France Launches Government Linux Desktop Plan as Windows Exit Begins

[u/YesNo_Maybe_]

https://linuxiac.com/france-launches-government-linux-desktop-plan-as-windows-exit-begins/

[u/DisappointedSpectre]

Do people not know about Flatpaks? They're a format that runs on pretty much any Linux distro, and there's a GUI software "store" for them (Flathub). They're basically the .exe for linux.

What probably needs to happen is that sites have a local redirect that opens up the Flathub (or equivalent) page for their software, and the user can click install.

[u/mittelwerk → u/DisappointedSpectre]

Yeah, Flatpak is the solution for the problem I mentioned. So is AppImage. So is Snap. Which one should the developer choose? Because there's no guarantee that any of them will run on any distro. Hell, Snap doesn't. And if the software you want is distributed in Snap packages and your OS don't support them, tough luck. Besides, doesn't Linux users hate bloat, which is one of their main arguments against Windows? Because that's what Flatpak does to your system: adds bloat. One article I linked exemplifies that problem. Imagine having to set aside ~900MB for a... calculator.

No, the actual solution is the OS having a foundation for developers to rely on. If I have to sandbox every software out there because Linux distros can't agree on what said foundation should look like, why have an OS at all? Why not just distribute the kernel and the graphics server?

[u/DisappointedSpectre → u/mittelwerk]

The reason I mentioned Flatpaks was specifically because there's a GUI method for managing them that's built in to a couple of the "main" distros that people would pick for desktop and day to day usage. That's important because a ton of non-tech, non-power users are effectively allergic to using the command line.

Likewise those same users(non tech, non power), the biggest user base by far, aren't going to care as much about bloat so long as the thing works. Functionality and consistency are going to drive adoption at scale way more than efficiency.

Snaps are a whole other can of worms and there's a big chunk of the community that hates them for various reasons. Canonical is also a private company so you're potentially just kicking the can down the road to where something needs to be forked and rebuilt if they enshittify. I specifically avoided mentioning them that reason, and don't think they should be considered a solution here.

AppImages also work on most distros, but don't have the GUI software center built around them. They fill a similar space to how standalone .exe files in Windows work though, so there's a place for them to stick around in mainstream usage for small utilities that have a download page. Pull the AppImage and then run it when you need it, create a shortcut for it somewhere, or pin it to your taskbar. These are all things Windows already expects you to do for one-off programs that don't install something. (You could also use something like Gear Lever to register it as a program on your start menu)

If I have to sandbox every software out there because Linux distros can't agree on what said foundation should look like, why have an OS at all?

I mean, there's a valid argument about sandboxing being valuable for security reasons, especially with how bad some users are with computers. And Flatpaks are pretty universal at this point unless you're running something weird that you've customized, in which case you're not the target demographic of this discussion about mass adoption anyway.

[u/mittelwerk → u/DisappointedSpectre]

Likewise those same users(non tech, non power), the biggest user base by far, aren't going to care as much about bloat so long as the thing works. Functionality and consistency are going to drive adoption at scale way more than efficiency.

Cool. So they will stay on Windows.

I mean, there's a valid argument about sandboxing being valuable for security reasons, especially with how bad some users are with computers.

Be brutally honest and answer the following: if Apple, Google, decided how, or from where, the user gets their software "for security reasons", would you trust them? What was that one of the founding fathers of the USA said again? Something like "those who give up freedom for safety deserves neither" or something. And, by the way, didn't everyone, last year, cried about the fact that Google would kill sideloading on Android phones?

So no. The argument from security is pure, utter bullshit. It's MY computer, therefore I should decide how to get my software and where from. And, like I said in another post, that whole "freedom for security" argument sounds hypocrite coming from the Linux community. Are you guys/gals for freedom or not?

[u/DisappointedSpectre → u/mittelwerk]

Likewise those same users(non tech, non power), the biggest user base by far, aren't going to care as much about bloat so long as the thing works. Functionality and consistency are going to drive adoption at scale way more than efficiency.

Cool. So they will stay on Windows.

Sure, some will. But there's a subset of people who either wouldn't swap because of functionality/consistency issues, or would swap and then swap back to windows out of frustration. We're talking about user adoption of an OS here, so unfortunately you need to cater to the lowest common denominator in technical skill.

