I usually try to stay out of the whole snap vs flatpak discussion. Although I am just really confused as to why flatpak just does not seem to care about usability. You’re trying to create a universal packaging format I would think the point of it is that a user can just install an app and after reviewing permissions it should “just work”.

There are so many issues that yes, have simple solutions, but why are these issues here in the first place.

These are the issues that I have encountered that annoy me:

  • Themes, cursors being inconsistent (needs to be fixed manually with flatpak --user override
  • IDE’s are unusable without extensions

At least snap provides an option --classic to make the app work. Please explain to me why flatpak just evidently refuses to take this same approach.

  • TheL3mur@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    1 year ago
    1. That site isn’t RedHat/GNOME. From the bottom of the letter:

    Note: Even though some of us are Foundation members or work on GNOME, these are our personal views as individuals, and not those of the GNOME Project, the GNOME Foundation, or our employers.

    1. They aren’t against user theming. Again, from the site:

    If you like to tinker with your own system, that’s fine with us. However, if you change things like stylesheets and icons, you should be aware that you’re in unsupported territory. Any issues you encounter should be reported to the theme developer, not the app developer.

    They’re against distributions shipping custom stylesheets by default. Which makes sense! If a user has a stock installation, and an app looks broken, they aren’t going to assume the distribution messed it up. They might not even know that the distribution changed the theme. It can also cause confusion for users when their app doesn’t look like the screenshots from the developer. These cause issues for app developers.

    That’s it. That’s all the letter is saying. It’s not a crusade against you theming, it’s asking for theming not to be done by distributions.

    (P.S. I don’t intend for this to be aggressive. Just wanted to explain a bit more, because the name does sound… not great.)

    • Raphael@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      1 year ago

      Agreed, they look like ducks, walk like ducks, quack like ducks and smell like ducks BUT THEY ARE NOT DUCKS