Flatpak was designed to be decentralised, Flathub is just the main repository offering flatpaks and yes, probably 99% of all Flatpak applications are downloaded via the main repo but it is technically possible to just launch your own if you are unhappy with the main repo. The Flatpak team literally has this info page for hosting a repository
I for example, am taking AAGL from their own flatpak repo because they are not offering their launcher via the main one (even tho they also tell you to link the main repo - I guess for dependency reasons - but theoretically you could open your own repo and throw all dependency related packages in there or am I getting something wrong here)
I agree with everything you said, however there are a few details.
it is technically possible to just launch your own [repo]
The ability to create repositories ≠ from mirror existing ones.
Unlike apt repositories Flatpak ones aren't simply a directory tree with a bunch of files that can get mirrored using rysnc or other efficient means, it's a clusterfuck of HTTP-only requests that need to be backed by specific metadata and there aren't tools to manage those.
flatpak create-usb may be promising but the name says its all - the priority wasn't to create a way to mirror repositories but a quick and dirty hack for some situation.
theoretically you could open your own repo and throw all dependency related packages in there or am I getting something wrong here
Theoretically yes, in practice things are bit more nuanced. That tools only considers your current architecture, it's a pain to get dependencies in an automated way and most of the time you'll end up with broken archives. You'll also need to hack things a lot.
Flathub is not the entirety of Free World, just a little small slice of the pie. You can say Flathub is quite centralized. But our Free World have so much more. Every country will have a certain focus of what is freely available. It's an optional server and package format. You are free to install it or use another free package. Nothing crazy here.
I think they count every download of every package, every version, every time. It's not the number of unique users or even packages.
If you install 3 apps you might need to download 3 versions of graphics driver, 3 versions of desktop environment libraries and so on, It won't count as one user installing 3 apps, it will show up as 10 -20 downloads. And that's just the initial install, every time you update them it counts another 10-20.
One can distribute flatpaks along with their dependencies on USB drives (or network shares, etc.) which is especially helpful in situations where Internet access is limited or non-existent.
Cache/mirroring would be great for those who need it.
Edit:
Thinking about it, I wonder if there's enough "core features" with 'create-usb' that its just matter of scripting something together to intercept requests, auto-create-usb what's being requested and then serve the package locally? If a whole mirror is required, it may be possible to iterate over all flathub packages and 'create-usb' the entire repo to have a local cache/mirror? Just thinking "out loud".
One can distribute flatpaks along with their dependencies on USB drives (or network shares, etc.) which is especially helpful in situations where Internet access is limited or non-existent. For off...
Thinking about it, I wonder if there’s enough “core features” with ‘create-usb’ that its just matter of scripting something together to intercept requests, auto-create-usb what’s being requested and then serve the package locally?
The issue is that... there aren't enough “core features”. It doesn't even handle different architectures and their dependencies correctly. It wasn't made to be mirrored, nor decentralized.
Apt for instance was designed in a much better way, it becomes trivial to mirror the entire thing or parts and for the end tool it doesn't even matter if the source is a server on the internet, a local machine, a flash drive or a local folder, all work the same.
Universities might want to locally host a mirror in order to waste less bandwidth and provide faster downloads;
Large companies usually like to host internal mirrors for the same reasons as above and also so they can audit and pick what packages will be available for their end users;
In some countries not everyone can access the official flathub;
One might be dealing with airgapped networks and systems for sensitive work and you want to have ways for your end users to install flatpaks;
Fastly, their CDN might go down at any point (like Cloudflare sometimes does) and you'll end up with nothing;
Flathub itself may be subject to a cyberattack and their service might get crippled for a days or weeks and you'll have nothing as well;
For what's worth
... show more
Because...
Universities might want to locally host a mirror in order to waste less bandwidth and provide faster downloads;
Large companies usually like to host internal mirrors for the same reasons as above and also so they can audit and pick what packages will be available for their end users;
The question here isn't "why would you" but rather "why would I be unable to do it". Their actively gatekeeping their repository in a futile attempt to be the single and central point of flatpak distribution - much like what Apple does with the App Store.
I don't use them for most things I install but proprietary apps I want sandboxed or programs that have weird issues with dependencies I grab the flatpak.