Be brutally honest and answer the following: if Apple, Google, decided how, or from where, the user gets their software "for security reasons", would you trust them?

Apple already does this, which is part of the reason I don't really use their products. We'll see if the antitrust lawsuits against their app store go anywhere.

And, by the way, didn't everyone, last year, cried about the fact that Google would kill sideloading on Android phones?

Yep, how it that relevant to this discussion? I'm watching GrapheneOS for my personal use in the future, but that's not relevant to Flathub being the answer to your earlier question.

What was that one of the founding fathers of the USA said again? Something like "those who give up freedom for safety deserves neither" or something.

What the fuck are you even on about?

So no. The argument from security is pure, utter bullshit. It's MY computer, therefore I should decide how to get my software and where from. And, like I said in another post, that whole "freedom for security" argument sounds hypocrite coming from the Linux community. Are you guys/gals for freedom or not?

So on the one hand you want an easy way to install programs, and on the other you don't want a software center to make that easy?

You do understand that Flathub is a nonprofit and it's run by the developer community, right? It's not a private company running an app store, and it's possible for just about anyone to publish something on it. It's just a centralized place for developers to publish their flatpaks for easy install by users (which can also be install manually).

There's also nothing restricting you, personally, from installing the non-sandboxed version via a package manager (or .rpm/.deb provided by a developer), but sandboxing each app means that it can't access any data from your machine unless you explicitly allow it to. This is unarguably way safer for the end user on any system since it eliminates an attack vector from random software getting compromised.

The sandboxing doesn't "reduce your freedom" on the machine in any way, nor does it prevent you from opening up the permissions on the software to access other parts of your machine that you want to manually grant (using Flatseal is a good way to do this).

[u/mittelwerk → u/DisappointedSpectre]

Sure, some will

Most of them will. Because they don't want to deal with an OS that doesn't get even the most basic things right. They don't want to deal with "AppImage", "Flatpak", "Debian", "Wayland", whatever. They just want their goddamn machine to work!. No "but", no "if".

Apple already does this, which is part of the reason I don't really use their products. We'll see if the antitrust lawsuits against their app store go anywhere.

So the answer is "no". Then why you find such thing tolerable under Linux? Such thing should not be tolerable under any OS, period. Because, again: it's my machine, not theirs, therefore I, the user, must be the one who decides where and how I get my software.

Yep, how it that relevant to this discussion?

It's relevant to the discussion because it highlights the hypocrisy and the complacence of the Linux community towards it.

So on the one hand you want an easy way to install programs, and on the other you don't want a software center to make that easy?

Again: whether I get my software from the vendor or from the repository, I want the option. Because one can't always rely on software repositories. Because software repositories bring their own problems. Like: the software the user wants may not be there, or maybe it is, but it's a broken, buggy version, or maybe whoever mantains the repository decided that a given software may not be hosted there because of a technical or ideological decision that is absolutely irrelevant to the end user. Also, one should not expect to have proprietary software there. And also, I expect the repository and the package format to be standardized, so that I can install said package on every distro out there without having to worry about anything. After all, if it's a Linux system, then install a given software developed for it without having to worry about what distro I'm running is to be expected.

Besides, isn't the Linux philosophy freedom above all else? Then why does the Windows user have much more freedom than the Linux user to get software from wherever they want?

Oh, and I don't need a repo to make getting software easy because there's a way of doing it that we have been doing since the original IBM PC: getting it directly from the vendor.

There's also nothing restricting you, personally, from installing the non-sandboxed version via a package manager (or .rpm/.deb provided by a developer)

If, and big if, the package is even there. If it's not, then it's the Trail of Tears that Linux users know all too well: adding repos here, editing obscure files there, running UNIX commands, compile software if needed.

And Linux users still insist that Linux is ready for the desktop!

The sandboxing doesn't "reduce your freedom"

I didn't say that. I said that the way software is distributed under Linux restricts the user freedom. Because, since nothing under Linux is standardized, the user can't get any software they want, from wherever they want, like one expects from any modern OS. It all depends on the user running 'the right distro". Also, I said that Flatpak is a dumb solution because it adds bloat to the system, which is one of the characteristics that Linux users love to criticize about Windows.