this is from the google research team, they contribute a LOT to many foss projects. Google is not a monolith, each team is made of often very different folk, who have very different goals

this is quite frankly, a really dumb picture that is wrong on many accounts

literally, all Chrome OS / chromium OS needs to do for me to actually embrace it. is native out of box flatpack support

one issue I might see them having with flatpack, is the permissions right now are handled kind of stupidly IMO. but if those get solved I think flatpack would be a great addition to chromium os ecosystem

I am quite disappointed at the lack of transparency regarding this.

well this took literal years longer then I thought it would.

Why People Arent Buying Sony Xperia Phones

because they are fucking expensive

all chromeOS needs to be immensely more useful is flatpak support, if chrome OS supported flatpaks directly, it could very well be my goto (well not chromeOS directly, probably thoriumOS) for older linux PCs for general populace

uses the GNOME interface

yeah thats a no from me.

sounds like a lot of work when you could just install arch or nobara and be done with it

Garbage post, it's clearly trying to get development centralized again as it should be, they point to the actively developed repo

Trying to remain unbias, the super TLDR;

• FDO decided that they didn't like vaxry's community and told him to fix or action will be taken against him (Banning from FDO) for violating their (FDO's)
• Vaxry said, This is my community, It's not an FDO project, and is not under control of FDO, Doesn't fall under purview of FDO's COC, I will not be bullied. And posted the interaction.
• FDO's COC committy didn't like that and banned vaxry from FDO.

Time for my personal bias Im not sure how I can hide this other then spoiler, but ignore it if you don't want my very bias opinion;

that feeling when you can remeber what shade of orange emoji you used on your password

the issue isn't federation or anything like that, the issue is finding a repo hosting service in a dmca resilient country

I agree with a lot of the points LTT had, I was pretty excited for this video when I saw it. But the response was just complaing and excuses instead of just being nice and simple "here's the issue you had, We can either fix it, or can't for these reasons..."

Manjaro constantly winds up having really weird issues, they hold packages back in order to make it more stable, but it honestly just broke things far more often then upstream arch did for me. Manjaro and it's community is also riddled with really weird issues. It was pointed out to me a while ago that manjaro did some updates that broke grub customizer, and when people were trying to figure out what broke and how to fix it, Manjaro instead not only removed grub customizer, but made it conflict with the grub they had so people working on trying to fix it got a shovel full of go fuckyourself in the face

oh boy here we go I strongly disagree with this article

While complex .tar archives (like firefox) may seem messy, they integrate many different things. An installer script takes care of placing a .desktop entry, you can have an updater script, a LICENSE, README and more. Those are all missing with Appimages.

.tar ARE messy, sometimes they don't work right, dep conflicts, etc. An installer script can be shipped with an appimage anyways. Moot point IMO

Apps installed with the system package manager get their .desktop Entry in /usr/share/applications, installed Flatpaks get their entry linked to ~/.local/share/flatpak/exports/share/applications/, user overrides and other installs can be put in ~/.local/share/applications/.

Appimages have no desktop entry, so they have (currently) no icon on Wayland and they don't appear in your app list. Desktop entries are a standard, used by everytthing but Appimages.

see above

Instead users follow strange habits like placing the files on their desktop, which is a highly discouraged "Windows workflow" (symbolic image) and not even supported on many Desktop Environments, most notably GNOME.

Who discourages it? I personally prefer this myself, lack of desktop icons is a common complain for stuff like GNOME...

This is both a usability and a security issue. Traditional Linux apps, even if they are cross platform, don't have updater services, as package managers are way better at doing that.

I disagree that this is better. A personal issue but I Much prefer when apps can update themselves.

This means, packing as an Appimage either requires to implement an updating service, on a platform that doesn't need that, or to have no updates at all.

Instead users need to follow an RSS feed, get a mail, or manually check for updates, which is horrible UX. Then how do they update?

Is this really a massive issue? There have been appimage stores in the past. Self updating appimages really isn't that hard either. If this was a massive issue, you could do something like obtanium for android which could easily automate the process.

Appimages don't even have a central place where you can find them, not to mention download them. This is extremely insecure. Modern Application stores and every well made Linux repository uses cryptographic (mostly gpg) verification, which secures the authenticity of the software. You can be sure you downloaded the real package.

