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
CwF
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2636
Joined: 2018-06-20 15:16
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 192 times

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

#41 Post by CwF »

Snap & Flatpak is a leg in the race to mediocrity.

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.

#42 Post by jmgibson1981 »

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.
Every time I've installed a Flatpak without the --user flag I've had to enter either a sudo or root password.
Not really an argument against not including them in non-free, or else we would not have a non-free distinction
Fair enough but you are still trying to put open source software into a non free repository where it doesn't belong. At the end of the day both flatpak and snapd are open. You can't just arbitrarily decide they aren't. Any software can be used or exploited to do or get non free stuff easily. The whole idea of this thread is very similar to the systemd thing I think. People don't like it, or they believe it goes against their opinion of what is right and they want it gone or to use something else.

Here is the answer to this whole thread. If you can find a way to patch flatpak or snapd to warn the user that software may not be open then no one is stopping you. You can't solve every problem for every single person. That is simply not possible. The whole point of open source in my mind is control. I have the power to decide, not some corporation. This is very much big brother stuff. "You have to go out of your way because WE don't like it." People need to make their own choices, not have them decided for them.

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.

#43 Post by oswaldkelso »

python and perl and lua are free Libre open source software aren't they. Nobody is saying they have to go in non-free. All of them could be written as scripts or to fetch and install either free or non-free software. That script or software is the determining factor. That's what defines which categories of main, contrib or non-free they go in isn't it!

Were talking about and installer in main that installs application unverified by Debian. It's impossible to ask upstream to verify because upstream could be anybody.

It's only a matter of time before you get flatpak-pornhub-viewer off some dodgy website and you've but the installer in your kids bedroom, the one that switches the webcam and mic on. fanfriggintastic!

As regards the big 3. Appimage snaps and Flatpak I beleive it's easy to disable them without putting then in non-free. Run a non-systend distro. Boom fixed. :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

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.

#44 Post by wizard10000 »

oswaldkelso wrote: 2023-03-04 20:47...That script or software is the determining factor. That's what defines which categories of main, contrib or non-free they go in isn't it!
Nope. Linkage to Debian Free Software Guidelines.

edit: This is what it takes to be called free software in Debian. The fact that snap and flatpak clients meet these requirements is the reason they're not in contrib or non-free.

If we're suggesting that we change DFSG there's a process for that but the short answer is if the software meets DFSG it goes in free :)
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.

#45 Post by oswaldkelso »

Please don't use half of the quote. That's disingenuous. The first part as I said would meet the DFSG
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.

#46 Post by wizard10000 »

oswaldkelso wrote: 2023-03-04 22:12Please don't use half of the quote. That's disingenuous. The first part as I said would meet the DFSG
No. I addressed an opinion that you presented as fact. I responded with actual facts :mrgreen:
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.

#47 Post by oswaldkelso »

"python and perl and lua are free Libre open source software aren't they. Nobody is saying they have to go in non-free. All of them could be written as scripts or to fetch and install either free or non-free software. That script or software is the determining factor. That's what defines which categories of main, contrib or non-free"
they go in isn't it!"
What's not true about that?

I could have put it differently I admit.

Long long ago there was a village. In the village were water drinkers and the piss drinkers and they both lived happily together. Every now and then they would take their buckets and fill them up and top up the barrels in their homes. The only rule was they wouldn't put piss in the water. Then one day some piss drinkers decided to put their bucket of piss inside the water drinkers bucket. When the water drinkers complained they were getting piss in their barrels the piss drinkers said "You never said I couldn't put my bucket in your bucket! That my friend is a fact not and opinion. :P
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
Trihexagonal
df -h | participant
df -h | participant
Posts: 149
Joined: 2022-03-29 20:53
Location: The Land of the Dead
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Contact:

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

#48 Post by Trihexagonal »

el_koraco wrote: 2023-03-02 14:12
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.
You been standing outside my window again, Jose?

