• hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it makes more sense than what we use for browsing internet. Just like date format, it goes from biggest to smallest. TLD.domain.subdomain.

    Just as god intended.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    For those who aren’t familiar, it’s the org.mozilla.Firefox instead of “Firefox”.

    It’s awful.

    • Signed, someone who maintains 4 Flatpaks
  • bushvin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s how dns should have been.

    And it is perfect. Now at least I can fork Firefox and not cause issues with the one maintained by mozilla, but have both on my system!

  • deong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As an internal implementation detail, it’s fine and pretty standard. Exposing it to the end user so that they have to know whatever janky-ass domain and capitalization you picked to run your application is braindead.

  • Ramin Honary@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It is very typical of package management schemes for various software platforms. Java is like this, and so is Android. Prior to Gtk v3 (I think) the GConf Manager utility also organized app configurations this way. The DBus inter-process communication mechanism also uses this scheme to create a namespace for all possible applications in the system that might want to use the bus service.

    It is what it is, I neither like it nor dislike it.

  • suprjami@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t care but it’s annoying that they won’t put a normal application name into $PATH.

    There is a denied GitHub Issue for it but I can’t be bothered finding it. It’ll never happen so it doesn’t matter.

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    While we’re whining (alias to executable please), what’s with ‘flatpak run’ needing an instance ID instead of the domain of the running program, here’s me parsing ‘flatpak ps’ so I can access the app’s command line flags programmatically. Not a big deal, but, as @deong says, braindead.

  • woelkchen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it’s dumb. Software only hosted on Github without a dedicated website shouldn’t use com.github.appname. If Flatpak adopts parts of Android’s security system, all com.github.* applications could access each others data. That’s awful but I don’t think it’s going away. It’s too late for that.

    Now that I think of it, what I would wish for is for an the Flatpak published a guideline how to deal with developers who don’t have a domain name, eg. flatpak.devname.appname instead of com.github.appname

    • russjr08@outpost.zeuslink.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m curious about what you mean by the issue with Android’s security model. Apps can have whatever package name they want (… Well, I am sure you can’t publish a com.google package on the Play Store) so that doesn’t make sense.

      The only thing I can imagine you’re referring to is data sharing between applications signed with the same key, but that’s not the package name.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not android

        Which part of “If Flatpak adopts parts of Android’s security system” don’t you understand? Do you need help with conditionals in the English language?

        • AProfessional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Flatpak already has an established security model.

          Your statement is pointless and you are rude.

          • woelkchen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Flatpak already has an established security model.

            You are not a Flatpak core developer, so you have absolutely no idea whether they decide if different applications from the same vendor will at some point be allowed to access each others data.

            Your statement is pointless

            It’s not pointless to think about possible future decisions a crucial piece of software might have to make. I also replied to a question from OP, so it’s not your decision what is pointless and what isn’t anyway.

            and you are rude.

            If you think that being an uninvited “But actually” comment isn’t rude, you have a skewed sense of reality. I was answering a question from OP, not yours. You’re the one who engaged with that attitude. Look in the mirror before making accusations.

            Edit: Blocking you now. Not engaging with a brat any longer.