I use Ansible all day. For work. Oh, god, is it sad compared to everything else in the space. RedHat had the choice between two in-house products and they chose poorly.
It can do lots of configuration and [set up] and install flatpaks.
We had that 20 years ago, just with a different product. The state of the art is now two generations newer.
Well I know Ansible and it works for my needs. I briefly used Nix and it was worse. Ansible is nice because you can just install ansible and then apply a playbook.
For me on Arch, Flatpaks are kinda useless. I can maybe see the appeal for other distros but Arch already has up-to-date versions of everything and anything that's missing from the main repos is in the AUR.
I also don't like how it's a separate package manager, they take up more space, and to run things from the CLI it's flatpak run com.website.Something instead of just something. It's super cumbersome compared to using normal packages.
I also prefer to get my software from the distro's repos, but for software from third parties, flatpak adds a security layer, making it more secure when compared, for example, to aur.
Sorry to ask, I'm not really familiar with Linux desktop nowadays: I've seen Flatpak and Flathub talked about a lot lately and it seems to be kinda a controversial topic. Anyone wanna fill me in what's all the noice about? It's some kind of cross-distro "app store" thingy?
Flatpak is a universal application packaging standard for Linux. It allows devs to create a single application that gets bundled with all necessary dependencies including versioning.
These apps run in their own semi-isolated "container" which makes immutable distros possible. (Distros like Fedora Silverblue that are effectively impossible to break by installing or removing critical system files.)
This means that a Linux app doesn't have to have a .deb version, an .rpm version, or be pre-compiled for any other distros. A user can simply go to Flathub, (the main repository for Flatpak apps), download the flatpak, and install it on their distro of choice.
It's quickly becoming the most popular way for users to install apps on Linux because it's so easy and quick. But there are a few downsides like size on disk, first party verification, per-distro optimizations, and the centralization of application sources. That's why some users aren't fully endorsing or embracing how popular they are becoming.
Download Safing's Portmaster and take control of your network traffic: https://safing.ioGrab a brand new laptop or desktop running Linux: https://www.tuxedoc...
It's more like android apps from early versions of Android before the permissions became user-managable.
It won't prompt you to give the application access to certain permissions, all the permissions are predefined in the manifest by whoever published the application to flathub. When you run the application you just hope it won't cause too much havoc (you can of course verify the permissions before running it, but I guarantee most people won't)
Flatpak supports sandboxing but due to how most desktop applications want access to your home folder, network etc many apps simply disable it.
Regardless of the level of sandboxing applied to the app, Flatpak is a great way for a developer to package once run anywhere. Prior to Flatpak, if you wanted to support multiple distros, you had to build a package for each distro or hope somebody working on that distro would do it for you.
Inb4 AppImage was here first. And if you mention Snap then GTFO
Appimage is probably the most similar to a naked .exe in Windows. They are useful for small apps or simple indie games, but I prefer Flatpaks for my everyday big applications.
Agreed, Snaps are like Flatpaks but worse because locked down back end and Canonical's sketchy nature. Imagine a really delicious pastry that anybody can make and sell, then imagine the same pastry but only one bakery in the world can make and sell it. Which would you prefer? Lol
Keep in mind there are certain permissions that can lead to a sandbox escape. These permissions are banned on Flathub but can still be used by flatpaks files and custom repos.
a single application that gets bundled with all necessary dependencies including versioning
Does that mean that if I were to install Application A and Application B that both have dependency to package C version 1.2.3 I then would have package C (and all of its possible sub dependencies) twice on my disk? I don't know how much external dependencies applications on Linux usually have but doesn't that have the potential to waste huge amounts of disk space?
Essentially yes, if you start using lots if older applications or mixing applications that use many different dependency versions, you will start to use lots of extra disk space because the different apps have to use their own separate dependency trees and so forth.
This doesn't mean it will be like 2x-3x the size as traditional packages, but from what I've seen, it could definitely be 10-20% larger on disk. Not a huge deal for most people, but if you have limited disk space for one reason or another, it could be a problem.