If so, you might have heard the dedicated FreeBSD 11.1 mp3 player with XMMS playing an El Vez "Mexican Radio" cover.
FreeBSD 11.1 has been outdated since October 2019 but that box is from before they removed XMMS from the ports tree.
When Darkness takes everything embrace what Darkness brings.

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.

#49 Post by jmgibson1981 »

That my friend is a fact not and opinion.
It is also a FACT that the people in your given example are the ones that messed up. Not the buckets. Back to personal resposibility. Same thing with guns. People claim guns are dangerous and take lives. No they don't. They don't do anything. They require a person to make them into a weapon. Normally and originally they were just another tool. People are always the problem. You can put the biggest warning labels on something. The person still has to read it and apply it.

(for the record I'm neither for or against guns on the political spectrum, i stay out of it either way. it does fit this problem though.)

pwzhangzz
Posts: 420
Joined: 2020-11-11 17:42
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 26 times

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

#50 Post by pwzhangzz »

Seeing "snap" and "flatpak" being put in the same sentence makes the whole thread devoid of any credibility especially when the subject matter was about some trivial and esoteric free/non-free aspects of flatpak. "Nauseating" is probably a more appropriate word.

User avatar
kent_dorfman766
Posts: 535
Joined: 2022-12-16 06:34
Location: socialist states of america
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 70 times

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

#51 Post by kent_dorfman766 »

In my world snap and flatpak wouldn't even be in the distribution, because of what they do and what they stand for. Let the user go find their source and manually build them if they want to go that route. The clear signal "should" be we don't like the windozeification of linux and as a distro we ain't gonna support it.

User avatar
sunrat
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6412
Joined: 2006-08-29 09:12
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 462 times

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

#52 Post by sunrat »

I isolate Snap and Flatpak on my Debian. Don't install in the first place. :mrgreen:

Never found any application for which they are needed. I do have a couple of Appimages, they sit quietly in the corner until utilised and don't burden the system with huge associated runtimes.
“ computer users can be divided into 2 categories:
Those who have lost data
...and those who have not lost data YET ”
Remember to BACKUP!

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.

#53 Post by BBQdave »

sunrat wrote: 2023-03-05 21:38 I isolate Snap and Flatpak on my Debian. Don't install in the first place. :mrgreen:
That got me laughing :)

I'm still researching flatpak, but nothing I've read would indicate problems with the two applications I installed, GIMP and Darktable. And this is testing for me, how do these photo editing tools perform as flatpaks. So far, no problems.

I do want to understand (better) the vetting process to submit a flatpak to flathub. But I am intrigued by the function and potential of flatpaks. Especially paired with a stable linux distro like Debian 11. It works nicely on my hardware, an older laptop with maxed out resources - but modest compared to today's hardware.
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.

#54 Post by oswaldkelso »

For those less versed in the ancient lores. The Saga of Aqua and Urine continues.
Episode 2:

Choices main contrib non-free non-free-firmware

Users:-------------Pure-Debian
Craptastic----------main--------- ---contrib------------------non-free--------------non-free-firmware
Pee-wee-------------main------------contrib------------------non-free
Chancer-------------main------------contrib
Freetarderus-------main

Everyone is happy and understands what they're getting \0/

Folks have always made open-sores-buckets and been placing them in the main section of pure Debian. This has been fine for a long time. Then some started to appear that caused strife and sickness for some of our villagers. Some even contained "evil-sourcery" that could undermine our choice of running Pure Debian. All of a sudden our choices could be full of nobody know whats from another places, undermining some of our own villagers choices and "Pure Debian magic" :-(

An elder scratched his head, stroked his beard and pondered. After thinking hard he said. I don't believe that the other villages open-sores-software should be in "main" if they can undermine Pure Debian. But I don't believe they should be in non-free either as they are open-sores. I think they should be in contrib. Because their open-sores-software could contain anything. Outside sources might have filled them with DFSG software compliant main :-) contrib :-|, or non-free :( non-free-firmware :cry:

We have no easy way of knowing and nor do our villagers. We don't want those less fortunate or knowledgeable than our wise ones accidentally being poisoned by unintentionally filling their barrel with some "other-villages" excrement.

