lintplus VS flathub

Former contributor and user of Lite XL here.

It's an awesome little editor. I quit using it though because it seemed like the future direction of the project wasn't very clear, and from a practical standpoint VS Code simply has a better developer experience, but I had great fun hacking around it nevertheless.

One of my favorite things about rxi/lite and Lite XL is just how easy it is to write plugins. Simply create a new .lua file in the plugins directory and monkey-patch whatever you need. And while it might seem like monkey-patching isn't the most clean solution, that's not exactly true — the source code of the editor doesn't need to be cluttered with explicit hooks, and plugins interoperate with each other very well, because one plugin doesn't know about the others' existence. From its standpoint it just modifies the vanilla editor.

This extensibility allowed me to write some really cool stuff, the one plugin I'm especially proud of is lint+ [1], which leverages the immediate mode nature of the UI to draw pretty lint messages atop the text editor (and it even renders Rust's friendly compiler errors with little rails on the left! see issue #3 [2]).

Can recommend.

  [1]: https://github.com/liquidev/lintplus

I desperately want this. I find text editors w/ basic linting to be too limited but full IDE's like Idea or even VSCode too heavy for some devices. Something in between :(. I've given up laptop development and am forced to work with my desktop until I can afford a better laptop because Idea/VSCode runs so slowly.

FWIW, I use lite (https://github.com/rxi/lite) if I need a very lightweight text editor that has rust linting (https://github.com/liquidev/lintplus) and Idea if I'm at my desktop.

> 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