Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!
Message
Author
jmgibson1981
Posts: 295
Joined: 2015-06-07 14:38
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#21 Post by jmgibson1981 »

so we could at least have the implicit warning for everyone who wants to stay away for stores that don't separate licences cleanly. Also, I think that Gnome Software and KDE Discover should give ample warning about Snap and Flatpak to users with a pop-up, as they are very likely to be the main avenues to software for beginners.
This would make sense. I know Steam has some prompt when installed via apt. Never bothered to read it. It's choices are accept or deny. I'm assuming deny would just skip it's installation. Same thing could be done for these. Might as well throw appimage in the ring as well. Hit them all in one shot.

User avatar
canci
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2502
Joined: 2006-09-24 11:28
Has thanked: 136 times
Been thanked: 136 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#22 Post by canci »

jmgibson1981 wrote: 2022-04-09 11:14 If the software is fully free and open then putting elsewhere wouldn't make sense.
The problem is that both Snap and Flatpak refuse to make a proper division of free vs non-free. That's why I thought it would make more sense to put them into contrib, which by definition houses software that's free, but is dependent on non-free packages or external software. For instance, back in the old days, there was an engine for running Quake 2 on Linux in the Debian repos. The engine itself was free software, but the software obviously won't work if you don't supply the proprietary art assets from the Quake 2 CD-ROM, so Debian put the engine into contrib rather than main.
Image Stable / Asus VivoBook X421DA / AMD Ryzen 7 3700U / Radeon Vega Mobile Gfx (Picasso) / 8 GB RAM / 512GB NVMe

READ THIS:

* How to Post a Thread Here
* Other Tips and Great Resources

jmgibson1981
Posts: 295
Joined: 2015-06-07 14:38
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#23 Post by jmgibson1981 »

Fair enough. But this issue here.
dependent on non-free packages
Flatpak and snap aren't dependent on anything. They can access all day long but aren't dependent? I can install non-free .deb files (for better or worse) with

Code: Select all

dpkg -i
These packages aren't always clear on free or not. Does that mean dpkg goes in contrib? Where does that line get drawn? From this perspective it's no different than dpkg.

It's kind of a rabbit hole. Can't do one without the others I'd think. I apologize, not trying to be difficult but the issue is a bit more nuanced I think.

User avatar
BBQdave
df -h | participant
df -h | participant
Posts: 152
Joined: 2011-09-25 03:38
Location: North Carolina
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#24 Post by BBQdave »

I understand most of this discussion. But am confused with the concerns of flatpak. Perhaps my research is lacking, but I did research flatpak and it is open source. There are packages created that come from closed source, such as google chrome. But my interest was in Darktable and GIMP.

I can have current releases of those photo editors on Debian 11. And those flatpaks, flathub and photo editing programs are open source.

I appreciate the thought that stable applications should be fine, but there is a significant difference between the older version of Darktable (available for Debian 11) and the current version.

Any software I install, I research. Which I believe most do, whether it's a .deb or flatpak.
On quest for blue smoke and red rings!
Debian 12 Toshiba Satellite C655 | i3 2.3Ghz | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | 8GB RAM | 65GB SSD

User avatar
oswaldkelso
df -h | grep > 20TiB
df -h | grep > 20TiB
Posts: 1490
Joined: 2005-07-26 23:20
Location: UK
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#25 Post by oswaldkelso »

Just because the container is floss it does not mean the things in the container are. Look at dpkg. You get main, contrib and non-free. The difference is Debian tells you what's in the dpkg and which category it's from. They check the source for you. Look at "wine" it's free software but in contrib because it's purpose its to run Windows binaries.

The real question is how do you know what's inside the flack or snap you so willingly installed. Under what criteria were the constituents selected and how do you get proof that what's in there, is what they say?

There's a reason Mark Zuckerberg keeps sticky tape over his webcam and if you can't trust the software you're running you probably should to.

