Flathub seeks funding to add payments, donations and subscriptions

Quoting: Renzatic Gear

Quoting: ElectricPrismI would buy several commercial tools right now if they were available starting with Affinity Photo 2 -- it was my understanding some people got it running in Bottles a few months back.

I was a part of that thread over on the Affinity forums.

Yeah, we got one of the last pre 2.0 releases to run in Bottles, but it wasn't exactly what I'd call a smooth experience. Between the flickering canvas, and the constant crashes, I'd say it's one step above "...well, at least we got it to boot."

From memory, I decompressed the msix installer and went to install it and for some reason it would seize up the kernel on my Threadripper. No TTY switch, no nothing.

I've planned on imaging a VM, installing it, and then imaging it again and dumping the Regedit DIFFs and Filesystem DIFFs into a Wine Prefix -- I've just had too much to be busy with lately. That and my default desktop is Sway/Wayland so the merging of wine-wayland will be helpful for me.

I am hopeful that the usability will improve, I wish the community could just vote on important apps at codeweavers and get support -- that'd be worth the money.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyMakes me wonder how workable it would be to build Flatpaks with (Windows application + Wine), and whether Codeweavers could make a few pennies setting up such packages on Flathub for Windows software sellers?

I like the way you think. It would be awesome if somebody went around and made deals with some popular tools to expand their audience and bring them to FlatHub similar to Icculus a few years back.

Quoting: denyasisI'm all for donations and being able to support various developers, but when I hear "subscription" I think something more commercial (especially since it's mentioned above in addition to recurring donations). And when I think commerical payments, I'm expecting commercial level support... That seems like a pretty high expectation for a dev from a consumer.

I'd like for that to happen. It's major, major hopium, but I hope Adobe can eventually come to Linux - so that more users can switch to Linux - and a strong commercial environment for desktop users is necessary for that.

At the very least, we know that Spotify is interested in supporting Flatpak officially but right now they're focused on Wayland and maintaining their official Snaps release.

As Flatpak and Flathub matures, I think it will be the way to get desktop apps on Linux, but there's a long road in the back-end and front-end support and adoption to reach that point, and this is one important step within that road.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyMakes me wonder how workable it would be to build Flatpaks with (Windows application + Wine), and whether Codeweavers could make a few pennies setting up such packages on Flathub for Windows software sellers?

This has already been done in Winepak (the old one) and flatpak-wine. In addition, in practice, this is what the launchers for FFXVI and Genshin on Flatpak are, dunno about other apps like the Minecraft launchers. But I've at least played Genshin on Linux and the setup was easy, game runs fine.


Last edited by fenglengshun on 28 February 2023 at 6:02 am UTC

I'm actually reasonably excited for this. I've probably tripled the amount of money I spend on software since switching to Linux a few years ago. A few hundred bucks a year of that is just donations to projects I use (or just like really), and I buy quite a few more games now too especially from small devs. Honestly the problem is mostly one of "I like this, how can I thank the developer for their time?" Give me a frictionless way to pass some money on to a developer of a program I find useful and I'll do it.

While I have no problem with Flatpaks (in contrast with Snaps, which I really really dislike), I think we as a community shouldn't rely too much neither of them; also, as a sysadmin for decades, and gamedev on the side, I'm a advocate of ImgApp, it's less convenient in some scenarios, but it's also a lot more straightforward. Last time I checked, only OpenSuse came with it out of the box, while flatpak and snap... is everywhere now.

I really dislike these flats/snaps/etc for software i want to use daily. Even for one offs like games i tend to like containers you can roll on your own better. Mainly because they they don't want to solve "linux packaging".

Quoting: dvdI really dislike these flats/snaps/etc for software i want to use daily. Even for one offs like games i tend to like containers you can roll on your own better. Mainly because they they don't want to solve "linux packaging".

