Difference between Flatpak and "Zorin package" in the software store

Feedback
1

I was reading mint's 22.2 release notes and i saw this:

mintinstall2
mintinstall2800×732 116 KB

I feel like an explanation like this in the software store would be very helpful to people using linux for the first time who dont understand why there are multiple package formats for the same program

I'm sure adding this to zorin too would solve a few headaches on new users

7 Likes
2

It is what we often tell users.

But some just want latest (not always greatest) version of apps, so choose Snap / Flatpak over .deb/.apt purely on that basis, regardless of installed size and potential sandbox issues.

Would they read that smallprint :thinking:

1 Like
3

As far as I know, all system packages in Linux Mint are real .deb packages and not flatpaks or snaps. I would very much like to see this clear assignment for Zorin. There should be no system package that installs a flatpak or snap. That would make it much easier. Especially for the most popular browsers, a system package should be provided as .deb. Linux newbies don't know how to install Google Chrome or Firefox as a .deb package. They don't even think of it because it is not available in the software store. And the Zorin help pages don't pop up when someone searches for a particular browser in the Software Store. As for Google chrome there should also be a help site for installing (.deb) firefox.

4 Likes
4

Agree, Software Store is primary app resource for Newbies (and less Newbies to be honest), so should contain .apt / .deb for selection of popular browsers (IMO).

I see some are choosing Z17.2 at installation, just to get Firefox, instead of Z17.3 where you are stuck with Brave as the sole system offered browser.

5

The Problem with that is: What Model? At the End, there would be the Options:

  • The Distro have to care about all the Browsers and have to keep them up to date.
  • Or it would be neccessary to add all the Browser Repos by default to the Sources.

@Sorro: It is a nice Idea. But the Text itself ... especially the first Part of the flatpak Explanation:

Flatpaks are mainatined and updated directly by their owner

Under Owner, you could understand the Developer of the Software - but this is only with verified Flatpaks the Case. Unverified Flatpaks - so far they're not already the the Verify Process - don't have to come from the Developer from the software. It can also come from a third-party Source.

2 Likes
6

Perhaps they wrote it this way because the unverified flatpaks are not shown in Linux Mints Software Manager by default. Maybe they have removed them completely now in 22.2?

2 Likes
7

I haven't heard anything of having been removed entirely, but from what I remember, yes, unverified flatpaks aren't shown by default, so that explanation would still hold true in mint specifically

as for verified flatpaks, you are told that they are not uploaded by the software's developers where you would enable the setting to show them, and then they would show up with a warning saying they are unverified in their software manager

Since Zorin doesn't hide unverified flatpaks, they would need to explain it a little differently, but the concept should be the same: explain why multiple packages are there and why they are different

2 Likes
8

Adding the repos of firefox and Google chrome to the sources by default would be the easiest way.
For firefox apt should also be configured to prioritize mozilla repo.

1 Like
9

I think it's still an option to show unverified flatpaks. However, I love the direction they moved to hide those ones by default. Definitely helps users that wouldn't know any better to avoid that. I wish Zorin could just adopt their software centre, to be honest. I find Gnome's software to be... lacking, to say the least.

3 Likes
10

They don't have removed them. And You can easily active the unverified Flatpaks in the Settings; then You have all.