Why promoting flatpak for PureOS Store?


#42

PureOS already includes libappimage0 in the repos. I think that there is an investigation of appimage internally, I’ll try and get more information on that.


#43

It’s a store, not a “shop”. The distinction may not matter but store nonetheless has connotations of a warehouse or storage area. The point for Purism is to have a place for apps that meet our critieria and may not be available for Debian.


#44

Maybe the term “repository” might be more appropriated? Even if “Store” is much more smartphone-ish, maybe it’s just me but I see “Store” as if there is something to sell (in the case of “free” smartphone stores you sell your privacy to get a service).


#45

You can see also: snaps

Here an example


#46

maybe it’s just a misunderstanding but i tought that flatpack was more of a rpm based distro thing. seeing as ubuntu uses snap and it’s a deb based distro like pureos i figured it would be snap not flatpack.

i miself think it’s a mixed bag of good and bad. an option should be given to the individual user to have the snap/flatpack or just use the classic distribution sistem. an integrated p2p system would be the power option though.


#47

My understanding with Snappy is that you have to use Ubuntu’s Snap store. This is just another form of vendor lock-in.


#48

flatpak, snaps, and appimages are all trying to take advantage of Linux kernel features that enable containers. The container format, if properly packaged, can obviate the need for a rpm and debs, and thereby be universal. flatpak does not rely on rpms or use any rpm technology.


#49

Flatpak is an incredible new technology and clearly the future of application packaging on Linux. I for one am very happy to see all the work being put into it, and look forward to seeing more and more adoption for it. I long for the day when I can have everything as a Flatpak and reap the benefits. As a long-time Arch user, I’ve already been switching over to Flatpak as much as possible, and am now planning a move to Fedora Silverblue.

The argument being made by OP’s enormous wall of text seems to come down to “distro maintainers are more trustworthy than the app developer”. That may or may not be true (e.g. with something critical like Tor Browser, I’d rather get it directly from the developers). But that doesn’t have anything to do with Flatpak at all. Flatpak is a packaging method. I think OP is actually talking more about Flathub, but even that has Flathub maintainers.

This is just a total non-issue. It’s like saying APT is evil because you could add random third-party repositories and install malware, or Pacman is evil because you could get malware from the AUR.