It CAN get pretty wild sometimes, though. For example, Flameshot (screenshotting utility) is only ~560KB as a system package, while its flatpak version is ~1.4GB (almost 2.5k times as big)
on a desktop it might not be significant but I tried using flatpak apps on a device with very limited root emmc storage (16 GB) and ran out of space really fast. Its really common to see a couple multi-hundred-megabyte library downloads for each new app IME.
I like them for some stuff but there are glaring issues that I don't like. I've posted about it before, poor integration of apps/not getting the right permissions is a big problem, the people packaging them don't often do as good of a job as someone like a distro maintainer.
But admittedly my experience using it probably isn't representative (pop os through their shop and arch on a mobile device). Neither were amazing, but not having to compile shit myself or install with an untrusted shell script was nice for some apps. Without some significant improvements it's not a good replacement for a distro's package repos but it might be a good way to broaden the available applications without having to maintain 10x more packages.
Not necessarily. GNOME and KDE dependencies and "base system" for flatpaks to run in are flatpaks themselves so apps that depend on them will not use duplicated dependencies. Storage usage may not be as efficient as using a traditional package manager but you don't install a new OS per app either.
Most dependencies are bundled in the "runtime" images, and it uses file deduplication to reduce the size of the dependencies, but it's still a little more than a normal package manager.
Each package can choose one from a handful of runtimes to use, each of which include common dependencies (like gnome or qt libraries), and if multiple flatpaks use the same runtime, that runtime is only downloaded once.
It is less space efficient than your typical package manager, but brings other benefits like sandboxing.
What about those apps using out of date libraries? Wouldn't that become a security issue - since containers usually aren't that secure, right? And all app developers would have to update their container libraries separately, instead of just updating the system libraries?
As containers are isolated - it's mostly a security issue for the container itself. It may become an issue, though, if the container is allowed to freely interact with filesystem, for example.
Apps like Flatseal allow you to easily control such variables using a GUI instead of tinkering in the terminal.
I don't hate flatpaks, but flatpaks require more disk space than the same apps from traditional repositories, and they only support a handful of the most common default themes. Since I only ever use older and slower computers, my disk space is limited, and I like to rice my desktop, I personally avoid them. But your use-case may differ.
Most of the issue is that they're unreliable. Sometimes the app will work. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you have to fiddle blindly with flatseal settings, which ones? Who knows? Guessing is part of the fun.
In over 3 years of daily flatpak use (of multiple apps) I've never had a single reliability issue with flatpak, the only ones being caused by me because I was trying out settings in flatseal that the app didn't like. On the flip side I've found native packages to be broken more often than not, with .Deb files sometimes just not working and throwing an error or something. Package managers are better for sure but I've had dependency issues that I have never experienced with flatpak.
To everyone saying you can’t mirror a flatpak repo… you’re absolutely right. There should be a far easier way to set up your own mirror without needing to build everything from scratch. That being said, if you wanted to try to make your own repo with every one of flathub’s apps, here you go:
Edit: Some did get a flathub mirror working. The issue is that a. Fastly works good enough and b. There is no concept of “packages” on the server side. It’s just one big addressed content store because of ostree, and syncing is apparently difficult? Idk, not being able to sync the state of content is like the entire point of ostree…
Flathub is a build and distribution service for Flatpak applications. Its goal is to act as a central hub for making desktop applications available to users. - Flathub
It’s not about funding. Many prefer mirrors because the main instance isn’t globally available (the GitHub issue I linked, for example, is all about people trying and failing to access flathub in China) or because they can’t for compliance reasons (many businesses already mirror stuff like epel, too, which is what throws off Rocky’s stat counters). Neither of those issues can be assessed by throwing more money at a CDN.
Well that isn't the fault of Flathub. If a country or organization blocks it that's a local issue. This is especially true in China where they need to control the movement of information. Blaming flathub and Flatpak for censorship is frankly unfair.
I’m not sure if anyone said it was the fault of flathub. My point is that, regardless of fault, accessibility to the main instance is an issue for several reasons, and a good way to solve it is to build a system for mirrors.
Your bypassing restrictions that could get you in trouble. Tor is the right answer in that case. However, bypassing restrictions can have dire consequences.
