Flatpak???

The place to discuss the Linux/Ubuntu edition
Post Reply
Tim
Site Admin
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 1:14 pm

Flatpak???

Post by Tim »

I spent some precious time looking at Flatpak again seeing if there was a better way to package Bible Analyzer because of the Linux dependency issues. (such as Ubuntu will not have a key required dependency in a LTR until 4/2024). I understand the Flatpak concept that the pak would contain the app and its dependencies, but I didn't realize until last night that a user also has to download a HUGE runtime environment also.

I installed the FP prerequisites to try out a couple FP apps and then went to the Flathub store. I found Xiphos and clicked the "Install" button. It downloaded a tiny repository reference and that's it. I then tried to run the reference. Nothing happened. Does "Install" actually install anything? Then I ran the command line command to install and Terminal said it must download an obsolete runtime environment of several hundred megabytes first!

I live in a rural area and have spotty and often slow internet. Many Bible Analyzer users also have slow internet thus a several hundred megabyte download can be a chore. Nevertheless, I went and did something else for a while while Ubuntu struggled to download the "environment." Later I came back and it was finally installed. and it did run. This morning I decided to try another Flathub app, one developed this year (Xiphos is over two years old), and guess what, it demanded I download another several hundred megabyte runtime environment! I learned there are at least 12 RE and an app could be built against any one of them. Furthermore, I saw where if I made a Bible Analyzer Flatpak it would be built on yet a different RE...which may become obsolete at any time.

Needless to say, my FP experience has not been positive. It is highly convoluted, poorly documented, and doesn't work as expected. When users see an Install button it is not unreasonable to expect the app to install, but I couldn't get it to install anything. Many users anymore shun Terminal and that is understandable because Linux distros anymore brag about how everything works through a GUI, but it doesn't. When I mention Terminal to some Linux users I get emails back saying "What's Terminal?"

Linux has come a long way from its early days and is much more usable for the average user, but if it wants to be part of the mainstream they had better streamline their app making and packaging process. If one only makes a one line "Hello world" app it takes a several hundred megabyte download to view it. This is ludicrous.

It did a little research the other day. 10 years ago the computer market share was about 85% Windows, 7% Mac, and 7% Linux. Now it is about 75% WIndows, 15% Mac, 5% Chromebook, and 3% Linux. In spite of all the new fancy distros, Linux is falling fast. And in my opinion the reason is Linux is very factionalized, has very poor application creation and packaging systems, and thus has mediacore applications. This can be proven by all the Linux users who use Wine because the apps they want are not available in Linux. I could not tell you how many times I have heard, "I'll just run it in WIne," and then write to me complaining that something in Bible Analyzer is not working right in WIne. My thought is why don't you just run it in Windows instead of a Windows emulator.

Take Bible Analyzer for instance, every time I try to develop a new Linux edition, I hit this brick dependency wall. I want to offer the latest versions of libraries, but Linux won't let me and they won't offer a viable workaround without forcing users to download essentially a complete platform. There is no sound reason why someone running a Gnome edition of Ubuntu has to install another Gnome environment just to run a Flatpak app. No wonder Linux desktop usage has gone from 7% to less than 3%. Who wants to mess with all of that. Even Chromebooks have passed them by because users can actually install the apps they want with a click.

(I remember one time I suggested that potential Bible Analyzer users simply add another repository to their system to allow Bible Analyzer to find its needed dependencies and I got letters from people who said they would not do that because of "security reasons" and they will only use a LTR and standard repositories. People seem to live in constant fear of their computers.)

Anyway, I will finish developing Bible Analyzer v5.5 for Linux but how I'll deal with the packaging issue I'm not sure about yet. I may try to include the dependencies in with the app. That will increase its size, but not near as much as the FlatPak system would. It should run on any Ubuntu based system and probably any Debian based system which covers a big part of the Linux world. All of you on other distros will have to deal with it the best you can. I simply cannot make Bible Analyzer work on them all. I only have one lifetime.
Tim Morton
Developer, Bible Analyzer

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Rom 4:5 AV)

Brother Mike
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 3:18 pm
Location: Santa Clarita, CA

Re: Flatpak???

Post by Brother Mike »

I am not trying to speak for anyone other than myself in the Linux community, but we know and understand the frustrations of the Linux landscape, and I for one appreciate what you go through to produce the premier Linux Bible Study package.

Being the premier, we hope that you continue to fight the good fight. As it is a good fight.

Using Ubuntu / Debian, I believe was a good choice for your dev platform given history of Debian for Linux.

We also understand that Linux is a server (primarily) OS. Those of the hard core community have no fear of the CLI and use it regularly. Those who do not wish to embrace what Linux offers, then they should stay with Windows. Even MAC users, I understand, are comfortable with CLI. These folks want the milk, but not the meat (if I can make that parallel). Same with Wine, etc. I do not run anything Windows on my system for the simple fact that I do not want Windows. Expecting you to support that is just ignorance on their part. If someone has it working, well more power to them.

GUI is a convenience, but should not replace CLI when appropriate, as I do few, if any, system tasks in a GUI. ANy config work, updates etc, are done CLI.

AS far as repositories, that is silly too. Many a goof piece of software uses third party repos, and if one does their due diligence, should be safe.

I have read many of your posts, and see the frustration of developing on Linux brings you. It is a labor you have chosen and it should be appreciated. We as users should support you to our utmost. And with that, I do offer what support I can. I will send you a PM regarding this. You do this for no remuneration which makes our support that much more important if we find BA to be of a positive influence in our study of the Bible.

For some reason, I sense a despair in your posting. Going into stats on market share, etc, may seem to imply that cessation of Linux development may be in the back of your mind. I sincerely hope not, but it would be understandable non the less. Keep in mind, this is your labor of service to the Lord. Develop by your standards to the base you desire to. If the base accepts it great. If not, fine to. Glorify Him.

That is my rant, for what it is worth.

I would like to wish all here a blessed Christmas.

jastombaugh
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:28 pm

Re: Flatpak???

Post by jastombaugh »

Wow! I totally missed this post!

Very well worded and you have my understanding and my attention.

Sadly, I program about as badly as I weld. But if I knew python well enough I'd love to help out, I so would. As an every-day linux user, I feel pretty spoiled with applications like BA... to the point of refusing to upgrade to newer releases of distros just to continue to enjoy the BA experience. I started out looking for a Bible program similar to 'GodSpeed' (yeah, from the old MSDOS days) on linux, but stumbled upon BA by happenstance. I was (and still am) floored by the modules, the flexibility, the resources, and the extensive feature set of this software.

Flatpak is a wonderful idea, and yes, they CAN be quite large. (You thought 'hello world' was a large download, try justifying 1.2 gig for Notepad ++. :shock: :o LOL!!!!) But if a flatpak doesn't change, as it is encapsulated in a runtime, it might not be a bad one-time deal. In the end, though, BA is software I'll FIND a way to run somehow.

I just want to say thank you, Tim, for all of the hard work and time you've sunk into this project. Your love for the Lord and His Word shows through.

God Bless

Tim
Site Admin
Posts: 1454
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 1:14 pm

Re: Flatpak???

Post by Tim »

We found a way to get v5.5 to run without a Flatpak and it has now been released to the public.

Thanks to all for your concern and support.
Tim Morton
Developer, Bible Analyzer

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Rom 4:5 AV)

Post Reply