From: dan@djph.net   
      
   On 2025-07-06, Mike Easter wrote:   
   > Monsieur wrote:   
   >> Mike Easter wrote:   
   >>> Jeff Layman wrote:   
   >>>> I don't use flatpaks.   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't either, but I think it is a better idea than snaps.   
   >>>   
   >>> I also 'understand' the necessity for 'alternate' package schemes in a   
   >>> world of 'disparate' linux distro/s which make for greater difficulty   
   >>> in dev/s being able to provide a working package for 'all of them'.   
   >>   
   >> Isn't that why they invented the appimage? I don't understand why these   
   >> aren't more popular; I like using them because they always work.   
   >   
   > My understanding of flatpak vs appimage is that the later is 'simpler'   
   > and the former is more sandboxy.   
   >   
   > In my world, the sandboxing idea isn't as important; but what IS more   
   > important is the 'availability' of 'apps'.   
   >   
   > My 'understanding' (of something I know nothing about - more like 'I   
   > hear') is that it is easier to dev a flatpak from source than the   
   > others, and consequently there are more of those at flathub; but I don't   
   > know if that is true.   
      
   Flathub doesn't enforce[1] that "the app developer" is also "the flatpak   
   creator".  Which sets off more than a few alarm bells for me.   
      
      
   [1] Or, at least in the past "anyone" could create a flatpak and upload   
   it to flathub.   
      
      
   --   
   |_|O|_|   
   |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert   
   |O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1  E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)