By default, the Zorin OS software store includes only a single Brave browser option. Flatpak.
This apparently won't show your printers because Flatpaks are stupid and lame or something. I really don't care why (because it just works on Windows), but why would you give a solution that doesn't even print by default?
So I typed a single line from Brave that installed the official Brave from a Debian package and the printers just showed up automatically. Why would you give me a non-printing browser by default. That seems to go against the Zorin "it just works" mindset.
The short answer is simply that Flatpak has been a popular package format for the past few years. The Zorin OS developers have make it clear that they intend to keep using it as the default option, something that has been put into question multiple times by many of us, precisely because of cases such as yours.
A workaround to offer Debian package first exists, whenever it's available through the software store. Please checkout this thread:
Thanks. I knew Ubuntu was scummy and anti-choice, which is why I didn't want to use them this time. Thanks for the information. It's a shame that Zorin can't give you the best option every time easily.
Well, what works for you is not necessarily what works for everyone else. Flatpak packages have their own advantages like being generally more up to date, and sometimes that is the best option. We do see that here from time to time as well.
This is why I think that providing a good default option is crucial. Personally, I'm inclined to not use Flatpak as the default as it causes more friction than the native Debian package format. But no matter how you look at it, it's impossible to satisfy everyone's needs.
It could be that this is because of the limited Permissions of the Flatpak's. You could install flatseal and use it to give Brave full Access. Another reason could be that Brave itself wrotes that her Flatpak Package doesn't work as well as there native Packages.
You have the Possibility to add the official Brave Repo. So, You get Updates over the Terminal and the Software Updater.
Well that would bee up for debate. One of the continuous arguments that GNU/Linux isn't getting anywhere is because of the lack of a unified system. I prefer choice over unified system. Was not aware that Zorin Team had gone down the Poettinger route. Flatpak was devised by a group of independent developers. Red Hat decided to send Poettinger along to take a look. Subsequently, Red Hat adopts Flatpak, and just like Systemd tries to make this the global standard in the GNU/Linux world. Canonical objects and develops its equally bad snap packages. All I can say is thank goodness for TexStar ans PCLinuxOS. Now that I have learned that Flatpak is the standard, it might just be the time for me to depart ways from the forum. Don't worry, I am not going to pull the Unofficial Manual, it is there for posterity on Internet Archive.
That seems a bit excessive... keep in mind that having choice is good because it's impossible to please everyone. But it's impossible to have choice without also having disagreements.
As much as I prefer Debian packages over Flatpak as a better default, the fact that is owned by RedHat, or any company, does not take away its validity. At the end of the day, you still have that choice in Zorin OS.
If Flatpak has advantages, then great. But if it can't print from a browser or LibreOffice, then I'd say that's a pretty unusable solution. Either Zorin needs to include a way to make the printers show up or they need to not use Flatpaks. That simple.
This is why until stuff like this is fixed, it's never going to be the year of the Linux desktop. Because normal people print from their browser and office suite.
The main advantage of a flatpak is that it's distribution agnostic. A .deb will install on Debian based systems (Zorin, Ubuntu, etc.), and relies on that system having up to date libraries for it to work, so even if it installs, it may not be compatible. If a program is only available as a .rpm, it won't install unless you convert the package first (RPMs are for Red Hat/Fedora based systems), and you still have to worry about dependencies. The reason flatpak is broadly used, even though it's not very well liked on this forum (I'm understating a bit; I'm fine with flatpak but many here despise it) is that a flatpak doesn't care which version of Linux you're running. It carries its dependencies with it, and it should run on anything that supports flatpaks.
The disadvantages are things like you ran into: flatpaks are designed to minimize risk to the system by locking down what the software has access to. It's common to adjust the restrictions on an installed flatpak to give it more access. I agree with you though that being unable to print is an issue for an office suite. If that's actually due to the flatpak being restricted, the flatpak's creator may have gone too far or may have misconfigured it.
It's worth noting that in some situations flatpaks are known to work BETTER than the native .deb software, because the libraries it expects were included. This was true for me using OBS for video capture. The .deb produced captures with stutters, while the flatpak worked much better.
In any event, I'm not trying to sell you on flatpaks or suggest that your problem wasn't a problem; I'm just presenting the other side of the coin. Even I prefer .deb installations 9 times out of 10.
I agree with this. It's great we have Flatpaks, but the advantages appeal mostly to software developers and package maintainers, not end users. People who don't care about package format X vs package format Y are now forced to learn their way around something as simple as installing software... This creates unnecessary friction for very little gain. For a distribution that specifically aims to make the transition from Windows/MacOS easier, this is simply not the right tool for the job. It shouldn't be the default.
What's more, Flatpak packages are practically distributed through a single third party repository outside of the control of distribution developers. Zorin OS has no control over what a Flaptak package looks like, what permissions it needs or has access to by default. This is in contrast to the good old official repositories that do give that kind of power.
This is one of the key differences that make a distribution unique: official repositories that they have control over. And this has a successful track record of over 30 years... changing this for something that has already proven to be broken from a user experience point of view is just change for the sake of change.
I do agree with this as well, but I really don't like that way of thinking. There aren't any shareholders to please means, and so the percentage of the Linux market share is equivalent to fake internet points. I'm sure not everyone agrees with me on this one
As with everything this has pros and cons, but it does give power to those who want to use their computer however they want without having to worry about nasty backdoors, intrusive ads, AI-powered BS, unexpected change of terms of service, etc. In my opinion, this is a much needed and refreshing change of pace.
This is another reason I like Mint OS it uses Synaptic Package Manager as it's main source of updating installed software ...... that is why each time there is an update you have to sign into Synaptic in order to activate the download ....
Well Frog, PCLinuxOS takes it on step further. First, no systemd whatsoever, Synaptic Package Manager sits proudly on the Panel which is used for both system updates and software installs. On the Plasma release, no overweight Discover (Software). Just been playing with Debian 12 version recently released and that does use Discover in Plasma version. They have now also added a Cinnamon and Budgie version in addition to existing MATE and xfce.
I am dying to see if I can go back to nvidia GT1030 as on the .rpm versions of PCLinuxOS I had to downgrade to a GT440.
