When Debian switched over to Systemd, there was fork made called Devuan that doesn’t use systemd.
That’s not correct. Debian distributes both SystemD and sysvinit. Any use that does not want to use SystemD can install the latter.
Additionally, the large majority of distribution switched to SystemD as default - often before Debian. This is in no way a Debian-specific topic.
Urgh. No, I was thinking of UIs that are information-dense and allow quickly scanning across long threads and thousands of messages, e.g. https://usenet-abc.de/wiki/uploads/Team/Sylpheed2.7.1_big.jpg
All in all, most problems with Flatpak are problems, that can be solved
No, flatpak and similar things are designed to bypass the relation of trust between end users and Linux distributions. Users are required to either blindly rely the upstream authors with the sandboxing, privacy, legal compliance and general quality or do extensive vetting and configuration by themselves.
Additionally the approach of throwing every dependency in one big blob removes the ability to receive fast, targeted security updates for critical libraries (e.g. OpenSSL). And there is no practical way to receive notifications for vulnerabilities and to act on them for the average user.
Traditional Linux distributions carefully backport security fixes to previous releases, allowing users to fix vulnerabilities without being force to upgrade their software to newer releases. New releases might contain unwanted features or be too heavy for older hardware, or break backward compatibility.
With Flatpak, even if the upstream developer forever releases new packages every time a vulnerability is found in the entire blob, end users are forced to choose between keeping the vulnerable version or update it. Plus, the authors might simply abandon the project.
Furthermore, Flatpak, Snap etc and similarly Docker do not require 3rd party / peer review of the software. Given the size of the blobs it would very impractical to review their contents even if it was required.
This is a Flatpak problem. Its design requires the user to either trust the upstream developers to set the sandboxing properly or learn how to do it and spend time configuring each and every application as needed. This is not practical.
In traditional Linux distributions there is a trusted package mantainer that reviews software and configurations with the user’s needs in mind.
Interesting! Projects like https://sensor.community/ might be willing to collect such data.
First you release something, wait until is widely adopted and then add ways to control users or capture their data, for example host contents on a CDN you control, or add paid extras, or switch license for later releases. All of this examples happened in the past. The good old embrace-extend-lock-in.
Alternatively you can buy a Lichee RV. They seem to be still cheaper. https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003741287162.html
No, you are confusing flatpak with sandboxing. Sandboxing is a good thing. You don’t need flatpak to implement sandboxing. Additionally, good sandboxing has to be configured by trusted 3rd parties, like package maintainers, not by upstream developers, because the latter creates a conflict of interest.