flathub VS us.zoom.Zoom

> 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

For example, let's say we want a separate instance of Zoom (Zoom on Flathub) to run along the default one.

It seems to divert the discussion to something that doesn't make too much sense. X and Wayland are two different things by design, this probonopd sounds extraordinarily salty that moving an application under a new server breaks some things, making some applications entirely useless, but I say, that is to be expected. Saying that Wayland breaks stuff by design, as if that was their only objective is just petty, of course it's a pity that those devs have thrown in the towel, but let's not pretend like theirs were the only options, e.g. screen recording works perfectly fine with OBS, at least it has done so on my machines with AMD/Intel GPUs; Jitsi works now; Zoom screensharing being GNOME only is Zoom devs being dicks that can't be arsed to support standards, the community came in to work around it and also I don't know how they could bring up a proprietary application that has not made the Flatpak package themselves as an example, the whole thing is a community effort there apparently; etc. etc. (I'm not going to debunk all the others that are invalid, the internet is there for everyone)

Can you be specific about the problems with X11? I've been using X11 for decades and it's been ROCK SOLID. And that is exactly what you want from something so essential. Wayland feels like an expensive boondogle, frankly. Wayland breaks everything and only provides 20% the functionality that X11. It also forces application and DE developers to implement special tools and solutions for wayland which have always been provided as a common interface by X11, like screenshots/ recording and screen sharing, e.g. https://github.com/flathub/us.zoom.Zoom/issues/22

For college and therapy, I've had to use Zoom. I've been using the zoom flatpak, as I try and use flatpak for any proprietary software. That being said, it is not officially supported (by zoom), and also doesn't listen to Pop!_OS's tiling window manager. Certainly, I'm not the only one who has questioned which client to use, but I'm curious what y'all think. I like flatpak because I can trust that, worst case scenario, the proprietary software (read: Spyware) only has access to a limited amount of my system. But it'd also be nice to, ya know, use the tiling feature.

I've gathered a coredump and a stack trace, which might be useful.

You can get it as a flatpak too which should (presumably) take care of any dependencies automatically. :)

Here you go: https://flathub.org/apps/details/us.zoom.Zoom

Check this out https://github.com/flathub/us.zoom.Zoom/blob/master/zoom.sh

Link to the github issue for the flatpak