this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2025
180 points (98.4% liked)

Linux

50368 readers
1319 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As an update to everyone following, I had a meeting today with the Flatpak SIG and Fedora Project Leader, which was a very good conversation. We discussed the issues, how we got here, and what next steps are. For anyone not interested in the specific details, the OBS Project is no longer requesting a removal of IP or rebrand of the OBS Studio application provided by Fedora Flatpaks. This issue should be used for tracking of the other specific, technical issues, that the Fedora Flatpak does still have, which I will address below. From our perspective, there were two key points that we feel are the most important to address:

  • The issue with the Qt runtime having regression
  • The issue of not knowing where to report bugs for what is a downstream package

For the first bullet, this should be resolved with the update to the latest runtime, which includes Qt 6.8.2 that has the fixes for those regressions in it. For the second, this is obviously a much larger issue to tackle, especially for a project as large as Fedora. We had some very good discussion on how this might be accomplished in the medium-long term, but don't consider it a blocker at this point. We plan to stay engaged and offer our perspective as an upstream project. In addition to those two previously blocking issues, we discussed a handful of other problems with the Fedora Flatpak. I'll keep the details high level in the interest of brevity on this update:

  • OBS Studio running on Mesa LLLVM pipe instead of with hardware acceleration (i.e. the GPU)
  • X11 Fallback leading to OBS crashing
  • VLC Plugin not behaving as expected in the sandbox, needs testing
  • Shipping of third-party plugins in the Fedora Flatpak

The discussion was positive and they are actively working to resolve those issues as well, which should hopefully only affect a small number of users. I would like to give a final thank you to Yaakov and the FPL for taking the time to talk to us today.

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] merthyr1831@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I still don't understand why Fedora feels it is superior at packaging a flatpak over the people who actively develop and distribute their own flatpak.

Sure, the bugs might be fixed now, but Fedora still prefers its own flatpak repo over flathub for little benefit, duplicating the effort of dozens of developers for a worse downstream experience.

If you distribute your app via Flatpak, what benefit is there over "disk space" (irrelevant for all but embedded devices) or the vague superiority complex of distro maintainers to manage your dependencies for you.

Even if downstream fixes a bug or two, those should be merged upstream. Imagine if Fedora staunchly refused to upstream fixes to bugs in the kernel?

[–] that_leaflet@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Fedora Flatpak exists to match Fedora’s philosophy on FOSS, patented software, and security.

Everything in Fedora must be FOSS and free of legal issues, like codecs. Fedora also takes security seriously, so all their Flatpaks use dependencies all from Fedora repos.

[–] pmk@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 days ago

I wonder how much is philosophy and how much is not wanting legal troubles. Those things aren't contradicting of course.

[–] Dremor@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Problem is that they have a very staunch stance of not allowing closed source software in their repo. And that apply to flatpak repos too. By default only Fedora own Flatpak repo is enabled, with only open-source software. But why repackage OBS, which is already open-source? My guess would be:

  • To use Fedora runtime to minimise install size
  • To change how the software is compiled, like removing any "not free enough" bits from the build
[–] lambda@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago

That's my main thought as well. If something about yours is better, suggest a fix to the developer. You could both mutually benefit.

[–] Giooschi@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

If you distribute your app via Flatpak, what benefit is there over "disk space" (irrelevant for all but embedded devices)

Everyone always focuses on disk space, but IMO the real issue is download size, especially when you update a bunch of flatpaks together.

I still prefer the upstream flatpaks over Fedora's though.

[–] GunnarGrop@lemmy.ml 45 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Why is Fedora packaging their own flatpak of OBS in the first place, when a seemingly working, official one is available on Flathub?

[–] that_leaflet@lemmy.world 40 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Fedora aims for FOSS, software unencumbered by patents, and security.

Flathub explicitly allows proprietary and patented software.

And since they want upstream apps to publish their apps and not scare them away, security isn't as strong. Apps are allowed to use EOL runtimes and apps roll their own vendored dependencies. Fedora Flatpaks solve this problem by building all their flatpaks from their distro packages.