The old elder went to top of the hill, looked to the heavens and prayed with all his heart that all open-sores-buckets with evil-sourcery be removed from main and banished to contrib. This could keep both the water-drinkers and the piss-drinkers happy and the village elders would only have to check the open-sores-buckets as they already do.


contrib:
These are the only packages considered part of the Debian distribution. contrib packages contain DFSG-compliant software, but have dependencies not in main (possibly packaged for Debian in non-free). non-free contains software that does not comply with the DFSG.

typo: could could
Last edited by oswaldkelso on 2023-03-06 14:13, edited 1 time in total.
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
sunrat
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6412
Joined: 2006-08-29 09:12
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 462 times

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

#55 Post by sunrat »

@oswaldkelso that almost makes sense. Packages which can be used to install non-free stuff would fit into the definition of contrib.

Your tale reminds me of the movie I watched last night, "The Man Who Would Be King". The townspeople in Kafiristan complained that the bullies from the other town would steal their women, and piss in the river upstream while they were bathing.
“ computer users can be divided into 2 categories:
Those who have lost data
...and those who have not lost data YET ”
Remember to BACKUP!

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.

#56 Post by jmgibson1981 »

Almost but doesn't quite. At the end of the day you still can't define software by its capabilities. Only by it's own merits. Just because something can allow non free stuff doesn't mean that it too should be non free. You could chase it forever. Ultimately everything can be used to access non free in some way. How far does it go? Does it ever stop? And in this case why does it even matter. You don't like flatpak or snap. Don't install them. Simple. Problem solved.

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.

#57 Post by oswaldkelso »

Well I think it fits in with the spirit of what contrib tries to do. It removes the need of Debian or the user to have to try and check every upstream build an impossible task anyway and keeps main pure. If you install something that undermines dpkg and breaks your system you get to keep the halves.

Things like snaps can auto update there's no way you can have two package managers of different philosophies and have a sane system. Let alone 3 or 4.

Lets remember only main is Pure Debian anything else is for convenience only.

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-polic ... chive-area
Examples of packages which would be included in contrib are:
wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free programs.
I would say snaps and flatpaks are wrapper packages for non-free programs
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
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.

#58 Post by canci »

I'd definitely be for anything Python, Ruby or JavaScript adjacent to be in contrib.
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

User avatar
Trihexagonal
df -h | participant
df -h | participant
Posts: 149
Joined: 2022-03-29 20:53
Location: The Land of the Dead
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 16 times
Contact:

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

#59 Post by Trihexagonal »

el_koraco wrote: 2023-03-02 14:12
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.
Don't assume to know anything about me, because you don't know beans from frejoles about who I am

I'm a home usr. One with 12 laptops running FreeBSD or Kali GNU/Linux. With over 20 years experience using Debian, 18 years with BackTrack/Kali, 18 years with FreeBSD. Have had OpenBSD, OpenIndiana and Solaris desktops with screenshots of Linux boxen going back to 2002. Taught myself to use every computer and OS I've ever used and never taken a computer class of any kind in my life.

I prefer ports, apt and Audacious. What about you?
When Darkness takes everything embrace what Darkness brings.

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.

#60 Post by el_koraco »

Trihexagonal wrote: 2023-03-24 06:11
el_koraco wrote: 2023-03-02 14:12
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.
Don't assume to know anything about me, because you don't know beans from frejoles about who I am

I'm a home usr. One with 12 laptops running FreeBSD or Kali GNU/Linux. With over 20 years experience using Debian, 18 years with BackTrack/Kali, 18 years with FreeBSD. Have had OpenBSD, OpenIndiana and Solaris desktops with screenshots of Linux boxen going back to 2002. Taught myself to use every computer and OS I've ever used and never taken a computer class of any kind in my life.

I prefer ports, apt and Audacious. What about you?
This was supposed to be humor. I guess you have no sense of it, which I wrongly assumed.

Post Reply