There are existing mirrors for Fedora and Ubuntu packages in China, which are used because mirrors in other countries are often blocked. I’m sure there are no legality issues—the issue in the case of flatpak and china in particular is that China blocks Fastly because Fastly does not host any POPs in China. This is why Cloudflare, for example, has their own network in China that international users can pay to use. There’s no legal issues here, just logistical. Besides, as previously shown, people do (with great difficulty) managed to bring up their own flatpak mirror without any consequences for a few years now.
Besides, there shouldn’t be legality issues for businesses wanting to host their own mirrors for compliance issues.
Ubuntu also includes a wide variety of software through its network of software repositories. Once your system is installed you can simply call up a list of all the existing tools out there and choose any of them for immediate installation over the i…
Oh no, this is Flatpaks' fault because they made this twisted repository system instead of doing sane things and then it is Flathub's fault as well because they aren't opening their storage to rsync or other sane syncing methods.
Or maybe the two countries with a larger population than the United States have significantly lower per capita income and so fewer people own desktop/laptop computers. Most of the world probably has, at most, a smartphone.
If anything, Brazil seems like the outlier on the that map. You’d expect the U.S. to have the most computers. But Brazil and China are roughly similar in terms of income.
Lol, what a pointless map. It’s impossible to tell at a glance which countries have more or less downloads, other than a couple of countries with a slightly lighter colour.
What's the issue? I installed mint because I know fuckall about Linux, and tbh it's a dice toss if I have used the Flatpak option not knowing what the actual difference between them are
boredsquirrel
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •TCB13
in reply to boredsquirrel • • •OsrsNeedsF2P
in reply to TCB13 • • •TCB13
in reply to OsrsNeedsF2P • • •Yes, unlike apt repositories, it wasn't designed to be mirrored around, run isolated servers etc.
Zyratoxx
in reply to TCB13 • • •Flatpak was designed to be decentralised, Flathub is just the main repository offering flatpaks and yes, probably 99% of all Flatpak applications are downloaded via the main repo but it is technically possible to just launch your own if you are unhappy with the main repo. The Flatpak team literally has this info page for hosting a repository
I for example, am taking AAGL from their own flatpak repo because they are not offering their launcher via the main one (even tho they also tell you to link the main repo - I guess for dependency reasons - but theoretically you could open your own repo and throw all dependency related packages in there or am I getting something wrong here)
Installation
GitHubTCB13
in reply to Zyratoxx • • •I agree with everything you said, however there are a few details.
The ability to create repositories ≠ from mirror existing ones.
Unlike apt repositories Flatpak ones aren't simply a directory tree with a bunch of files that can get mirrored using rysnc or other efficient means, it's a clusterfuck of HTTP-only requests that need to be backed by specific metadata and there aren't tools to manage those.
flatpak create-usbmay be promising but the name says its all - the priority wasn't to create a way to mirror repositories but a quick and dirty hack for some situation.Theoretically yes, in practice things are bit more nuanced. That tools only considers your current architecture, it's a pain to get dependencies in an automated way and most of the time you'll end up with broken archives. You'll also need to hack things a lot.
About Flatpak installations | Goings on
blogs.gnome.orgthingsiplay
in reply to boredsquirrel • • •theshatterstone54
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •Interesting...
In all seriousness, in both my home country and the country I live in, the number of downloads surpasses the population numbers which is kinda insane.
disguy_ovahea
in reply to theshatterstone54 • • •lemmyvore
in reply to theshatterstone54 • • •I think they count every download of every package, every version, every time. It's not the number of unique users or even packages.
If you install 3 apps you might need to download 3 versions of graphics driver, 3 versions of desktop environment libraries and so on, It won't count as one user installing 3 apps, it will show up as 10 -20 downloads. And that's just the initial install, every time you update them it counts another 10-20.
Possibly linux
in reply to theshatterstone54 • • •TCB13
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •ᗪᗩᗰᑎ
in reply to TCB13 • • •Offline/internal network installs can be handled with
flatpak create-usb- docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/usb…Cache/mirroring would be great for those who need it.
Edit:
Thinking about it, I wonder if there's enough "core features" with 'create-usb' that its just matter of scripting something together to intercept requests, auto-create-usb what's being requested and then serve the package locally? If a whole mirror is required, it may be possible to iterate over all flathub packages and 'create-usb' the entire repo to have a local cache/mirror? Just thinking "out loud".
