this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
108 points (95.8% liked)

Linux

48008 readers
1194 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
108
Flatpak is only for graphical apps - Flatpak's biggest flaw? (iusearchlinux.fyi)
submitted 9 months ago by Libretto@iusearchlinux.fyi to c/linux@lemmy.ml
44 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I love Flatpaks, the programs are nicely separated so they don't interfere with each other. They also don't have flaws like Snap's low performance or Nix's complexity.

But being limited to only graphical apps seems like a real drawback. If one wants to use Flatpaks as their primary package manager there have to be some awkward workarounds for cli programs.

E.g., the prime Flatpak experiene is supposed to be on immutable distros like Silverblue. But to install regular cli programs you are expected to spin up a distrobox (or toolbox) and install those programs there.

Having one arch distrobox where I get my cli programs from will not work, as the package entropy over time will get me the very dependency issues that Flatpak wants to solve.

So what is the solution here? Have multiple distroboxes and install packages in those in alternation and hope the boxes don't break? Use Nix alongside Flatpak? Use Snaps?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Libretto@iusearchlinux.fyi 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

hey, I'm a bit overwhelmed by all the options you provide to install cli programs. There's nix, fleek, devbox, devcontainers, distrobox, incus, brew and probably even more options.

I just want one preferred way to install my cli programs globally, like on normal distributions, but it is not clear which option is the default one. After digging through posts on the forum I found out that the ubuntu distrobox with apt is supposed to be this default installation environment. Maybe make that clear when someone opens the host terminal on bluefin, or let the bluefin installer give this info to the user.

Even then, projectbluefin.io in the FAQ section suggests that homebrew is the creator's preferred installation method, not ubuntu. So which one should I use now? On one hand, bluefin's default DE is GNOME which is very simplified and has one correct workflow, on the other hand bluefin provides a multitude of choices all seeming equally viable, which is more in line with KDE's philosophy.

Also, why prefer homebrew over something like nix? AFAIK, homebrew leads to the same dependency issues that the traditional package managers have.

Additionally, what is making ublue hard for me is that all the important info seems to be scattered on the ublue website, blog posts and forum posts. I'd really like it if there would be one website which gives clear guidance for people who are new to bluefin (or bazzite etc.). Not explaining all of the possibilites, but just the most important stuff to get started. Just a really dumbed down, compressed version of the existing ublue guides. The users can figure out more themselves afterwards.

Something like:

  • install bluefin-dx (not the regular bluefin)
  • only install graphical stuff via flatpak
  • only use the ubuntu terminal for any terminal stuff, including cli program installation
  • do not use the host terminal unless you are doing host administration with ujust or rpm-ostree
  • etc.

These starter instructions may not be perfect, but at least then the users have a daily driver they can learn more about over time instead of having to learn everything before daily-driving ublue.

Thank you for all the hard work you guys are putting into this, I'm excited to see the project mature

[–] j0rge@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Maybe make that clear when someone opens the host terminal on bluefin, or let the bluefin installer give this info to the user.

We're working on a dynamic motd system that will give you some guidance when you first run the terminal. Here's the issue if you have some feedback! https://github.com/ublue-os/bluefin/issues/609

So which one should I use now?

Yeah the reason it's ubuntu by default is that's what the target audience uses, but we've been working on a wolfi/brew distrobox that ends up being a better experience, so we're mulling shipping that by default.

Also, why prefer homebrew over something like nix? AFAIK, homebrew leads to the same dependency issues that the traditional package managers have.

We picked homebrew because it's overwhelmingly the most popular package manager for cloud people and has everything people need. nix doesn't really fit in a container world, but we don't stop people from using it, and with devbox there's at least a common devcontainer pattern people can use. I haven't really run into dependency issues with homebrew but the new bluefin-cli container maintains state and is destroyed/rebuilt regularly so that hopefully won't be a problem.

scattered on the ublue website, blog posts and forum posts.

Yeah this is annoying and we're in the middle of consolidating docs, I'm hoping to streamline it by Fedora 40. I'm also working on a 10m "how to use this thing" video, it's just been hard to spend time on it when we're still making it. We're almost feature complete at this point so I'll start on this soon.

Your starter steps are exactly what we want the default to be, do you think we should say that more strongly? Thanks for your feedback! I think we can clean up a bunch of this stuff to make it easier.

[–] Libretto@iusearchlinux.fyi 1 points 9 months ago

Thank you for the answers and listening to the feedback.

Your starter steps are exactly what we want the default to be, do you think we should say that more strongly?

Yes, I'd definitely try to make it more clear to the user that the ubuntu/wolfi distrobox is the way to go and that all the other installation methods are just bonus for those who need it.

Also, I think it's a bit confusing for newcomers whether to choose bluefin or -dx. It seems like dx is always the better option, even if you end up not using all of the extra features