I suggest you pick a few random flack packages off GitHub or their home websites and try build them for to yourself.. if you can find the source that is..
Free Software Matters
Ash init durbatulûk, ash init gimbatul,
Ash init thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
My oldest used PC: 1999 imac 333Mhz 256MB PPC abandoned by Debian

User avatar
wizard10000
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 557
Joined: 2019-04-16 23:15
Location: southeastern us
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#26 Post by wizard10000 »

I'm gonna disagree :)

snap and flatpak *clients* are open source. If someone uses snap or flatpak install a proprietary application the snap and flatpak clients are still open source. I don't think Debian is or should be the application police.

wine is open source and people use it to install proprietary applications - what's the difference?
we see things not as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin

User avatar
oswaldkelso
df -h | grep > 20TiB
df -h | grep > 20TiB
Posts: 1490
Joined: 2005-07-26 23:20
Location: UK
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#27 Post by oswaldkelso »

That's OK. As I said the container being free is irrelevant. It's what's in it and how the user can access that information to allow them to make their choices that's important..

Debian is already the application police. For dpkg. They have strict rules and guidelines for building packages. Hence the 3 or with the new non-free firmware. 4 repos.

You choose the repo because you trust Debian to build packages well and place them in the correct repo to fit your chosen system. Stable, Testing or Sid and then you get to chose again from main, contrib, non-free, non-free-firmware. All Debian asks is you don't mix the repos.

My choice is Stable & Main. Others will chose differently but it's important we all understand why it's setup like it is. "Don't break Debian"

Until Debian starts creating flatpaks and policing how they're built there'd be no way to bug check them properly. We will see people breaking stable by running SNS from dubious sources. Coming on here with franken Debians wanting support. It will be like Window's users that install exe's from all over the place again.

Either Debian goes down the "RedHat - Freedesktop route" Hook line and sinker. In which case it may as well not exist as the universal operating system. Fedorian here we come. Or it sets it's own values and priorities.

Even ignoring the bloat aspect of flatpak there are many risks to Debian as an organisation by going down that route.

It'll mean more of stuff like this.

viewtopic.php?t=147317 Though I do admit the Luke video looks like he's having a bad acid trip :)

Also I'm not just on about flatpak. But many of the containerised formats.

<------<< the good the bad the ugly >>------>
"Nix","Qi",“AppImage”,"Zero install",“Snap”,“Flatpak”.

Remember this thread. viewtopic.php?t=153459&
Free Software Matters
Ash init durbatulûk, ash init gimbatul,
Ash init thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
My oldest used PC: 1999 imac 333Mhz 256MB PPC abandoned by Debian

User avatar
wizard10000
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 557
Joined: 2019-04-16 23:15
Location: southeastern us
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#28 Post by wizard10000 »

oswaldkelso wrote: 2023-03-01 18:13...As I said the container being free is irrelevant.
And I disagree with that assessment. snap and flatpak clients are open source and Debian has no control over what software its users install using those tools, same as they have no control over which applications folks install using steam, wine or even dosbox. But speaking from a strictly licensing standpoint (which is what Debian is all about) those two clients are categorized correctly.

So, I guess we'll agree to disagree :)
we see things not as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin

User avatar
oswaldkelso
df -h | grep > 20TiB
df -h | grep > 20TiB
Posts: 1490
Joined: 2005-07-26 23:20
Location: UK
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#29 Post by oswaldkelso »

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Not when I read the original post.
Free Software Matters
Ash init durbatulûk, ash init gimbatul,
Ash init thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
My oldest used PC: 1999 imac 333Mhz 256MB PPC abandoned by Debian

User avatar
BBQdave
df -h | participant
df -h | participant
Posts: 152
Joined: 2011-09-25 03:38
Location: North Carolina
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#30 Post by BBQdave »

oswaldkelso wrote: 2023-03-01 21:29 I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Not when I read the original post.
I'm trying to understand your concern. Based on the OP, it is a question of categorizing the software in flathub. So if one enables flatpak, you would like a selection of free vs. non-free. So if you only choose free, you would never see the flatpak of Google-Chrome.

The same as you can select repositories for Debian. I can understand your thought. But I think most already have an idea of software and the associated licensing and what meets your needs.
On quest for blue smoke and red rings!
Debian 12 Toshiba Satellite C655 | i3 2.3Ghz | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | 8GB RAM | 65GB SSD

User avatar
el_koraco
Posts: 242
Joined: 2011-10-20 11:49
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#31 Post by el_koraco »

Trihexagonal wrote: 2022-03-31 14:11 Except why I should use snap or flatpack instead of apt.
because you, as a home user, simply have to have the latest version of a music app that someone rewrote in libadwaita and omgubuntu featured it in an article.

jmgibson1981
Posts: 295
Joined: 2015-06-07 14:38
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#32 Post by jmgibson1981 »

You can't expect everyone to just use repositories. Ubuntu destroyed that concept with ppa's. Now you want to make it harder for people to get the software they want / need because of a philosophical difference? Some stuff is only released via flatpak or snap. You can't easily compile some stuff on every distro due to age of libraries and such.