USB Drives
FlatpakTCB13
in reply to ᗪᗩᗰᑎ • • •The issue is that... there aren't enough “core features”. It doesn't even handle different architectures and their dependencies correctly. It wasn't made to be mirrored, nor decentralized.
Apt for instance was designed in a much better way, it becomes trivial to mirror the entire thing or parts and for the end tool it doesn't even matter if the source is a server on the internet, a local machine, a flash drive or a local folder, all work the same.
Possibly linux
in reply to TCB13 • • •warmaster
in reply to TCB13 • • •TCB13
in reply to warmaster • • •Possibly linux
in reply to TCB13 • • •warmaster
in reply to TCB13 • • •TCB13
in reply to warmaster • • •Because...
For what's worth
... show moreBecause...
For what's worth Debian archive repositories are about 5 TB and people actively mirror then in universities, companies, cloud providers etc.
The question here isn't "why would you" but rather "why would I be unable to do it". Their actively gatekeeping their repository in a futile attempt to be the single and central point of flatpak distribution - much like what Apple does with the App Store.
Debian -- Mirror Size
www.debian.orgPossibly linux
in reply to TCB13 • • •TCB13
in reply to Possibly linux • • •thingsiplay
Unknown parent • • •???
like this
themadcodger likes this.
TheGrandNagus
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •like this
themadcodger, bacon_saber and imecth like this.
HouseWolf
in reply to TheGrandNagus • • •As a newer Linux user I really like flatpaks.
I don't use them for most things I install but proprietary apps I want sandboxed or programs that have weird issues with dependencies I grab the flatpak.
priapus
in reply to TheGrandNagus • • •Possibly linux
in reply to priapus • • •corsicanguppy
in reply to Possibly linux • • •I use Ansible all day. For work. Oh, god, is it sad compared to everything else in the space. RedHat had the choice between two in-house products and they chose poorly.
We had that 20 years ago, just with a different product. The state of the art is now two generations newer.
Possibly linux
in reply to corsicanguppy • • •ayaya
in reply to TheGrandNagus • • •For me on Arch, Flatpaks are kinda useless. I can maybe see the appeal for other distros but Arch already has up-to-date versions of everything and anything that's missing from the main repos is in the AUR.
I also don't like how it's a separate package manager, they take up more space, and to run things from the CLI it's
flatpak run com.website.Somethinginstead of justsomething. It's super cumbersome compared to using normal packages.Mactan
in reply to ayaya • • •nossaquesapao
in reply to ayaya • • •moormaan
in reply to nossaquesapao • • •Kusimulkku
in reply to moormaan • • •Pasta Dental
in reply to TheGrandNagus • • •sturlabragason
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •LainTrain
Unknown parent • • •like this
themadcodger likes this.
JRaccoon
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •Lettuce eat lettuce
in reply to JRaccoon • • •Flatpak is a universal application packaging standard for Linux. It allows devs to create a single application that gets bundled with all necessary dependencies including versioning.
These apps run in their own semi-isolated "container" which makes immutable distros possible. (Distros like Fedora Silverblue that are effectively impossible to break by installing or removing critical system files.)
This means that a Linux app doesn't have to have a .deb version, an .rpm version, or be pre-compiled for any other distros. A user can simply go to Flathub, (the main repository for Flatpak apps), download the flatpak, and install it on their distro of choice.
It's quickly becoming the most popular way for users to install apps on Linux because it's so easy and quick. But there are a few downsides like size on disk, first party verification, per-distro optimizations, and the centralization of application sources. That's why some users aren't fully endorsing or embracing how popular they are becoming.
CaptainSpaceman
in reply to Lettuce eat lettuce • • •Interesting breakdown, thank you.
Do you happen to know if the containerization is similar to docker containers? Or more like android apps?
Lettuce eat lettuce
in reply to CaptainSpaceman • • •I'm not an expert, but from my understanding, more like android apps.
They aren't totally isolated like a docker or LXC container would be, but they are generally self-contained.
