• 1 Post
  • 214 Comments
Joined 2Y ago
cake
Cake day: Oct 28, 2020

help-circle
rss

Nonetheless, the concept of supply chain applies perfectly.


As SoCs constantly increase both in complexity and power, the amount and size of firmware has been increasing as well. It becomes more difficult to find hardware that runs without any close source component.



You are missing the point. A process-independent file opener that is used by all applications to access files provides user-friendly security. This would be a core component of an OS so the description is correct.


there could be a Flatpak API for requesting the user for a file to open with their explicit consent

That would not be Flatkpak then. It would be an OS component, much like Android has a file opener implemented as an independent process IIRC.


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.


The majority of closed source software is not innovative at all. It’s usually just a rehash of existing ideas and functions with a new UI.

Cloning it is also not innovative but FOSS is hardly to blame here. If anything, breaking users free from lock-in is the main innovative aspect.





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.


…but it does not federate with Lemmy and other platforms on the fediverse. Meh :(


Then… just use Debian and live happy.


This is just advertising. It’s also misleading because RISC-V targets more use-cases than ARM, especially around microcontrollers.



For most people distro hopping is like changing car when a light breaks. You are denying yourself the opportunity to learn how to solve a problem. I’ll stick with Debian.

Edit: if you want to learn about different package managers you can just use VMs for that. There’s no need to distro-hop.


No, if anything you should use the average number of passengers for each vehicle.


Obviously you have to use the right binary…


Alternatively you can buy a Lichee RV. They seem to be still cheaper. https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003741287162.html