I don't think of this as 'solving linux packaging' it's 'solving distribution of applications'. If you've ever talked to a developer and asked 'why is there no Linux version!?' they'll either respond with 'what's linux?' or they've looked into it, saw that they'd have to either distribute their package as rpm (various versions because not all rpm based distributions are created equal), a deb (these work better in different debian based distros, but can still run into dependency crap), a tar ball, or... a bunch of others that use their own packaging standard. By the time they've looked into it this far, they're head is spinning and they're like 'why can't I just release it as an exe?' Well that option is there too... but Linux users generally don't like .run files, or generic blobs either, especially if they require root to install (which even on windows most ask for permission to install crap outside the user's dir).

Flatpak, Snap, Appimage all are different attempts to solve this issue.

My biggest issue currently with flatpak? Gnome-Software has a higher preference for flatpaks over the native package manager! I found a bug report / feature request to be able to change this, but it doesn't look like there has been much movement on it. There is supposedly an option in dconf for it, but i couldn't seem to find it the other day when I went looking.

If I could pay a lump $100/yr for all the open source software I use, I would do it. But you have to donate to projects of varying sizes right now. It is... kind of difficult to manage unless you're going to break out a spreadsheet and make a nice chore out of it.

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: dvdI really dislike these flats/snaps/etc for software i want to use daily. Even for one offs like games i tend to like containers you can roll on your own better. Mainly because they they don't want to solve "linux packaging".

I don't think of this as 'solving linux packaging' it's 'solving distribution of applications'. If you've ever talked to a developer and asked 'why is there no Linux version!?' they'll either respond with 'what's linux?' or they've looked into it, saw that they'd have to either distribute their package as rpm (various versions because not all rpm based distributions are created equal), a deb (these work better in different debian based distros, but can still run into dependency crap), a tar ball, or... a bunch of others that use their own packaging standard. By the time they've looked into it this far, they're head is spinning and they're like 'why can't I just release it as an exe?' Well that option is there too... but Linux users generally don't like .run files, or generic blobs either, especially if they require root to install (which even on windows most ask for permission to install crap outside the user's dir).

Flatpak, Snap, Appimage all are different attempts to solve this issue.

My biggest issue currently with flatpak? Gnome-Software has a higher preference for flatpaks over the native package manager! I found a bug report / feature request to be able to change this, but it doesn't look like there has been much movement on it. There is supposedly an option in dconf for it, but i couldn't seem to find it the other day when I went looking.

Which developers? I reckon blob devs won't support much more than Ubuntu and SteamOS in any case, and then the whole thing about generic blobs is mute. (stuff like games etc.) And the blobs that matter for computer operation either get replaced or seem to be moving in a direction where the hardware manufacturers want to produce working solutions for linux distros. It's not really effected by flatpak & co. either.

My uneducated guess is that the ones that can't figure out tarballs don't really want to support the distros either.
Money is better spent on your favourite distro or the FSF imo.

These things supposed to be "secure" but they have some idiotic configuration. My aunt needs Adobe Reader because in 2022 EU and local govt. systems still mandate proprietary programs, so it was installed on her main computer (a snap package). It got infected by a trojan and I only found it by chance, as I ran a virus scan/upgrade for her some point later.

Quoting: dvd

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: dvdI really dislike these flats/snaps/etc for software i want to use daily. Even for one offs like games i tend to like containers you can roll on your own better. Mainly because they they don't want to solve "linux packaging".

I don't think of this as 'solving linux packaging' it's 'solving distribution of applications'. If you've ever talked to a developer and asked 'why is there no Linux version!?' they'll either respond with 'what's linux?' or they've looked into it, saw that they'd have to either distribute their package as rpm (various versions because not all rpm based distributions are created equal), a deb (these work better in different debian based distros, but can still run into dependency crap), a tar ball, or... a bunch of others that use their own packaging standard. By the time they've looked into it this far, they're head is spinning and they're like 'why can't I just release it as an exe?' Well that option is there too... but Linux users generally don't like .run files, or generic blobs either, especially if they require root to install (which even on windows most ask for permission to install crap outside the user's dir).

Flatpak, Snap, Appimage all are different attempts to solve this issue.

My biggest issue currently with flatpak? Gnome-Software has a higher preference for flatpaks over the native package manager! I found a bug report / feature request to be able to change this, but it doesn't look like there has been much movement on it. There is supposedly an option in dconf for it, but i couldn't seem to find it the other day when I went looking.

