I usually try to stay out of the whole snap vs flatpak discussion. Although I am just really confused as to why flatpak just does not seem to care about usability. You’re trying to create a universal packaging format I would think the point of it is that a user can just install an app and after reviewing permissions it should “just work”.
There are so many issues that yes, have simple solutions, but why are these issues here in the first place.
These are the issues that I have encountered that annoy me:
- Themes, cursors being inconsistent (needs to be fixed manually with flatpak --user override
- IDE’s are unusable without extensions
At least snap provides an option --classic to make the app work. Please explain to me why flatpak just evidently refuses to take this same approach.
Yeah I understand the reason why it is the way it is. I think it should be simplified. Just a pop-up box asking the user if it’s ok if flatpak gains Access to path x. That’s what I have in my mind. Maybe with time it will improve.
How do you propose that they trigger that popup? How would flatpak or the application know to ask if you wanted to add those extra permissions?
I don’t know. It’s only an idea.
I can feel your anger and frustration in your messages here and I just wanted to say I think your idea is fantastic and you have an ally here to fight with you.
It was mostly rhetorical. There’s no way to know that you want the application to have extra access to some folder needed for your theme. That’s the exact kind of thing that would be better handled on a user-input level. You applied your theme, you notice that it is broken with the app, you apply the new expanded permissions to get it to work with your theme.