On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Christian Schaller > <cschalle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> That is not 100% correct. You can make a non-sandboxed Flatpak and >> it would work just as well as an RPM in terms of hardware access. >> Enabling sandboxing however would need some thought and development >> for a lot of such applications, but we are slowly but surely working >> on it through things like the PulseAudio and Pinos work that Wim Taymans >> is doing, and through the work that Alex Larsson has been doing with OpenGL. > > There's also the fact that the runtimes provided also crash on most of > my computers, but hey, that's just a small thing, right? > > Speaking with my Fedora and Mageia hats, there's nothing that stops > ANYONE from making portable RPMs (I've done it fairly easily myself). > Flatpak, AppImage, Snappy, etc. do not provide any material advantages > without some sandboxing. In fact, they just make applications more > bloated for little to no benefit at that point. > > IMO, the only reason that we're starting to see this is because we're > increasingly giving up on Free Software (note capital letters). These > systems primarily benefit nonfree/proprietary software developers. I disagree with this assertion. Flatpak, snappy, docker containers, etc are not an indication people are giving up on Free Software. They are a mechanism the focuses on easing a developer's ability to distribute their software without worrying about learning arcane knowledge of each distro's packaging system. That non-free software possibly benefits from this as well is true, but irrelevant to the goals of these projects. Ascribing that intention on such technologies is trolling and spreading FUD. Please do not do that. josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