If free / non free actually matters to an individual they will look into it. They won't just blindly do it. Otherwise they don't care and why put an obstacle in the way? So the problem fixes itself, if it's really a problem

User avatar
oswaldkelso
df -h | grep > 20TiB
df -h | grep > 20TiB
Posts: 1490
Joined: 2005-07-26 23:20
Location: UK
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#33 Post by oswaldkelso »

"You can't expect everyone to just use repositories."
Where do you think flatpak's and snaps are stored?
"Ubuntu destroyed that concept with ppa's."
AUR seems to be working quite well.
"Now you want to make it harder for people to get the software they want / need because of a philosophical difference?"
Back at you.
"Some stuff is only released via flatpak or snap. You can't easily compile some stuff on every distro due to age of libraries and such."
What like no publicly available source code. If it's SNS run Sid or a VM.
"If free / non free actually matters to an individual they will look into it. They won't just blindly do it. Otherwise they don't care and why put an obstacle in the way? So the problem fixes itself, if it's really a problem"
This was answered in the very first post. If you read it. Put containerised formats in non-free. Unless built by Debian. Simple.
I'd be happy you'd be happy. Not so sure about Debian devs when trying to bug fix a flatpak that contains a snap. Snaps can self update and require a non-free server. They should be in non-free anyway. I'll be selling popcorn for that one. :mrgreen:
Free Software Matters
Ash init durbatulûk, ash init gimbatul,
Ash init thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
My oldest used PC: 1999 imac 333Mhz 256MB PPC abandoned by Debian

lindi
Debian Developer
Debian Developer
Posts: 412
Joined: 2022-07-12 14:10
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 77 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#34 Post by lindi »

oswaldkelso wrote: 2023-03-01 14:21 Look at "wine" it's free software but in contrib because it's purpose its to run Windows binaries.
Wine is in main, see https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/wine

User avatar
oswaldkelso
df -h | grep > 20TiB
df -h | grep > 20TiB
Posts: 1490
Joined: 2005-07-26 23:20
Location: UK
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#35 Post by oswaldkelso »

I stand corrected.
Free Software Matters
Ash init durbatulûk, ash init gimbatul,
Ash init thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
My oldest used PC: 1999 imac 333Mhz 256MB PPC abandoned by Debian

jmgibson1981
Posts: 295
Joined: 2015-06-07 14:38
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#36 Post by jmgibson1981 »

Where do you think flatpak's and snaps are stored?
AUR seems to be working quite well.
Neither are repositories in the Debian sense. The AUR in particular is just packagebuilds, many of which can build non free packages. On a technical level yes I suppose they are but considering the debate is about free / non free then no they aren't as they don't make any claims to be free and open.
Back at you.
Your right. The majority should cater to the militant minority?

If Debian want's to maintain its "Universal Operating System" status then you can't pick and choose and decide what people can and cannot install. Or hide it behind a veil. At the end of the day Snapd and Flatpak are open source. You want free / non free. Go tell the Snap or Flathub people to do it. They won't but it will make you feel better. Ultimately Debian is in no position to do this as they don't manage those stores.

This whole concept smacks of censorship. Hiding something you don't agree with. Software is either open or it's not. If it's open then it can be in Debian. Short of getting them removed from the distro repositories this whole issue is irrelevant. It would be wrong to put free open software in non-free. Again I bring up DPKG. It takes me all of 2 seconds to dpkg -i a downloaded deb. It may not be free. Let's put dpkg in nonfree right?

User avatar
oswaldkelso
df -h | grep > 20TiB
df -h | grep > 20TiB
Posts: 1490
Joined: 2005-07-26 23:20
Location: UK
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#37 Post by oswaldkelso »

No one gives a crap if you or anyone else, Knowingly wants to install non-free slaveware on your own system. What's happening is the very opposite. Non-free slaveware unknowingly being installed on a free only system.

What we're talking about here is installers in installers. How do we make sure everyone gets what they were expecting.

