this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2025
189 points (98.5% liked)

Linux

6864 readers
111 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system

Also check out:

Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 127 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children)

I'm not surprised that the OBS devs are considering suing Fedora for their Fedora Flatpaks.


For anyone out of the loop:
Fedora's been packaging and providing apps as Fedora Flatpaks which cause users trouble cause they're honestly pretty shit and known to be unreliable. The issue is that users assume that these faulty packages are provided by the Original Devs and complain towards the ODevs.

As endless waves of users complain towards the ODevs it causes them unnecessary headache as well as costing valuable time and resources to tell users that it's actually Fedora fucking things for everyone.

All of this is unnecessary because if Fedora stopped installing Fedora Flatpaks as the default then there wouldn't be this problem in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Wait, why is Fedora making their own flatpaks? I thought the entire point is that they work on any distro and everybody gets the original source from flathub.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago

I asked this exact thing somewhere else, and the best answers I got were:

  • there is a somewhat legitimate motivation for fedora to package their own flatpaks in the context of their atomic desktops project.
  • they started doing this before flathub was established, and it was a better idea at that time.

So, as per usual with Linux, there are some obscure and historical reasons this is a thing, but it is useless for the majority of users. Fedora should really not have it configured as the default source for flatpaks out of the box

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)