you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 40 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I've never heard anyone say that Flatpaks could result in losing access to the terminal.

My only problem with Flatpaks are the lack of digital signature, neither from the repository nor the uploader. Other major package managers do use digital signatures, and Flatpaks should too.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I was just wondering the connection between flatpaks and the terminal because I’ve never heard of flatpaks before and Wikipedia says they’re a sandboxed package management system or something?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I've no real preference so long as my PC starts stuff. The reason I avoid flatpaks is because I have at some point acquired the habit of anything I install that's not an appimage I pretty much launch from the terminal and I remember trying flatpaks and them having names like package.package.nameofapp-somethingelse and I can't keep that in my head.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I've actually been discussing the idea of Flatpaks offering "terminal aliases", similar to what Snaps do, with some people involved in Flatpak. It's something that could happen in the future, but for now, you can totally create an alias to run a Flatpak from a single word, it's just a PITA.

  • source
  • parent