and everything else depends on “the store”.
This whole architecture in my opinion is NOT in the interest of “the user” and it is what big firms like Microsoft, Google, Apple, are doing since ever.
Yes, of course I don’t consider “the user” from the point of view of providing software and services to corporate environments. In that case the “atomic+flatpaks” makes a lot of sense.
So all this discussion is about “linux” diverging from “general stuff” like “the universal OS” to “professional software and services”. Then, like I said, when Fedora or any other distribution aim to the corporate environment, at some point I have to either re-create a local-small-corporate-environment and adapt or I must find something else.
Note that in the corporate environment “the user” is not allowed to make changes, she/he is provided with a workstation by the company and must ask the system admins whenever she/he needs anything else. Which is a good thing since “the user” is the main door to penetrate the corporate network for hostiles. This again brings a nonsense because “the store” is unsafe so the “local-store” like Fedora’s flatpaks. The alternative is “not my fault” I wrote above. When “the user” breaks the system installing something from whatever source, she/he gets the blame and everybody is happy.
openSUSE builds it as an RPM in official repos and it looks good! Looks familiar with Windows Task Manager and I’m impressed it showed anything useful for an Intel iGPU
), but that freedom is what I’m finding I like about Windows more lately.
