all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 1 week ago (5 children)

So, this is basically like flathub except filled with more AI slop?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    According to the site it is repackaging upstream binary releases in a flatpak rather than building anything. I guess for example you could point it at the official Krita app image and make it available that way rather than relying on the community flathub build.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

    So; flathub, but with less polished packaging, and more AI slop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I didn't see anything in particular talking about allowing apps which have used AI although they seem to be using agents to do the repackaging.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    The fact that simply opening the store gives you a faceful of AI slop (12 out of 15 apps on the front page), and the editor picks are almost exclusively slop or partially slopped (one application without explicit AI code in it), it does paint a pretty clear picture of them allowing more of it compared to flathub.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    Judged by what it does, not how it was written. The “AI slop” label is rampant — Flathub PR queues, Reddit, everywhere — and it routinely dismisses good software with no actual review behind it. FlatPark refuses that reflex: every app here was built, run, and reviewed against a published bar — the only labels we apply are ones we can defend

    Was it all reviewed by the same LLM that wrote all the text on the website?

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago

    Flatpak is opaque to system validation.

    This is just slop on foolish.

  • source