I’m admittedly yelling at cloud a bit here, but I like package managers just fine. I don’t want to have to have a plurality of software management tools. However, I also don’t want to be caught off guard in the future if applications I rely on begin releasing exclusively with flatpak.
I don’t develop distributed applications, but Im not understanding how it simplifies dependency management. Isn’t it just shifting the work into the app bundle? Stuff still has to be updated or replaced all the time, right?
Don’t maintainers have to release new bundles if they contain dependencies with vulnerabilities?
Is it because developers are often using dependencies that are ahead of release versions?
Also, how is it so much better than images for your applications on Docker Hub?
Never say never, I guess, but nothing about flatpak really appeals to my instincts. I really just want to know if it’s something I should adopt, or if I can continue to blissfully ignore.
Yes. Yes you can.
Ignore it. Move on.
You’re just not the target user.
The whole OCI mindset is geared towards absolute noobs like me, and cloud native devs that develop inside containers on a daily basis.
Take me for example. I use Bazzite, it’s the first distro I couldn’t break. On top of that, flatpaks, appimages and brew are my only options for software. Since Bazzite is an atomic distro (think immutable ) I could also use Distrobox but I don’t want to deal with it.
Everything just works for me, I don’t care about anything. I broke so many distros before. Sure, I don’t control every nut and cranny but I don’t want to.
If you know how to not break your stuff then that’s great, but I don’t, and I don’t want to learn that. I just want to learn other things.
I just use it if the package/dependencies aren’t available or functional in the default arch repo. I like to be able to turn nuts and bolts but also avoid it when it’s inconvenient.
2 package managers is fine for me.
Not to be that person, but you aren’t restricted to those solutions for software, that’s what
rpm-ostreeis there for. It layers applications over your system image and installs software in a similar manner to a “normal” package manager.rpm-ostree is intended to be the last resort because layering causes issues with updates and other things
Sure, I was just saying that you could use it and aren’t necessarily restricted to the other options.
I’ve used it here and there when there is no other option, still no problems yet for the OS itself, but I have run into issues installing certain things, most likely due to my lack of knowledge.
I think I may be giving arch another shot soon as my needs have changed and it was so godamn close to everything I needed.
As someone who develops an distributes a small application exclusively on Flathub, I prefer that everyone uses the exact same package on every system. That way I know that if something doesn’t work, the issue should be easy to reproduce.
Recently, there was a situation where a user indicated in the comments of a release announcement that a newly introduced feature “doesn’t work”. It turned out that they installed a third-party package from the AUR (that wasn’t updated yet) without knowing that this isn’t the official and up to date version.
It just has to always be the first question in a big report or forum question. Have they verified their issue with the Flatpak version?
I prefer packages from the AUR myself but I do not expect the software authors to support me. Distros need to support their own packages but the AUR is not part of the Arch distro. Arch does not support the AUR. The only support I should expect would be from the package author (the AUR package) and they likely do not have the ability.
I think the right way to understand Flatpak is that it is essentially its own Linux distro without a kernel. You have to be running that version if you expect support. People think of Flatpak as a “sandbox” which it is. But it is also like running an app in a Docker container or Distrobox where you have to pick a distro to run in the container. With Flatpak, you are running on the “freedesktop” distro. It is not the same environment as the rest of your system (right down to the filesystem layout and C library).
This seems to be a dependency failure.
I’m sad that we had this solved 20 years ago. It’s like Texas measles.
What do you mean by this? Flatpak definitely solved the Linux distro balkanization problem for application developers without trying to destroy the benefits of having different distros. Having a distinction between system software, utilities, and advanced end user applications does solve a problem.
I don’t develop distributed applications, but Im not understanding how it simplifies dependency management. Isn’t it just shifting the work into the app bundle? Stuff still has to be updated or replaced all the time, right?
That’s correct. This simplifies the dependency management system because not every distribution ships with every version of every package, so when software requires a version of a package that the distro dosesn’t ship with or have in its repositories, the end user has to either build the package from source, or find some other way to run their software. Flatpaks developers will define the versions of dependencies that are required for an application to run and that exact version is pulled in when the flatpak is installed. This makes the issue of every distro not having every version of every package moot.
Don’t maintainers have to release new bundles if they contain dependencies with vulnerabilities?
They don’t have to, no. But they absolutely should.
Is it because developers are often using dependencies that are ahead of release versions?
Sometimes, yes. Or the software is using a dependency that is so old that it’s no longer included in a distro’s package repositories.
Also, how is it so much better than images for your applications on Docker Hub?
I would say they’re suited to different purposes.
Docker shines when availability is a concern and replication is desired. It’s fantastic for running a swarm of applications spread across multiple machines automatically managing their lifecycles based on load. In general though, I wouldn’t use Docker containers to run graphical applications. Most images are not suited for this by default, and would require you install a bunch of additional packages before you could consider running any graphical apps. Solutions to run graphical applications in Docker do exist (see
x11docker), but it doesn’t really seem like a common practice.Flatpaks are designed to integrate into an existing desktops that already have a graphical environment running. Some flatpaks include the packages required for hardware acceleration (Steam, OBS) which can eliminate the need for those packages to be available via your distro’s package manager.
What this means is that a distro like Alpine Linux that doesn’t have an
nvidiapackage in its repos can still run Steam because the Steam flatpak includes thenvidiadriver if you have an nvidia GPU installed.Never say never, I guess, but nothing about flatpak really appeals to my instincts. I really just want to know if it’s something I should adopt, or if I can continue to blissfully ignore.
¯_(ツ)_/¯ It’s a tool. Use it when it’s useful, or don’t.
Thanks for the detailed answer. I think I have a clearer picture of the problems it’s trying to solve and the solutions it’s delivering.
It also now seems connected to immutable distros I’ve also heard about recently. So I guess the idea there that the OS is just a tiny core set of libraries that never have to change, then the applications have their dependencies bundled, instead of requiring them as system dependencies.
I’m not convinced it’s something I want as a user, but more importantly not something I need.
From a development perspective, it seems downright seductive, allowing almost total freedom of opinion.
As a user I definitely want flatpaks and use them over distribution packages whereever possible. First I can sandbox the flatpak, but not the native package. Why would my browser need to be able to read my ssh keys?
Secondly I just have seen too many distro packagers sabotaging packages in the most braindead ways possible. Debian removing almost all the random data during key generation because some static analysis tool did not like the code. To this day there are servers using one of the 32k keys debian could produce during that time (they are of course all brute forced by now). Fedora removing Codecs from a video encoder, dependencies that upstream knows are broken and listsmas such in its documentation being used anyway. Random patches being applied, or versions years out of date getting shipped…
I personally like flatpak and its build system. Flatpak applications are sandboxed by default and don’t require root during any part of installation, reducing the risk of malicious/broken software damaging the host. They also are available for basically any base distro, meaning i can use the same apps if a ever distrohop and i can even just copy over the config folders as if nothing happened.
Just as my two cents, as a user - I like flatpaks because I can have up to date versions of certain applications on a more stable Debian base. I also like that application configs all go in one spot (~/.var/app/com.Example.example), and having granular permissions management per application.
This is what’s so great about Linux, you can use whatever the hell you want.
Flatpaks provide some cool security functionalities like revoking network access to a specific application. Maybe you care about this, maybe you don’t.
My personal policy is to always install from the repos. Occasionally something is only available in flathub, which is fine for me. I really understand how hard is maintaining something for every single package manager and diatributions and totally respect the devs using a format that just works everywhere. If I were to release a new Linux app, I would totally use flatpak.
I really understand how hard is maintaining something for every single package manager and distributions
But for apps distributed in your system’s package manager, it’s not the devs that are distributing them in every package manager. It’s the distribution itself that goes to each repository, checks and tests the dependencies they need and creates the package for the distribution, along with a compiled binary.
When they aren’t offered in the distro’s package manager (or the version is outdated because the distro isn’t rolling release) things become more complicated indeed, and sometimes you can’t even do it because the dependencies are older than the ones you require.
Same boat. As a user, I greatly prefer everything to come from the repos. However, as a distributor, Flatpak makes so much more sense.
The only Flatpak I have installed is pgAdmin. I looked at the build on Flathub with the idea of porting the package myself but got scared off. It was a maze of Python dependencies running in Electron. That seems like exactly the kind of thing that may be better off in its own sandbox.
I like package managers just fine. I don’t want to have to have a plurality of software management tools.
Same. I grumble when I have to install things through the AUR. I’d prefer if it was in the official repos.
can continue to blissfully ignore
That’s what I’ve been doing. I haven’t run into a situation where I’ve needed to mess with Flatpak. 🤷 Curious to hear other folk’s experiences though.
Also for your consideration, Flatpak seems to be mainly used for desktop GUI apps. You’ll still need your regular package manager to install CLIs. So… if you wanna keep your software management tools to a minimum…
The AUR is a different kettle of fish entirely, though. I do see your point, but the AUR is solving a problem common to all distros; hosting a repository for applications that there isn’t willingness or capacity to host in the official binary repos.
