Third option?
Give me .deb anytime...
Yes. deb i never have problem with them. Are you have problems with .deb?
Hypnotix free itv. Anyone know another some free channels or movie? I remember old time kodi.
perhaps you can try popcorntime, but I don't know if it still available.
1 Like
Bottles is available on Flathub though I don't use it as I don't need Windows apps.
Generally speaking, I don't really understand this adversity to Snaps/Flatpaks. I personally believe they're very, very welcome. The more we have the more we can choose from, including Appimages.
For instance, I have two Linux machines. One running Fedora Silverblue, the other with Zorin Lite (could run Gnome without problems but I find Lite a little, clean, elegant masterpiece and I prefer it over the Gnome edition). On both machines I follow the same scheme... Core OS on RPM's/DEB's and 99% of the GUI Apps on Flatpak/Snap (I prefer Flatpak but some apps like Spotify and VLC work much better with snapd).
The two systems are very different, one is an immutable OS the other is not. Apart from that, I have two machines I deeply love with a rock solid base system and apps always up to date.
I love diversity and I thank Linux for that.
1 Like
I must admit I find this statement interesting in regards to the above - as Snaps and Flatpak both are a bit anti-diversity. The only reason we have a choice is because of the resistance toward Snap.
Canonical initially gave no choice about snaps. It forced them.
And that had a great deal to do with the adversity to them. Snaps had major security holes, were disproportionately sandboxed and often - they do not mesh well with systems since being sandboxed as they are, cannot properly communicate with the components of the system they are installed on.
As it is now, certainly the user has and can enjoy the choice of using Snap or Flatpak or Apt or Pacman... And it is our adversity that can be thanked for having preserved it.
1 Like
That's absolutely true. The more you say no the more they say yes. It reminds me of Gnome developers, doing pretty much what they think is right... 
1 Like
There are good reasons to like Snap or Flatpak:
- They bring all dependencies with
- They are easy to package and easy to install
- For some packages, they can be the most latest version, since they bring their own dependencies with them.
There are good reasons not to like them:
- System isolation; Not following a Uniform system theme; Inability to communicate with necessary system components
- Carrying all dependencies with can create unnecessary bloat, gobbling up drive space
- Bad history in the use of Deception and Force by Canonical and Red Hat.
I package .deb packages - and I find it easy to do.
And for most of us- the vast majority of things we install do not run into dependency issues. Often,. dependency problems stem from the user trying to install an unmaintained or no longer supported project. It is not because of the packaging. It is because the project is outdated or abandoned. This issue should be addressed, not the packaging.
Sometimes, the latest version is good to have. But not always. A later version can include regressions or instability or experimental features, too. Know your Product. Research the changelogs instead of just assuming "Newer is always better."
Snap and Flatpak give the appearance of solving problems. But there is a fallacy in assuming the existence of some of those problems, without it necessarily truly existing. And they bring about problems of their own.
And this is where the rubber meets the road: Are Snap and Flatpak pushed because they Solve User Problems and make things better?
Or...
Because they proportion more control into the developers hands and out of the users hands?
The theming issue of Snaps is a good example of this.
It seems a Simple Little Thing... But removing the configuration, customization options and theming most decidedly removes User Control. Once the users get more accepting and tolerant of the loss- target your next take.
1 Like
There's more to add to this topic if you want. How about Nix and NixOs? It's one of the very few things I haven't tested yet. Let's say, without using NixOs is using Nix on Zorin any good?
I have not used either of them, so I cannot speak intelligently on it. Not... that I can speak intelligently even on things I know well...
Generally, I have to try to break packages or run into dependency issues.
So I have not felt the need to seek out a means of thwarting my own mistakes.
In troubleshooting on the forum; I must replicate user issues. Or test packages. It is surprising how I often cannot replicate an issue and am utterly baffled as to how the other person is having trouble.
I think when users install from source, Ninja or Make - they are more likely to run into trouble.
These can often lead down dependency rabbit holes.
You have been using Linux far longer than I have. I joined into Linux a couple or three months prior to the release of Zorin OS 15.
1 Like
So that's why you still haven't realised that the future of Linux Desktop is emulating Linux on Linux... I'm kidding but not so much, it's a paradox but it's kinda happening.
Off to bed now, but think about it 
I would have an easier time of that, if you were to clarify what that means. 
Something like a "matrix".
The difference between FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) and FSF (Free Software Foundation) is the latter does not have 'ethics' as part of its nomenclature where as FSF does (or did).