boon VS flathub

I've never yet used kakoune itself, but I've just started using the Meow modal editing package for Emacs, which I'm told resembles kakoune to some similar extent as boon resembles vi.

Shouldn't make much difference, because most of Emacs's default keybinds are either mnemonic or arbitrary (not relative, like Vi's hjkl). There are some unique control interfaces for Emacs which support (and even recommend) alt layouts out of the box. Specifically Meow, Fingers and Boon.

There's also Boon which I like quite a lot but I opted against using mostly because of all the places I would need to type where I wouldn't have access to Boon unless I ported it (a plan I assure you but one lumped behind 1,000 other projects TODO).

https://github.com/jyp/boon

To build on what others are saying about Emacs, if you start exploring the package ecosystem, you're going to see quite a lot of really interesting packages that are related to improving/experimenting with the UX of editing text. While I'm not endorsing anyone in particular, I think what this list does show is just how easy it is to do pretty much whatever you want in Emacs;

https://karthinks.com/software/avy-can-do-anything/

https://github.com/jyp/boon

https://github.com/clemera/objed

https://github.com/jmorag/kakoune.el

https://github.com/meow-edit/meow/

https://github.com/xahlee/xah-fly-keys

https://github.com/Kungsgeten/ryo-modal

https://github.com/emacsorphanage/god-mode

Emacs 29 also now has treesitter and LSP mode integration built-in, a compilation mode, a comint mode for REPLs, excellent file browsing packages (I use dired/dirvish), and a few other killer features.

Now, if what you truly dislike are "quirky editors", prepare yourself for a world of hurt because vanilla Emacs departs quite a bit from "modern" text editors. I struggled with this for a while, but eventually by buying into the paradigm, I now feel that when emacs try emulating "modern" IDE features like autocompletion, LSP, and DAP UI, I feel like it's a regression, not a progression. The point here is that you might have an "idea" of what good initial UX and lack of quirks would look like, but Emacs might change the way you think.

Vim never, ever appealed to me. The keys are not exactly ergonomic, like the WordStar diamond, or intuitive, like the Emacs keys. But I can understand how modal editing - like in WordStar - can improve the writing experience tremendously. So, for my custom Emacs configuration for creative writing, I am using Boon, which allows me to use the left hand home row to navigate characters/words/sentences/lines, and the right hand home row to delete/insert/etc. Pressing v switches to Insert Mode, and C-; switches back to Command Mode. Highly addictively efficient!

I've used both vim and evil in the past, but lately I've been playing with boon and I'm quite enjoying it. It plays nicely with emacs and has some good ideas, like pressing the yank key twice in a row will fix spaces:

I am using Boon, and it has transformed my Emacs experience!

I use https://github.com/jyp/boon which has changed my life.

I am not using Evil in 2022 because I am using Boon :)

> Nobody ever even audits the binary contents of flatpaks on flathub (were they actually built from the source? the author attests so!).

IME/IIRC There aren't (or shouldn't be) any binary contents on Flathub that are submitted by the author, at least for projects with source available? You're supposed to submit a short, plain-text recipe instead, which then gets automatically built from source outside the control of the author.

> The Flathub service then uses the manifest from your repository to continuously build and distribute your application on every commit.

https://docs.flathub.org/docs/for-app-authors/submission/#ho...

Usually the recipes should just list the appropriate URLs to get the source code, or, for proprietary applications, the official .DEBs. Kinda like AUR, but JSON/YAML. Easy to audit if you want:

https://github.com/orgs/flathub/repositories

I also don't believe third parties maintainers packaging software on flathub is a big issue but I'm also not familiar with how other distro repos trust their maintainers. Hopefully more developers maintain their flatpak themselves (or someone they trust) and get their apps verified. If most apps are verified, warning users of unverified apps might be a good idea.

There's ongoing discussion about splitting open source and proprietary apps in to seperate repos [1]. Additionally having seperate repos for verified and unverified apps might make it more obvious where an app comes from in the cli.

But I don't know how seamlessly an app could transition between being in the third party repo and being in the official repo. Having the user quietly stop receiving updates seems like a bad idea, but automatically migrating might not be desirable either.

I also think flatpaks cli interface needs some work. It is functional but far from distro package managers.

Being verified is especially important for critical apps. Recently someone added malicious versions of apps to the snap store [3]. This lead to people getting their cryptocurrency stolen.

[1] https://github.com/flathub/flathub/issues/691

[2] https://docs.flathub.org/docs/for-app-authors/requirements

[3] https://forum.snapcraft.io/t/temporary-suspension-of-automat...

That means Linux users can now install Bforartists on any Linux distro easily, regardless of glibc version! https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/4295

Still having some problems with the flathub build, see https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/4082 for the current status.

Here is the flathub draft pull request: https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/4082

i assume you dont know how flathub works , theirs little or no QC , done flathub is just get told theirs an update for the package , if yo go look at the github repo pes https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/4164 for example , only updates the link to the girt repo , theirs 0 code checked

It all should be written in pages for contributors, read the docs for fusion, and the docs for flathub.

These are criticisms of the flatpak ecosystem as it stands today. Currently, the Firefox ESR package on flathub seems to be caught in limbo or maybe dead. Mozilla publishes both a snap and a flatpak of Firefox latest, but only a snap of the ESR version. This raises the question of why. Have Mozilla chosen to invest more in snaps than in flatpaks? If so, what's their reasoning? (More users on snaps, making it similar to why they put more investment into Windows than Linux? Something else?) If they haven't invested more into snaps than flatpaks, is this a sign that it's harder to maintain flatpaks (or at least on flathub) than snaps? If that's true, I would hope that flatpak/flathub would be soliciting feedback from Mozilla about it.

Because that may be very hard to sandbox: https://github.com/flathub/flathub/issues/3366