Some peoples lives might depend on being able to trust Debian. They might be non technical dissidents in oppressive regimes. The very people that would be tempted to use containerised installers. There needs to be some mechanisms to maintain the trust they have in Debian.

All kedaha is saying is that if it can't be shown that those packages follow the DFSG they should be in non-free. Why anyone that installs non-free by default would object to that is bonkers. They wouldn't even notice.
Free Software Matters
Ash init durbatulûk, ash init gimbatul,
Ash init thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
My oldest used PC: 1999 imac 333Mhz 256MB PPC abandoned by Debian

CynicalDebian
Posts: 263
Joined: 2023-03-02 05:26
Location: USA
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 60 times
Contact:

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#38 Post by CynicalDebian »

oswaldkelso wrote: 2023-03-03 10:17
All kedaha is saying is that if it can't be shown that those packages follow the DFSG they should be in non-free. Why anyone that installs non-free by default would object to that is bonkers. They wouldn't even notice.
I agree with you, but Flatpak does not come configured with any repository configured OOTB, you have to manually enable Flathub. Snap/AppImage I am unfamiliar with so I can't comment on those. But, I think the strongest argument for not moving these containers to non-free is that there is a number of similar software that has the ability to load proprietary applications, yet is currently packaged in main.

I think the OP is right in that this needs to happen upstream, flatpak could split flathub into non-free/free sections, but I think this is unlikely. I think the least worst option is a Debian wiki page for flatpak explaining the non-free effect of adding flathub.

jmgibson1981
Posts: 295
Joined: 2015-06-07 14:38
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 32 times

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#39 Post by jmgibson1981 »

And again I say if they actually care and need that they will research it. If they are blindly installing stuff under those conditions then quite honestly they deserve what they get.

Flatpak and Snap aren't managed by Debian so they have no dog in the fight. They just provide a way to install them. The whole free non free needs to be done on snap and flatpaks side.

Whether or not people want pure free software is irrelevant. The problem is this is a slippery slope. You hide those, even though they are open what is next? I write a closed program with GCC. Well damn now someone could argue GCC belongs in non free, hell for anyone that uses it for that. CodeBlocks is open source. I used it to write my non free gcc program. Here we go again. These are of course purely hypotheticals and probably not realistic. The issue is once you cross that line it gets easier and easier to reach further and further. Before you know it you will have someone demanding removal of any type of religious programs / apps in the repositories because "religion is for the weak minded" or some other ridiculous reason that offends them. Whatever the reason it ultimately becomes censorship in favor of a very few people who have a problem with a given piece of software or a viewpoint.

Snapd and Flatpak are not installed by default. They need to be added by the user. That alone signifies they don't much care, or once again I will repeat. "If it matters THEY will research it before adding it." The user has to take responsibility. They can't expect someone to nurse them around. If they won't take responsibility then they can't be helped. You can't make people's decisions for them.

CynicalDebian
Posts: 263
Joined: 2023-03-02 05:26
Location: USA
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 60 times
Contact:

Re: Snap & Flatpak Proprietary Software Should Be Isolated in Debian.

#40 Post by CynicalDebian »

And again I say if they actually care and need that they will research it. If they are blindly installing stuff under those conditions then quite honestly they deserve what they get.
The problem is that Flatpak/Snap exposes your system to proprietary software rather easily, and my understanding is Flatpak is managed by the user, by default you do not need root permissions to install packages. Considering Flatpak is often recommended for new users, and Flathub makes no distinction, it is easy to see a situation where a system intentioned only for free software ends up using proprietary software under Flatpak.
The problem is this is a slippery slope. You hide those, even though they are open what is next?
Debian already has weird rules around non-free software, and no it is not a slippery slope. These app store models expose non-free software easily to users in ways other software hasn't before. Even with WINE, you have to go and download a Windows program you know is proprietary. With Flatpak there is no distinction. Your arguments about censorship don't make much sense to me.
Snapd and Flatpak are not installed by default. They need to be added by the user.
Not really an argument against not including them in non-free, or else we would not have a non-free distinction.

I also don't think Flatpak or Snap(Maybe?) should be in non-free, but they do cause some serious issues since they effectively serve as a second package management system that can easily expose the unexpected to proprietary software. I think the case for some sort of warning or distinction is fair.

Post Reply