Quoting: slaapliedjeFlatpak is another in a long line of 'we don't want to manage packaging for multiple distributions' solutions. There have been installer type things for ages in Linux that work the same way as Windows. Flatpaks are a little more similar to how Macs package things.

Downsides are that the sandboxing can break integration (like Discord with Steam), or Lutris with its wmulators. Another one is because it doesn't follow the system libraries, you could end up with explouted versions if the Flatpak isn't updated. Which has always been an issue with bundled software. They also take up a lot more disk.

Don't get me wrong, I quite like flatpaks, but the Cons definitely all need to be listed. AppImages have similar issues, but have also been around quite some time, and act more like the 'Mac Way'.

Note that I said "or something like it". I prefer AppImages, personally, but the Flatpak package I tried worked fine. Better than my distribution's package, which was broken for several weeks.

You mention other "installer type things", but I'm assuming you're referring to .sh install scripts. These are not really the same thing as Windows or macOS. For one thing, depending on how they're implemented, they may not solve the dependency issue at all. They're also often difficult to uninstall and create havoc on the user's system. Flatpak and AppImage are not like this.

I listed these cons in the comment you quoted, namely "Flatpaks can introduce issues that didn't exist before due to its complex nature", and "Storage space is less of an issue the more Flatpak software you install." Of course, you can end up with multiple versions of libraries which Flatpak can't de-duplicate due to compatibility issues, but then, your options are "don't run it at all" or "use more disk space".

I'm not sure what you mean by "because it doesn't follow the system libraries, you could end up with explouted versions if the Flatpak isn't updated." But it doesn't follow system libraries for a reason: if it did that, the software would break. There is old software that simply can't be run with current system libraries and needs older dependencies, which without something like Flatpak, is a lot harder to get running.

A downside I forgot to mention is that because Flatpaks duplicate system libraries if they are installed by your distribution's package manager, you will end up with more memory usage because multiple versions of the libraries are running at once. There's not much that can be done about this one. It's a similar issue to storage space, but potentially more impactful.

If you're interested in reading an article written by someone who completely disagrees with my arguments: https://drewdevault.com/2021/09/27/Let-distros-do-their-job.html

Though this advice isn't going to work for projects that have a long legacy and just aren't easy to build. Arch and almost every other distribution has stopped bothering to package Anki for the past 2 years because it's too much work. Where is the user left? Follow the developer's advice to install it through pip?

I'm not saying that Flatpak should replace distribution-built packages. I'm saying they should co-exist.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ssj17vegetaApart from the Steam deck, is there any advantage from Flatpak packaging VS debian packages ?

Benefits of Flatpak are as follows:

• Because it ships with all necessary dependencies, it doesn't break when the operating system is updated.


• Flatpak works on 30+ GNU/Linux distributions, which means packaging is many times more efficient.


• Developers can package their own software, rather than relying on a third party who may or may not get around to it. And even if they do, they might not package it correctly due to the pressure they're under to get a swath of packages out. The developer cares more and is most familiar with their software. This is how it's done on macOS and Windows, for good reason, but up until now, that's just been too much work for developers. Flatpak makes it much easier.


• It's trivial for users to upgrade to the latest version if their distribution is behind on the latest version. Upstream will always be faster than downstream.


• If most distributions rely on Flatpak for most userland software in the future, package maintainers can spend more time on the packages that really do need their attention, namely core software like glibc, gcc, desktop environments, etc.

Flatpak tackles some long-standing distribution issues with GNU/Linux. It's not perfect, but something like it needs to exist in the future in order to deal with these problems that simply don't exist on macOS or Windows.

The downsides are that a lot of developers don't maintain their own Flatpak packages (or one doesn't exist at all), the sandbox is flawed, Flatpaks can introduce issues that didn't exist before due to its complex nature, it may be slower (at least in startup time), and the syntax for the package manager is just not as good as Pacman. Storage space is less of an issue the more Flatpak software you install.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

With any luck, this will solve most of the visual novels I play not being able to be fullscreened.

Though I'm probably misunderstanding something about how Gamescope works.

Re:

Quoting: GithubYou can spoof a virtual screen with a desired resolution and refresh rate as the only thing the game sees, and control/resize the output as needed. This can be useful in exotic display configurations like ultrawide or multi-monitor setups that involve rotation.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kokoko3k

Quoting: gamingonlinux.com"For Linux users though, you should just stick to Flatpak from Flathub."

Quoting: https://archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/obs-studio/obs-studio 27.2.3-1
Build Date: 2022-03-14 20:45 UTC

Why should (Arch) "Linux users" "just stick to Flatpak from Flathub" ?
What are the advantages by using it and not the distribution provided package, if any?

As an Arch Linux user, today an update to Evolution/libphonenumber broke Microsoft Exchange compatibility. I tried downgrading the effected packages to no avail, and also tried building the -git packages from the AUR, but was met with a different issue.

In the end, I had to use the Flatpak for Evolution, which worked fine and is just as up-to-date. I'm not sure if I'm going to go back to using the distribution-prepared package, especially because it seems that GNOME-related packages are currently understaffed so take a while to get updates and fixes. However, the maintainers acted quickly on this one but closed it prematurely.

One advantage of Flatpaks is less breakage, and I don't have to chase dependencies around and still not get the software back to working order. This is not a typical situation for me on Arch Linux, but with the recent glibc update that broke Anki for me and now this (I'm definitely not using pip to install Anki, though), it's nice to have another option.

Of course, I have no idea whether the Evolution Flatpak is official—though it appears to be maintained by a Red Hat engineer—because the instructions on gnome.org for Evolution's Flatpak package tell me something completely different. It'd be nice if they got trust sorted out at some point, since it seems that anyone can just package and distribute a Flatpak.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: areamanplaysgame

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualFor Windows? I face these issues with DRM regularly for visual novels on GNU/Linux through WINE, but never have on Windows. Though I've only been playing games for ~10 years.

It was in Steam on Linux, using Proton, but when looking for a solution, I learned that people attempting to play several Ubisoft games on Windows have experienced the same issue.

Well, that's embarrassing. I suppose I should say that most publishers are able to ship games with DRM that does work for all intended customers today.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: areamanplaysgame

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualIt would certainly be effective at convincing people who don't buy because they can get it for free to buy the game, but as for people who want a game unencumbered by Denuvo's anti-tamper software or people who simply don't have the money, I don't think it would have much effect.

I don't know. Maybe I'm not the typical case, but while I think DRM is generally bullshit, I am too old to download cracked games or tools to crack games. I have no clue where that shit comes from and I don't trust it.

From what I've heard, you're an exception. But I agree with you. You can't trust any executable binary unless you have some amazing reverse engineering skills. Random executables you find on a torrent site should be the least trustworthy. But this isn't just about downloading a cracked version of the game—it's about increasing sales. The goal of DRM is to increase sales by preventing customers from sharing files. Would you buy the game if the only option was DRM? If you only want games that are unencumbered, probably not.

Quoting: areamanplaysgame

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualI've personally never had DRM preventing me from playing a game—assuming I was using Windows, of course. Singleplayer games that require an internet connection to play are something everyone is willing to raise their pitchforks over, but these are far and few between.

The problem is no longer that DRM is ineffective and inconveniences customers.

I have had this issue, and recently (though it was an older game). I bought one of the older Assassin's Creed games on Steam and the damned Ubisoft launcher kept prompting me for a CD key. I assume there is a workaround for this, but it was not worth it to me to find out how, and I returned the game instead.

For Windows? I face these issues with DRM regularly for visual novels on GNU/Linux through WINE, but never have on Windows. Though I've only been playing games for ~10 years.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: DerpFox

Quoting: NociferCan't say that I disagree with you much, but on the other hand, there is really not much else to be discussed about GOG and Linux, is there? I guess we could just call the case closed and stop writing comments altogether, but then what's the point of coming to the comment section in the first place?

Maybe the ultimate solution would for GoL to stop promoting GoG. I know it's kind of a hard thing to do devs still offer Linux builds on GoG after all. But to me, it feels like less and less Linux users want to hear about and buy from them. So what's the point?

Despite my complaining, I'm happy to hear more about GOG.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: NociferCan't say that I disagree with you much, but on the other hand, there is really not much else to be discussed about GOG and Linux, is there? I guess we could just call the case closed and stop writing comments altogether, but then what's the point of coming to the comment section in the first place?

I expect it in posts titled "GOG forgets GNU/Linux exists and recommends installing Windows to use their store", but this discourse has invaded every GOG post. I feel it's kind of becoming the equivalent of:

"you should call it Linux, not GNU/Linux," "but GNU was the original and deserves credit too," "what about X, Apache, and lots of other software not part of the GNU project—and the GPL doesn't enforce attribution," "yes those are important, but GNU is a complete operating system project and they are advocates for desktop users and their freedoms, not just enterprises, and corporates make so much money out of GNU/Linux because of the GPL," "corporate is an important part of why Linux is so successful," "certainly, but in the desktop GNU/Linux space, no one edges out the GNU Project in advocacy or contributions," "what, should we start calling it Apache/Linux for web servers, then?" ...

These people are clearly never going to find a way to agree with each other, and they just end up having the same conversations. But again, the comments section wouldn't be as lively without these comments.

I wasn't saying that everybody should capitulate to my desires and commenting preferences, just making an idle observation. Hell, even if I was saying that, who would listen? Don't mind me.

If anything, I'm probably more off-topic.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tpau

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualCan't get past one mention of GOG without talking about how GOG Galaxy doesn't have a GNU/Linux build.

There are various tools that cover that need like MiniGalaxy and Heroic.
The latter also installs linux native builds if available.

My point was more that other users can't stop mentioning it and what it means. Any post about GOG inevitably devolves into this. I don't mind the discussion, but no new points are ever raised.

It will inevitably take this form ad nauseum:

- GOG said they would release a GNU/Linux client in 2014. They didn't. They don't care about the platform, even though they should more than Windows. It's sad that Steam is doing more for GNU/Linux as a platform that ships a significant number of DRM'd games. I'm never buying another GOG game.
-- It doesn't bother me that GOG doesn't have a client. In fact, I prefer it that way—being forced to use a proprietary client to play a game like with Steam is far more annoying to me. I manage them in Lutris. If you want to use one, though, Minigalaxy has some of the features.
- But it doesn't have cloud saves, you can't play some online multiplayer games, [and it's missing some other features, probably].

Occasionally, as in this thread, there will be some discussion as to whether GOG's stance is morally or financially justified, perhaps a back-and-forth about GOG exposing the API.

I find it boring. But I suppose the comments section wouldn't be as lively without these comments.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Can't get past one mention of GOG without talking about how GOG Galaxy doesn't have a GNU/Linux build.

View this comment - View article - View full comments