657
Fan of Flatpaks ...or Not? (lemmy.zip)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
242 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

And then there is software like OBS, which is known for being borderline unusable when not using the only officially supported way to use it on Linux outside of Ubuntu – which is Flatpak.

But why is that? I mean just because it is packaged by someone else does not mean its unusable. So its not the package formats issue, but your distribution packaging it wrong. Right? In installed the Flatpak version, because they developers recommended it to me. I'm not sure why the Archlinux package should be unusable (and I don't want to mess around with it, because I don't know what part is unusable).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    But why is that?

    Because the OBS developers say so.

    And since I’m not on Ubuntu, I use the Flatpak version to get OBS as intended bey the OBS developers.

    So its not the package formats issue, but your distribution packaging it wrong. Right?

    Exactly. Most distributions fail hard when it comes to packaging OBS correctly. The OBS devs even threatened to sue Fedora over this.

    https://gitlab.com/fedora/sigs/flatpak/fedora-flatpaks/-/issues/39#note_2344970813

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The quoted image does not say so, they do not say the native packaging from your distribution is borderline unusable. That judgement was added by YOU. The devs just state the package on Archlinux is not officially supported, without making a judgement (at least in the quoted image).

    As for the Fedora issue, that is a completely different thing. That is also Flatpak, so its not the package format itself the issue. Fedora did package the application in Flatpak their own way and presented it as the official product. That is a complete different issue! That has nothing to do with Archlinux packaging their own native format. Archlinux never said or presented it as the official package either and it does not look like the official Flatpak version.

    So where does the developers say that anything that is not their official Flatpak package is "borderline unusable"?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    The quoted image does not say so

    It does exactly say so. Flatpak is the only supported and official method of installation when you’re not using Ubuntu.

    As for the Fedora issue, that is a completely different thing. That is also Flatpak, so its not the package format itself the issue.

    Exactly. And the Flatpak version from Fedora was unusable.

    So where does the developers say that anything that is not their official Flatpak package is “borderline unusable”?

    They don’t. It’s just unsupported.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent