Because it's redundant?

That's the whole point: Every Linux distribution (especially the Ubuntu forks) are basically redundant - they do all the same work. Except, each distribution has some value for their users & everybody is ok with this. Why would you handle Flatpak repos (which is just another package manager) any different?

If every distro maintains their own flatpak repo we have made the situation more complex and even less enticing for app developers than before Flatpak/Flathub existed.

It's just another package manager. There are far more new Linux distributions than Flatpak repos (see https://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=submit [External Link] ), so there's nothing special about the Fedora Flatpak repo. Even OBS has to deal with distribution specific issues (i.e. tell the reporter to report it to the distribution & close the bug report) & wondrously do it without any legal threats.

So no, I don't see how an additional Flatpak repo would make the situation more complex or less enticing for any developer. They don't interact that much with any of the third party repos (RPM, deb or whatever format). Obviously, people will report bugs in the wrong tracker (which they already do with distribution specific issues, e.g. very old versions). But that's it.

Linux Torvalds once said that if anyone is going to fix the Linux desktop it would be Valve. If Flathub doesn't manage to be *the* Linux app store then it's up to Steam.

They haven't fixed Windows in over 20 years, so I really doubt they'll fix Linux.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I don't really know of any other distro that maintains their own flatpak repo.

No, they maintain the same deb repos over and over again. Flatpak is just another package manager. Why would you handle deb packages any different.

OBS can't use the latest QT because of a regression. That's why they didn't update their official packages and instead waited for a fix. […] Fedora realizes they don't want to maintain an actual fork and removes their broken flatpak.

Exaxtly, it has nothing to do with Flatpak (the package manager) but the broken application (OBS). The same issue exists for the RPM package & most likely on Arch Linux & other rolling releases. Again: Flatpak is just another package manager. Why would you handle it any different?

Can't they use Flathub flatpaks on their atomic systems? Most users of atomic systems probably add Flathub anyway.

Again, Flatpak is just another package manager. Thus we're are back at the beginning: Ubuntu & its derivates can use Debian packages (they're even based on the same sources). Why would you handle Flatpak any different.

Me to. This is the problem. Who is Fedora Flatpak for?

Fedora wants to provide a full distribution. That's what Linux distributions do. That they're using Flatpak as a secondary package manager is not relevant (could've been snap or even relocatable RPMs).

Maybe the quality of the Flatpaks is not good enough, yet (I can't say) but OBS is the only really big issue we've heard of & it has nothing to do with Flatpaks.

By the way, the same issue exists with Flathub: People use unofficial Flatpaks (unverified, not maintained by the developers) & report Flatpak related bugs in the official bug tracker. Should we now shut down Flathub? Should unverified applications be removed? Then Fedora suddenly requires an additional repository for its packages.

Maintainership of many applications is not good either: Should Fedora be liable for security issues (like in OBS) in Flathub applications.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

No reason to build and maintain a total separate repo.

Great idea. And now you can go to Ubuntu / Linux Mint / any other Ubuntu fork & tell them to stop developing their systems, because they can simply use & work with Debian.

This is not the first incident with Fedora Flatpak shipping broken applications

The RPM package was broken, too because OBS is broken with newer Qt versions. Other distributions (e.g. Arch Linux) should be affected, too.

I still think that long term Fedora needs a better story to why Fedora Flatpaks are needed at all.

Because they want to provide their applications in their atomic systems. That's reason enough. Flatpak is their secondary package manager & obviously their systems will install any additional software from their source, the same way their RPM systems install from their RPM repository.

To me this is the sort of duplicate work and "not invetened here mentality" that drains resources the Linux community don't have.

The Fedora flatpaks get created from the Fedora RPM packages, there is not that much duplicate work.

I'm using both Fedora variants (Workstation & Silverblue) and don't care much about Fedora's Flatpaks (I've completely removed from my system). But it's still the purpose of a Linux distribution to provide their builds. Just because Flathub exits doesn't change this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I would like to remind everyone that Fedora is a big project, largely comprised of volunteers. There are a lot of things going on at once. We can't always make decisions instantly, and reporting an issue to one special interest group isn't raising it with the whole project. It's not really fair to assume that we're not interested in a reasonable discussion, and it seems very quick to jump to nuclear-level threats. Could we please deescalate the drama? I'm sure everyone wants what's best for both projects and for our users.

Semi-offical statement from Fedora [External Link]

A project which is not able to maintain their application should really not threaten others with a lawsuits:

Uses an end-of-life runtime
The runtime used by this app is no longer receiving security updates

Fenrirthviti (Security analyst, coder, tinkerer. Member of OBS Project) on Dec 24, 2024 [External Link]
We will update when we've verified the packages don't cause regressions.

Thank you.

What a joke!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Also the other requirements are higher. My pentium 166 with 16MB ram and 2GB hard drive cannot run it now.

Minimum requirements doesn't necessary mean the minimum hardware it runs on but what was tested. And you can't run Windows 10 or 11 on a Pentium 166 with 16 MB RAM.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The companies could run their anti-cheat solutions on their servers, instead of their customers machines.
I don’t need any anti-cheat software - kernel level or not - to do my online banking!

Game companies are just full of themselves…

If this is so easy, provide it as a service and make millions. Easy fix & nobody will complain.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: no_information_hereIn a tiny graphic at the bottom of the page after scrolling down for 30 meters.

Why would you expect anything more?

Even companies don't necessarily promote on their pages to which company (let alone which jurisdiction) it belongs to (see Steam or GOG which only provide "tiny" notices at the bottom of their pages).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: no_information_hereEven their website avoids saying anything about Germany on most pages. Weird.

It says it on every page:

Supported by
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Actions [with German "flag" & emblem]
on the basis of a decision by the German Bundestag

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: nwildnerAnd just to make myself clear here: I'm not in any degree bashing Mesa here. Those folks are doing whatever is needed and doing beyond support scope to circumvent every difficulty that is imposed by Intel.

"Those folks" (which develop the Intel drivers) are employees of Intel. There's no bashing Intel without bashing Mesa.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

For KDE, this would be extra 51 apps!

The last time I tried Fedora KDE it was an awful experience, it literally felt bloated like Windows with lots of pre-installed applications I just don't need. It was some time ago, but this doesn't read like much has changed. So I wonder if Fedora KDE is really a good show case (for Linux in general) & deserves the edition upgrade.

View this comment - View article - View full comments