The Linux Experiment has a really great vid that goes into detail on all common packaging formats in Linux including Flatpaks:
Linux Packaging Formats explained: Flatpak vs Snaps vs DEB & RPM vs AppImage vs AUR
YouTubelightnegative
in reply to CaptainSpaceman • • •It's more like android apps from early versions of Android before the permissions became user-managable.
It won't prompt you to give the application access to certain permissions, all the permissions are predefined in the manifest by whoever published the application to flathub. When you run the application you just hope it won't cause too much havoc (you can of course verify the permissions before running it, but I guarantee most people won't)
Flatpak supports sandboxing but due to how most desktop applications want access to your home folder, network etc many apps simply disable it.
Regardless of the level of sandboxing applied to the app, Flatpak is a great way for a developer to package once run anywhere. Prior to Flatpak, if you wanted to support multiple distros, you had to build a package for each distro or hope somebody working on that distro would do it for you.
Inb4 AppImage was here first. And if you mention Snap then GTFO
Lettuce eat lettuce
in reply to lightnegative • • •Appimage is probably the most similar to a naked .exe in Windows. They are useful for small apps or simple indie games, but I prefer Flatpaks for my everyday big applications.
Agreed, Snaps are like Flatpaks but worse because locked down back end and Canonical's sketchy nature. Imagine a really delicious pastry that anybody can make and sell, then imagine the same pastry but only one bakery in the world can make and sell it. Which would you prefer? Lol
Possibly linux
in reply to lightnegative • • •Possibly linux
in reply to CaptainSpaceman • • •JRaccoon
in reply to Lettuce eat lettuce • • •Cool, thanks for the explanation.
Does that mean that if I were to install Application A and Application B that both have dependency to package C version 1.2.3 I then would have package C (and all of its possible sub dependencies) twice on my disk? I don't know how much external dependencies applications on Linux usually have but doesn't that have the potential to waste huge amounts of disk space?
Lettuce eat lettuce
in reply to JRaccoon • • •Essentially yes, if you start using lots if older applications or mixing applications that use many different dependency versions, you will start to use lots of extra disk space because the different apps have to use their own separate dependency trees and so forth.
This doesn't mean it will be like 2x-3x the size as traditional packages, but from what I've seen, it could definitely be 10-20% larger on disk. Not a huge deal for most people, but if you have limited disk space for one reason or another, it could be a problem.
brachypelmasmithi
in reply to Lettuce eat lettuce • • •Possibly linux
in reply to JRaccoon • • •Chronicon [they/them]
in reply to JRaccoon • • •on a desktop it might not be significant but I tried using flatpak apps on a device with very limited root emmc storage (16 GB) and ran out of space really fast. Its really common to see a couple multi-hundred-megabyte library downloads for each new app IME.
I like them for some stuff but there are glaring issues that I don't like. I've posted about it before, poor integration of apps/not getting the right permissions is a big problem, the people packaging them don't often do as good of a job as someone like a distro maintainer.
But admittedly my experience using it probably isn't representative (pop os through their shop and arch on a mobile device). Neither were amazing, but not having to compile shit myself or install with an untrusted shell script was nice for some apps. Without some significant improvements it's not a good replacement for a distro's package repos but it might be a good way to broaden the available applications without having to maintain 10x more packages.
mrvictory1
in reply to JRaccoon • • •qaz
in reply to JRaccoon • • •MajinBlayze [any, he/him]
in reply to JRaccoon • • •It's not quite that simple.
Each package can choose one from a handful of runtimes to use, each of which include common dependencies (like gnome or qt libraries), and if multiple flatpaks use the same runtime, that runtime is only downloaded once.
It is less space efficient than your typical package manager, but brings other benefits like sandboxing.
sir_pronoun
in reply to Lettuce eat lettuce • • •Possibly linux
in reply to sir_pronoun • • •Allero
in reply to sir_pronoun • • •As containers are isolated - it's mostly a security issue for the container itself. It may become an issue, though, if the container is allowed to freely interact with filesystem, for example.
Apps like Flatseal allow you to easily control such variables using a GUI instead of tinkering in the terminal.
Possibly linux
in reply to JRaccoon • • •JRaccoon
in reply to Possibly linux • • •prunerye
in reply to JRaccoon • • •shapis
in reply to JRaccoon • • •Most of the issue is that they're unreliable. Sometimes the app will work. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes you have to fiddle blindly with flatseal settings, which ones? Who knows? Guessing is part of the fun.
