Do you have tools like fedora's flatpack?

aribi

Member

Reaction score: 24
Messages: 66

In short: not that I know of.
From what I read flatpak is just a work-around for a package system that doesn't have it's dependencies correct.
Although I've seen temporary hiccups in the package system on FreeBSD, they get repaired fairly quickly.
I think this is a better way to solve the problem of bad dependencies then having a cludge-fix.
 

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,093
Messages: 3,017

aribi is correct. flatpak is used to correct a Linux problem with packaging and is a different packaging system unto itself. FreeBSD doesn't need such a thing cause it doesn't have the issues Linux has with the problems flatpak is used to correct.
 
OP
OP
zoujiaqing

zoujiaqing

Member

Reaction score: 1
Messages: 46

WIndows have Sandbox in WIndows 10.
MacOS have Sandbox.
Linux have flatpak.
FreeBSD have what?
 

ralphbsz

Daemon

Reaction score: 929
Messages: 1,490

What problem are you trying to solve?

A: Software distribution and packaging (which is one aspect of Linux Flatpack, but not of MacOS Sandbox)? For that, FreeBSD has packages and ports. Read the handbook, and it will become clear to you.

B: Enforcement of security isolation for programs (which is another aspect of Linux Flatpack, and of MacOS Sandbox)? For that, FreeBSD has jails and bhyve.

And for most people, those are not problems that need solving, unless you are trying to build an ecosystem in which random and potentially dangerous or incompetent people can distribute software, which we have to unfortunately assume is badly written. And it is important to understand that for decades, we ran computers that were well-managed and safe, without using any of these technologies. In the cloud environment, we now use similar tools (docker, kubernetes, virtual machines in general), but for very different reasons: not to be able to distribute and encapsulate garbage software, but to make configuration and management easier.

By the way, it is important to point out that the original Linux Flatpack development came from Lennart, who is well known for ... many things, the worst of which is probably systemd (although Avahi didn't win him any friends either). There are few people in open source development who are more despised than Lennart (one example of someone even less popular might be Hans).

P.S. Just looked it up: Hans will be out of jail in a few years; maybe he'll develop some new file systems?
 

ralphbsz

Daemon

Reaction score: 929
Messages: 1,490

Few people here will know what the joke means:

Radio Yerevan was asked:
Does Flatpak provide any security features?
In principle, yes. But it was designed by Lennart, and its goals are completely unclear, and its implementation is an awful mess. In principle, it can prevent an application that is installed in a flatpack from opening files or dealing directly with devices. In practice, it seems to be full of holes for the "convenience" of application developers; remember "convenience" and "security" are antithetical. It also seems to be implemented very sloppily, with too much complexity and not enough thought.

Supposedly, the MacOS Sandbox is somewhat better at enforcing that isolation. In reality, I would not rely on either of the two sandboxing mechanisms to run untrusted code, if I had something worth protecting on the machine.

(Side remark: The "Question to Radio Yerevan" joke is an ancient trope of political jokes from soviet Russia. They always go the same way: Radio Yerevan, or Armenian Radio, is asked a question, and at first it gives a politically correct answer by saying "in principle yes", but then it gives a more realistic answer.

Apparently we have forum trolls.
Certainly we do.
 

Nyakov

Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 23

FreeBSD have what?
PC-BSD have BPI once. But this gone now.

think this is a better way to solve the problem of bad dependencies then having a cludge-fix.
FreeBSD doesn't need such a thing cause it doesn't have the issues Linux has with the problems flatpak is used to correct.
e, which we have to unfortunately assume is badly written. And it is important to understand
The is no way to solve dependency hell problem other as using software distribution systems as flatpack. Or compiling binaries statically, what is sometimes impossible to do.
NIX world packaging systems is flawed by design. You cannot enforce every application in the world to be synced on the same consistent applications\lib\config collection.
You can do this for one lang ecosystem(not c or c++ for sure) in some degree, but this is all you can do.
What package system allow is to assemble few specific applications with specific settings with specific OS version.

It os ok for some embedded\server use.

But this is makes no sense for general computing workstations.
And even server world was pushed to dockers and other containers, because this is works so much better.

The applications - is a COLLECTION of libs and settings and functions in code that works together. The one shouldn't separate it into packages.
It is makes no sense in no possible way.(it makes some sense for some general APIs but there must be always the way to ignore this, and as practice shows, the ignoring - always the case in practical computing)

I remember 2000 something year when there was this talking about how nix packages saves disk space... I propose to dismiss this argument for good.
 

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,093
Messages: 3,017

The is no way to solve dependency hell problem other as using software distribution systems as flatpack.
How in the world did we do it all these decades?
NIX world packaging systems is flawed by design.
The computer scientists and large companies around the world have been wrong all these decades?

EDIT: I see I posted in this thread earlier so I will not comment on this any more. I will repeat what I said. These are Linux issues, not FreeBSD ones. And as one who is digging into Linux for a job recently, Linux has lots and lots of problems.
 

Nyakov

Member

Reaction score: 3
Messages: 23

The computer scientists and large companies around the world have been wrong all these decades?
The ones who develop Windows and MacOS - definitely not.
The ones who develop AppImage and Docker - definitely not as well.
As thous who develop jails and bhyve.

Apart from this, the unix was develop for typewriters, and idea of package managers can came to mind only to C\C++ developer in the age of notepad like code editors.
This construct, damaging for user software management.
It is good for system management, yes.
But there is user space, and user applications, they cannot be consistent by the definition. They shouldn't be. This is what makes them so useful.

These are Linux issues, not FreeBSD ones. And as one who is digging into Linux for a job recently, Linux has lots and lots of problems.
But this is not helpful at all.
You a denying any possible solution to any possible problems, and this is destructive.
If you believe that the is no problem, even then, the is a chance that the is one, especially big one if you bear on belief and not on reason.
 

shkhln

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 154
Messages: 413

There is no single solution to the dependency management (and bit rot, and change/risk management in general). There are only different sets of tradeoffs. Flatpack/PBI/whatever still rely on a very specific versions of the base system, X11 libs, D-Bus endpoints, XDG conventions, OpenGL, sound API, hardware architecture and so on. If your favorite application is unmaintained eventually it will cease to build/run.

The ones who develop Windows and MacOS - definitely not.
Do you even know what Flatpack is? (The topic of this thread, by the way.)
 

rigoletto@

Daemon
Developer

Reaction score: 855
Messages: 1,802

Firefox use flatpack run other linux.

FreeBSD have the package? use jails? port it?
  1. FreeBSD has no relation with Linux
  2. Flatpack and similars do solve a problem which is a problem for a target audience that is not the FreeBSD one: lazy and/or incompetent developers, and users who don't know what they are doing.
We don't need software using libraries versions from ages ago, probably full of bugs (including security issues) probably already solved in newer versions, because the developer doesn't want to work to keep peace with that.
 

drhowarddrfine

Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 1,093
Messages: 3,017

The ones who develop Windows and MacOS - definitely not.
Your lack of knowledge is on display.
unix was develop for typewriters
And even more so.
You a denying any possible solution to any possible problems, and this is destructive.
You are proposing a recent development is superior to the decades of computer science study and usage. You claim a relatively minimally used piece of software is superior to all others.

There are other forums for this. Reddit is popular among hobbyists such as yourself and I suggest you go there with your rant. In the meantime, discussion of "Why isn't FreeBSD like..." is not allowed here.
 
Top