Installation, removal, dependency management, etc are all still handled by pacman. As others have pointed out there are great tools available to aid in AUR usability. My favorite is aurutils.
doesn’t
yaysimplifies the AUR installation? Things have been pretty easy for me after I started usingyayyaysimplifies the AUR installationSimple to me means not having to install some random extra tool and just using
pacmanlike normal. That’s why I grumble.Haa understood. In that perspective yes it is not simple. I would also be happy if
pacmanhad better support for AUR.But I have a different perspective on this. I always look for the right or the best tool available to do something. So I’m not that hesitant to use another tool for AUR. I guess it’s a personal preference after all.
You don’t have to use an AUR helper, you could build it all with makepkg, but the helper just allows you to save time searching, downloading, and building.
I might be an exception here, but I really like flatpaks. I like their sandboxed nature and using Flatseal, you can cherry pick the permissions you want to give to a flatpak application. Don’t want to give n/w access, boom done, like that. And finally if anything goes wrong, delete the app data and you are fresh to go. Also from a security standpoint, you can grand or deny access to specific directories and most apps don’t have root access.
I love Flatpaks. It’s always the default for me and I use Arch. Packages from the Arch repos or the AUR are almost always the last resort.
The risk of dependency vulnerabilities is real.
Also, flatpak packages are not digitally signed, unlike apt and all other major Linux distro package managers.
Do you have a resource I can take a look at for what this implies at what it accomplishes?
Sure, here are some:
http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/259088/ddg#270934
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature
The main feature would be that if flathub (or a hacker with access to flathub) acted maliciously, digital signatures would prevent them from issuing malware infested updates to flatpaks. Only the software’s originator would have the cryptographic key needed to sign releases of the software.
FLOSS used to include the ability to build software. Perhaps that’s not important anymore but now a days some developers don’t attend problems with their build recipes because they only consider what they release through binaries, whether on flatpak or whatever other binary repository they like. At least I dislike that, it’s ok to me some or most users would prefer to grab a bloated binary rather than building anything, but that doesn’t mean forgetting about those actually wanting to build from source, or wanting to use shared libraries and software from their distros, actually that’s a requirement for free/libre software repositories. Not sure if the tendency is to move the gnu+linux users into app stores like the ones on windows, now ubuntu snaps, android play store and the like. Sure there’s more security with sandboxing, but nothing one can’t get with firejail, and if wanting MAC as well then firejail + apparmor for example.
At any rate, just my little rant. And if you’re wondering, I use AUR on Artix, and I really hope I won’t have a need for a flatpak stuff.
I never use flatpaks and am doing just fine. I don’t want my packages to be installed from a bunch of different places; I want it all managed by one package manager, which for me is my distro package manager. I’ve never noticed a problem arising out of not using flatpaks; everything I want is either already packaged for me, or I can make a package myself.
Yes you can. I do. If a software does not offer build instructions, which is rare, I just do not use it.
The build instructions for all flatpaks are in one repo, you could build it yourself and maintain your own registry if you wanted.
It depends a bit on perspective and use-case, really. A flatpak’d application can be a fully-featured (all dependencies bundled) package in order to be portable. However, most flatpaks you might commonly encounter don’t quite do this. A good portion of the libraries may be distributed in common runtime packages. This will be the case if you use flatpaks from Flathub or Fedora. There still can be bundled libraries with vulnerabilities, but in many cases, there are basic dependencies from external, common library sets.
As far as varying dependency versions, a developer may be on a host with either newer or older dependencies than expected by the user, but as long as the developer’s application (and any unique libraries) are compiled against a common runtime as previously mentioned, it does make distribution to a wide variety of distros (LTS, 6-month, and rolling alike) relatively easy.
In comparison to OCI images (the kind of images that make up Docker, Podman, and a good portion of Kubernetes container images), flatpaks are a bit less extreme. Flatpaks contain much the same kind of files and structure that a standard distro package would, but simply get sandboxed into their own environment (via bubblewrap). Additionally, flatpaks don’t necessarily need system-level access for installation and usage (full userland confinement). It heavily depends on host environment and configuration, but typically OCI containers are a full, minimal, immutable filesystem structure run in a virtual environment. Not quite a virtual machine, as (in Linux anyway) they are run on the host (almost always in a sandbox) without extensive virtualization capabilities being needed. The general difference in security capabilities depends on the differences in sandboxing between a flatpak behind bubblewrap and an OCI container’s runtime sandboxing. There is also the notion with OCI containers being able to run as virtualized users, including root. With OCI containers that can obtain root access and a flaw in the sandboxing of say Docker in its standard rootful mode could allow for root level processes in the sandbox to act upon the host.
From what I can think of in comparison, there is the big problem with Flatpak in that it really isn’t suitable for packaging command-line applications: only GUI applications and libraries. OCI container images are often tailored for running web apps and other persistent CLI applications
deleted by creator
This is exactly how I do things too.