It'd be a great thing if it just worked.
CyberSyndicalist [none/use name]
in reply to shapis • • •Pasta Dental
in reply to shapis • • •sturlabragason
Unknown parent • • •like this
themadcodger likes this.
biribiri11
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •To everyone saying you can’t mirror a flatpak repo… you’re absolutely right. There should be a far easier way to set up your own mirror without needing to build everything from scratch. That being said, if you wanted to try to make your own repo with every one of flathub’s apps, here you go:
github.com/flathub
docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/hos…
Edit: Some did get a flathub mirror working. The issue is that a. Fastly works good enough and b. There is no concept of “packages” on the server side. It’s just one big addressed content store because of ostree, and syncing is apparently difficult? Idk, not being able to sync the state of content is like the entire point of ostree…
github.com/flathub/flathub/iss…
Flathub
GitHubPossibly linux
in reply to biribiri11 • • •biribiri11
in reply to Possibly linux • • •Possibly linux
in reply to biribiri11 • • •biribiri11
in reply to Possibly linux • • •Possibly linux
in reply to biribiri11 • • •biribiri11
in reply to Possibly linux • • •There are existing mirrors for Fedora and Ubuntu packages in China, which are used because mirrors in other countries are often blocked. I’m sure there are no legality issues—the issue in the case of flatpak and china in particular is that China blocks Fastly because Fastly does not host any POPs in China. This is why Cloudflare, for example, has their own network in China that international users can pay to use. There’s no legal issues here, just logistical. Besides, as previously shown, people do (with great difficulty) managed to bring up their own flatpak mirror without any consequences for a few years now.
Besides, there shouldn’t be legality issues for businesses wanting to host their own mirrors for compliance issues.
Mirrors : Ubuntu
LaunchpadTCB13
in reply to Possibly linux • • •Reddfugee42
in reply to sturlabragason • • •Possibly linux
Unknown parent • • •ShittyBeatlesFCPres
Unknown parent • • •Or maybe the two countries with a larger population than the United States have significantly lower per capita income and so fewer people own desktop/laptop computers. Most of the world probably has, at most, a smartphone.
If anything, Brazil seems like the outlier on the that map. You’d expect the U.S. to have the most computers. But Brazil and China are roughly similar in terms of income.
eveninghere
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •mlg
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •I'm gonna be honest I've never had a flatpak version of something ever work properly.
There was even one popular media player that only came in flatpak form or otherwise build from source.
So obviously, for no reason at all, it barely functioned compared to other applications I had already tried.
Congrats to you people put there somehow running things like Steam with no problems lmao.
corsicanguppy
in reply to mlg • • •As someone once involved with OS Security, I beg you not to use FlatPaks.
mrvictory1
in reply to corsicanguppy • • •pumpkinseedoil
in reply to corsicanguppy • • •Pasta Dental
in reply to corsicanguppy • • •lemmytellyousomething
in reply to mlg • • •like this
imecth likes this.
Kusimulkku
in reply to mlg • • •umbrella
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •delirious_owl
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •Fonzie!
in reply to delirious_owl • • •jsomae
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •electricprism
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •lemmynparty
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •It’s impossible to tell at a glance which countries have more or less downloads, other than a couple of countries with a slightly lighter colour.
jsomae
in reply to lemmynparty • • •Fonzie!
in reply to jsomae • • •Dayroom7485
in reply to Fonzie! • • •Fonzie!
in reply to Dayroom7485 • • •Tiempo
in reply to Dayroom7485 • • •mrvictory1
Unknown parent • • •mrvictory1
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •SendMePhotos
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •Pasta Dental
in reply to SendMePhotos • • •notenoughbutter
in reply to SendMePhotos • • •jbk
Unknown parent • • •Fonzie!
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •gigachad
in reply to Fonzie! • • •Heatmap
xkcdJasonDJ
in reply to gigachad • • •istanbullu
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •MajinBlayze [any, he/him]
Unknown parent • • •nasi_goreng
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •Frostbeard
in reply to mr_MADAFAKA • • •