[–] GunnarGrop@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that Flathub was a default flatpak repo in Fedora anyway.

But yes, always with these trade-offs. It's bad when package maintainers package software, and it's bad when software developers package software...

[–] that_leaflet@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

Flathub isn’t quite default, but it’s an option in the setup screen. It’s also the lowest priority.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Flathub explicitly allows proprietary and patented software.

What's wrong with that?

[–] GunnarGrop@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If Fedora wants to promote FOSS then it would make sense to just have it's users enable Flathub if they want to. Instead of outright promote a repository that promotes proprietary software.

If you meant it as moral question, then then answer would probably be that proprietary software does'nt guarantee the same user freedoms as free software. And thus does'nt let users control the software that runs on their own computers.

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Offering patented software would open Fedora (a RedHat product mind you) up to legal issues in places that know software patents (primarily the U.S.).

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They don't have to offer it. It's offered in Flathub.

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"No your honour, we do not offer users any patented software, we merely ship a system which directs users to this other totally unrelated entity that we are fully aware ships patented software." will not hold up in court.

I also imagine RH would simply like control over the repository content they offer to users by default. Flathub acts more like a 3rd party user repository than a "proper" distro.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

will not hold up in court.

LOL it absolutely will...

I also imagine RH would simply like control over the repository content they offer to users by default

Linux is fundamentally about the user being in control.

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

None of this puts the user out of control; they're free to add the Flathub repository should they wish to do so.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

None of this puts the user out of control

"control" was your word, not mine.

they're free to add the Flathub repository should they wish to do so.

Yes and they're "free" to change the priority as well. The problem is people ARE NOT doing that, and, once again, that is causing problems for the folks who build the software, for absolutely no gain other than removing the availability of software.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 10 points 2 days ago

The official one is delaying updates to its linked libraries due to bugs. Fedora would rather have the security fixes.

[–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This whole thing has been kinda wild. Every Linux distro bundles obs linked against their own libraries. Because fedora did it in a flatpak it was suddenly a problem?

I get developers being frustrated by buggy downstream builds flooding their queue with useless reports. They ain't got time for it and can't do anything about it. But this is open source software and obs had a bad take on distributing it IMHO.

Glad fedora was able to talk it out with them.

[–] Petter1@lemm.ee 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

There was an official flatpak and fedora repackaged it into their own flatpak repo “poorly” which OBS did not like, because there where issues that OBS team could not resolve like this

Edit: fact check correction

Source: https://news.itsfoss.com/obs-studio-fedora-feud/

[–] that_leaflet@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Fedora never called it official. It lacked the verification tick that official Flathub packages get and right under the install button in Gnome Software, the install source says “Fedora Linux”.

[–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

That was kinda my point. If qt breaks them again and arch updates and links the new QT are they going to come after them too? The position OBS took on this originally seemed like an open source disaster. It sounds like they moderated to something reasonable and that's great.

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Arch is at least more likely to update to a fixed version sooner, and someone getting something with pacman is going to be used to the idea of it breaking because of using bleeding edge dependencies. The difference with the Flatpak is that most users believe that they're getting something straight from the developers, so they're not going to report problems to the right people if Fedora puts a different source of Flatpaks in the lists and overrides working packages with ones so broken as to be useless.

[–] Petter1@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago

Yea, I first read the article wrong and thought fedora marketed it as official

[–] fireshell@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

Official port linux-cachyos-bore and linux-cachyos-lts for Fedora

[–] ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

So they will let OBS do it?

[–] that_leaflet@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Provided they fix the issues they outlined, yes.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Read the linked issue first perhaps.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What makes you think I didn't read it?

[–] Atemu@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't assume you to be stupid, so lack of information is the most likely explanation for not knowing what "it" refers to here.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org -1 points 2 days ago

Indeed, there is a lack of information, which is why I asked for it. Are you going to provide it or just continue insulting me for no reason?