@mikegerwitz It's almost as if the purpose of snaps was to bypass the Debian development process and make installing proprietary software easy on Ubuntu

@bob @mikegerwitz isn't Snap and other similar stuff (Flatpack for example) designed to provide one build for all Linux distributions?

This is a known issue for standalone apps (games for example) where Linux is unreasonably hard to get right, because of the many distributions.

I always thought Flatpack, Snap, etc. were trying to solve that.

@bob @minitrope Yes it's a container system that I think works across many GNU/Linux distributions. I haven't researched it at all, but as long as it is free software, I have no problem with its existence; they're just using it for bad things. :)
@mikegerwitz @bob @minitrope That's the thing with the bundle strategy. FLOSS has never really had the problems Snap, Flat and Appimage try to solve. The only problem they solve is to install proprietary applications in Linux. They also introduce some major security issues as they might not get security updates. Instead of dedicated maintainers the whole stack.. dependencies and all will be a responsibility of the developer.

I haven't followed the last years or so development.. so things might have changed. I however will not touch a package like that until they fixed the security issues... also the extra bloat. Why do I have to have multiple versions of the same lib? Flatpack seems to be the better solution of the above though.

@shellkr @mikegerwitz @bob I don't agree. For a software developer that does not only target Linux, trying to accommodate more than one distribution is a pain, FOSS or not.
This is the main issue. These formats come from the FOSS community.

If the goal was to solve installing proprietary software then they would just maintain repositories and such. Ubuntu is notoriously known for non-free repos for example.

The rest are valid concerns but mostly technical issues, that I believe can be fixed.

@minitrope @bob @mikegerwitz How can that be? You only have to release the code freely available and then the community of that distro picks it up. They will package it and maintain it. While giving back valuable feedback.

As a developer you don't really have to bother with packaging unless you want to.. or have some obscure package nobody wants. You can do what you do best and focus on your project.

With bundles you also have to become a maintainer.... You have to know when a lib you use have a security update e.t.c.. Sadly there will still be people who install an older release and be vulnerable. They will not necessarily automatically get an update with the distributions package manager.
@minitrope @bob @mikegerwitz Also... you have Open Build System if you want to get out multiple binaries to multiple distributions.

@shellkr Yes so that's just delegating the work to someone else. Worse, it multiplies the necessary work by the number of distributions.

Here is a use case: I make a game, I want people to play it. Should I wait for the communities to pick it up? Does that even makes sense?

Another question, why are all these format maintained by FOSS communities if the only goal is to install proprietary software? Why don't they just maintain repositories like you just said?

@minitrope <delegating the work to someone else>
How is that worse? You focus on what you do best... and they focus on what they do best. The workload is shared.

<Here is a use case:>
If people on a distro wants it they will pick it up. Else they wont. Like it has always worked. It has never been an issue before.. so why would it now? Just give good build instructions and it will sort it self out.

<why are all these format maintained by FOSS communities>
Because they work for commercial companies and proprietary means money.

@shellkr This is magical thinking. One can't even get an rpm of Signal Desktop in this day and age. "Just release your code and $distro will package it" presumes a ready supply of labor which is not always present. Snap and Flatpak partly exist because of the "seriously, there's no $distro package of this?" problem.
@minitrope @bob @mikegerwitz

@deutrino @mikegerwitz @bob @minitrope

Fedora is notoriously bad at providing packages. This is a thing with the community. Look at most other distros and this is not really an issue... and what I said still apply. If the community want a package it will become available.

If you can't build a package you can always find someone to do it for you. Just as long as the source is readily available. You can automate builds via OBS to Fedora e.t.c.. if that is the case. Which is why I don't see this as a real issue for free software. With floss you can always find a solution. With proprietary you cant.

So in my mind bundle packages really only solves the issue for proprietary packages. Because that did not have a solution before.

...but you are right. Bundling packages do help distros with weaker communities. I didn't bring it up as this is (in my mind) mostly a Fedora specific issue.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Gamedev Mastodon

Game development! Discussions about game development and related fields, and/or by game developers and related professions.