I'd argue it makes little difference. But yes, Downloading things from the internet is more unsafe then downloading from a repo or a "curated" service. So we can grant one here.

There is no updating mechanism. On Android you may also update by downloading .apk files, but once installed, the .apk needs to be signed with the same key, otherwise updates are blocked. With Appimages... you just delete the old .appimage file, download the new one, change the name to remove the version and hope your .desktop entry didn't break.

This is how you get malware.

the risks seem blown out of proportion here. As long as you are downloading from the same place, the risks are significantly smaller in reality, not gone, but smaller.

They are not well maintained

There is a well known "bug" on modern Ubuntu, where Appimages lost their "works on every Linux Distro", because they are built for the outdated libfuse2, while Ubuntu now uses libfuse3. The fix is to install the outdated version of libfuse (!), and this is still not fixed.

An application format, that is incompatible with the latest version of its core dependency, is broken.

This is a very minor issue, i've had way more issues with traditional repo packages then I have had with appimages.

Lack of Sandboxing ...

I find this to be a benefit myself, I have had countless headaches with flatpak applications and their sandboxing. everything from devices not being recognized, weird storage issues and more.

Random location ...

Another moot issue. $HOME/.local/bin is an XDG standard, so unless we pretend that XDG standards aren't "one of the major standards" this is just wrong. https://specifications.freedesktop.org/...

Duplicated libraries

Appimages bloat the system. They include all the libraries they need, and unlike system packages or Flatpaks, they don't share a single libary. If users would really install every Software as Appimages, they would waste insane amounts of storage space.

This also completely discourages efficient and up to date packaging, and the attached risk of outdates libraries is hidden away in that .appimage archive.

and? When you need only a couple appimage files, space I find is smaller then flatpak, it only becomes when you need a lot of applications.

Appimages are not needed Flatpak solved many Linux desktop issues at once ...

None of these provide reasons as to why appimages aren't needed. Appimages still offer a lot, for one I can just download and run it I don't need to worry about installing and uninstalling application when I just want to try it, I don't need to muck about trying to get an app into flathub or starting my own repo, when a user has a problem, I can just tell them to run the new appimage instead of trying to get them to compile it.

Appimages also let me do fine grained control over the dependencies. No unexpected runtime updates, I can compile the deps with flags/features I want to support, and disable flags/features I don't want to support, Users don't need to download a stupid appstore or use CLI (not a single appstore i've used to date isn't hot garbage, I hope cosmic-store will be different).

It would be nice if torrent clients included I2P support by default without the need for auxiliary tools. that being said, I don't really know enough about i2p to understand the actual privacy benefits of it or viability of something like this

LETS GO!?!?!?!? I have been waiting for taler to be usable for ages now. I doubt it will ever come to canada, but hey, small wins are small wins.

right? gotta wonder why it was even posted in the first place

Ldac is not actually that good, it's actually fairly rare that LDAC beats out something like SBC XQ let alone AAC

EDIT: for elaboration, LDAC works at 3 main data rate ranges 990/909, 660/606 and 330/303. Ldac is only high res at the 990 range, and even at that range, it still often looses when pipewire is compiled against libfdk. keep in mind that it's hard to get real numbers on LDAC because decoding is proprietary, meaning I had to disassemble headphones and connect those for verification, but typically AAC on supported headphones beat out 990kbps LDAC (which is hilarious btw considering LDAC can rarely actually work at 990kbps anyways) and both SBC-XQ and LC3Plus (both of which are usable with pipewire) regularly beat 660kbps LDAC.

TLDR LDAC is crap and SBC-XQ is typically more accurate and lower latency, and LC3Plus is even better then that. and if you have AAC compatible headphones assuming latency isnt a major issue (which you are using LDAC so it's not) just use AAC, both fidelity and latency is better

EDIT: I should mention, it is known that vendors will tune codecs, I believe Valdikks article in habr briefly goes over this. so it's very possible that tuning could mean that x codec, including LDAC could be the only good codec, however with how badly LDAC maintains 990kbps, I doubt it will make much of a difference