Which developers? I reckon blob devs won't support much more than Ubuntu and SteamOS in any case, and then the whole thing about generic blobs is mute. (stuff like games etc.) And the blobs that matter for computer operation either get replaced or seem to be moving in a direction where the hardware manufacturers want to produce working solutions for linux distros. It's not really effected by flatpak & co. either.

My uneducated guess is that the ones that can't figure out tarballs don't really want to support the distros either.
Money is better spent on your favourite distro or the FSF imo.

These things supposed to be "secure" but they have some idiotic configuration. My aunt needs Adobe Reader because in 2022 EU and local govt. systems still mandate proprietary programs, so it was installed on her main computer (a snap package). It got infected by a trojan and I only found it by chance, as I ran a virus scan/upgrade for her some point later.

'Which Developers' Well that's the point, we don't know how many developers have looked at trying to develop software for the Linux Desktop, saw the mess that is distributing their software, and gave up. Steam came along and is a great way for commercial software to be distributed, but I'm sure most don't want to give up that large of a cut.

By the way, I've seen alternatives to Acrobat Reader that fulfills all of it's functions, damned if I can remember what it was called though.

Now I'm curious though how you got a trojan in the snap package of Acrobat Reader???

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: dvd

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: dvdI really dislike these flats/snaps/etc for software i want to use daily. Even for one offs like games i tend to like containers you can roll on your own better. Mainly because they they don't want to solve "linux packaging".

I don't think of this as 'solving linux packaging' it's 'solving distribution of applications'. If you've ever talked to a developer and asked 'why is there no Linux version!?' they'll either respond with 'what's linux?' or they've looked into it, saw that they'd have to either distribute their package as rpm (various versions because not all rpm based distributions are created equal), a deb (these work better in different debian based distros, but can still run into dependency crap), a tar ball, or... a bunch of others that use their own packaging standard. By the time they've looked into it this far, they're head is spinning and they're like 'why can't I just release it as an exe?' Well that option is there too... but Linux users generally don't like .run files, or generic blobs either, especially if they require root to install (which even on windows most ask for permission to install crap outside the user's dir).

Flatpak, Snap, Appimage all are different attempts to solve this issue.

My biggest issue currently with flatpak? Gnome-Software has a higher preference for flatpaks over the native package manager! I found a bug report / feature request to be able to change this, but it doesn't look like there has been much movement on it. There is supposedly an option in dconf for it, but i couldn't seem to find it the other day when I went looking.

Which developers? I reckon blob devs won't support much more than Ubuntu and SteamOS in any case, and then the whole thing about generic blobs is mute. (stuff like games etc.) And the blobs that matter for computer operation either get replaced or seem to be moving in a direction where the hardware manufacturers want to produce working solutions for linux distros. It's not really effected by flatpak & co. either.

My uneducated guess is that the ones that can't figure out tarballs don't really want to support the distros either.
Money is better spent on your favourite distro or the FSF imo.

These things supposed to be "secure" but they have some idiotic configuration. My aunt needs Adobe Reader because in 2022 EU and local govt. systems still mandate proprietary programs, so it was installed on her main computer (a snap package). It got infected by a trojan and I only found it by chance, as I ran a virus scan/upgrade for her some point later.

'Which Developers' Well that's the point, we don't know how many developers have looked at trying to develop software for the Linux Desktop, saw the mess that is distributing their software, and gave up. Steam came along and is a great way for commercial software to be distributed, but I'm sure most don't want to give up that large of a cut.

By the way, I've seen alternatives to Acrobat Reader that fulfills all of it's functions, damned if I can remember what it was called though.

Now I'm curious though how you got a trojan in the snap package of Acrobat Reader???

Look, my whole point is, people developing free software have the choice to deal with the "mess" ie. work with maintainers/packagers, do it themselves or just drop their code wherever if they want to release it at all. These new and shiny package formats only cater to blob devs imo., and that shouldn't be the goal of any free software projects.

Additionally, i don't think anyone can convince me that any developer that's making a tantrum about this is not just lazy - the practice has been the same for years - dump it on ubuntu with "support" and the rest will figure it out, and the users understood it perfectly.