Conversation

Jarkko Sakkinen

Edited 9 days ago
Flatpak 2 driven by these cloud natives will be a catastrophe.

I'm not app developer but even I know what requirements there are from a platform to momentize on it.

#flatpak #gnome
2
0
0
@Flaky Breaking backwards compatibility to previous version.
1
0
1
@Flaky You can do that but with apps you need to be extremely conservative, not should at a conference that "NOBODY USES X11 ANYMORE" like the leader of this project did. It's not for apps then.
1
0
1

@jarkko @Flaky i dont think the guy who said that is a flatpak developer

1
0
0
@kayttaja @Flaky OK, that's good :-) Why he made then such a bold statement? Just interested. I only speak where I do.
2
0
1
@kayttaja @Flaky Yeah. One might be misled (like me). Thanks for correcting this!
1
0
1
@kayttaja @Flaky Intrusive take but I would base myself pure app platform on top of a subset of Win32 API. It's universally cross-compatible almost and Linux is now the best version of Windows.

And it's already done, as it could be derived form SteamOS
1
0
0

Jarkko Sakkinen

Edited 9 days ago
@Flaky @kayttaja It would be even cross-compatible with BSD distributions i.e., maxed out spread.
0
0
0

@jarkko @Flaky @kayttaja

The “cloud native” guy who said flatpak would hard-depend on systemd is not a flatpak developer.
https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/commits?author=castrojo

He was likely trolling, and others (including me) fell for the troll and amplified it.

1
0
0
@2something @Flaky @kayttaja I'm happy to be corrected and truly sorry that I fell for it :-)

I've also spent countless hours to enable Flatpak to my Buildroot build so kind of was sensitive topic. I'll continue using it and see what happens.

The way I approach GNOME is:

1. Minimal Buildroot packaging.
2. Pre-seed majority of GNOME stock from Flatpak.

It does this use case pretty well.
1
1
1
@2something @Flaky @kayttaja That has led to me googling stuff about the topic and not with that critical eye apparently. my mistake sorry!
0
1
1

@Flaky @jarkko how come GNOME is even related here? Flatpak isn't a GNOME project

1
0
0

@jarkko where did flatpak devs say that they're adopting cloud-native stuff?

1
0
0
@staticnoisexyz It was here in Mastodon: https://hachyderm.io/@jorge/116607961190448307

I'm not familiar with app ecosystem in general or what cncf does actually.
1
0
0

@jarkko ok so Jorge isn't a Flatpak developer and doesn't speak for the project (neither am I). Secondly, Flatpak is considering moving away from ostree to OCI images as a means of transport of applications. S. Wick talked about it in the previous LAS talk: https://lwn.net/Articles/1020571/ And that decision sounds very solid to me. Pretty much nothing changes for the application developer, it's just Flatpak making use of existing tools and technologies instead of making their own.

1
0
1
@staticnoisexyz OK, thanks for the explanation :-)
1
0
0

@jarkko @staticnoisexyz You may want to read https://barthalion.blog/flathub-internals-cdn/ and https://barthalion.blog/flathub-internals-cdn-and-deltas/ to understand why the current way of serving files fails short. Switching to OCI will make serving large blobs effectively much easier vs the current duct taping.

1
0
1
@barthalion @staticnoisexyz thanks, good to hear. seems that it's a good basis for what i'm doing after all :-)

have not seen anything this unprofessional for some time and that's why i fell for it, duh. lessons learned. i'll check the facts properly next time.
0
0
0