Gradience, Flatseal, Loupe Image Viewer, and Resources running on Ubuntu 16.04

Firefox 118.0.2 running on Ubuntu 16.04

Door Knocker, Collision, and Cartridges running on Ubuntu 16.04

ASHPD Demo running on Ubuntu 16.04, showing a notification through XDG portals

According to Door Knocker, almost half of the portals are unavailable on Ubuntu 16.04, compared to only one unavailable on Fedora 39 with GNOME, which means Flatpaks running here may have more limited capabilities than usual.

  • qaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Flatpaks is a distro independent way of installing apps, similair to snaps. However it does not require a proprietary backend like snaps do.

    It uses “runtimes” that contain the libraries that are required for the app, such as freedesktop, gnome, kde and elementary. Each app requests a specific runtime and version which prevents library conflicts.

    Although runtimes are shared the different versions can take up quite a bit of space. This is a common criticism of Flatpak and one of the major drawbacks compared to the distro’s native package manager. Another disadvantage is that the sandboxing can cause issues with the functionality of the app if it requires certain system functionality. Authors (and users) can configure which parts of the system to expose (dbus, files, network, etc) but sometimes this is done incorrectly (looking at you Discord) which can cause the aforementioned issues.

    One of the major advantages is that it simplifies the work for Application developers, they can target 1 system and don’t have to package the application and it’s libraries for each distro. It also means that the applications aren’t dependent on the distro’s for newer versions. You can use Debian stable with a version of an app that came out yesterday.

    I personally tend to use Flatpaks quite often except for software that is included in the distro by default and apps that have issues with sandboxing such as Steam and VSCode.

      • TheEntity@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes and no. It’s much better suited for desktop applications. Try to run something playing audio in Docker. It’s doable but not pleasant in any way.

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well yeah, I only meant it sounds like a similar idea, I’d be surprised if it was powered by docker.

        • qaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s certainly doable to run desktop apps in containers, have you tried Distrobox?

          • TheEntity@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, I didn’t. Looks interesting. Not something I’m looking for right now but I’ll keep it in mind.

      • qaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m aware about the deduplication but last time I checked it was still using roughly 30GiB of storage.