Jegahan

The article isn't great as it fails to mention that Gnome is considering a variation of Inter and not the default and therefore the article uses the wrong font in the screenshot. It addresses some of the concerns people have mentioned, like the capital I and lower l being the same

If I remember correctly they do have rollback, at least in openSUSE Aeon (the immutable version based on Tumbleweed) . It just using btrfs snapshots

Not really. He isn't just assosiated to the hyperland community, he is the leader of it and some if the offending stuff came directly from him.

The FDO was just warning him that if this type of behavior happened again, they wouldn't be working with him anymore and he decided to throw a tamper tantrum. If this is how he reacts to "please don't behave like a piece of s*** in the future", why would the FDO even try to work with him? It's just not worth the trouble.

This isn't a new package manager, Fedora is already using dnf. This is just the next version of their current package manager.

PackageKit isn't a package manager in the same sense as what I meant. It's more like a one level above "front end" to be able to manage different package managers with the same program. This means that "Software Stores" that use packagekit like Gnome Software or KDE Discover will work on most Linux system with whatever package manager is used in the backend. For example on a Fedora Workstation, packagekit makes it possible to install, update and manage both rpm installed through dnf, Flatpaks and if I wanted, Snaps, while on a Debian based system it would be able to manage your apt stuff, or on Arch packages installed through pacman for example. But from what I heard this also makes it a somewhat clunky and slow piece of software that has become kind of clunky and hard to maintain over the years, so its also an interesting question whether Cosmic is going to use it.

I just realized that I haven't read any infos about the package manager that Cosmic is going to use. Is it going to be build on top of Ubuntu like Pop!OS and use apt? Are the apps going to be served by the package manager or as Flatpaks? If the later, it could be interesting to public them on the Flathub Beta remote when they reach that stage.

Man this Missinformationen is hard to squash. Yes Flatpaks absolutely share libraries. These are called runtimes and are shared between all the Flatpak apps that use the same version of it. You will only get more than one version of a given runtime if some apps need this other version. For most runtimes that I know of, most only have 2 currently maintained versions, so I almost never get more than that on my system (and when I do, app devs tend to update their apps shortly after so that they're using a maintained runtime). For example on my system where I mostly use GTK apps, I only have two versions of the Gnome runtime (44 and 45). And even when you have more than one version of a runtime, they get deduplicated, so even runtimes share parts between them.

If you're interested here is an article about it.

As other have pointed out, saying that "no dependencies are shared" is a very missinformed take, given that sharing dependencies as runtimes is an integral part of Flatpak's structure. But what makes it even funnier and more obvious that you don't know what your talking about, is that you than cite Nix as something you "vastly prefer" when Nix actually deals with dependencies in a very similar way to Flatpak. From the official site:

You can have multiple versions or variants of a package installed at the same time. This is especially important when different applications have dependencies on different versions of the same package — it prevents the “DLL hell”.

In both Flatpak and Nix, apps will only download a different version of a dependency when they need it. This ensure that, instead of breaking, the app will work the same on any system (be it an old stable Debian or a bleeding edge Arch system), without requiring devs to create monkey patches that they have to maintain as things evolve. It has the potential to immensely reduce the burden on app devs and maintainers, and make it a lot easier to make apps for Linux.

By the way, if you guys are interested here is a talk comparing Appimages Snaps and Flatpaks by Richard Brown, one the devs at Suse, a big contributer to openSuse and the guy who spearheaded the Desktop variante of MicroOS (the immutable openSuse Tumbleweed).

He isn't to keen on appimages either because of a miriad of technical issues.

Man what a braindead take.

Firstly, you're not adressing the fact that your BS Ad hominem didn't even make sense. You're calling OP a "kids who grew up with “app stores”" when they are talking about prefering to get a .tar over appimages. You're now even doubling down with "That “terminal” app is scary!". I know having actual arguments is hard, but maybe just think for a second before writing something, particularly if you're so desperately trying to be snarky.

Secondly having to using the terminal is fine for experienced user who like the efficiency of it and makes sense for more advanced cli apps or development tools, but for app that are meant for an average it's just a needlessly shitty experience. Same goes for having to look up the website to download a random package from the internet that you're going to run uncontained on your system. Given how easy it is to game the SEO to land at the top, this is just begging for a virus and is an absolutely garbage system.

And it really doesn't need to be this way given that we already have better working alternatives.

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the post? They literally praise native package managers, statically linked binaries and even .tar archives over appimages. If you don't have any actual arguments against their point, you don't have to make shit up, you know? Using BS ad hominem to dismiss someones opinion isn't a great look.

And they explained why this opinion is kind of silly.

"I will not listen to anything this person has to say, because I don't like a small and inconsequential part of their presentation" is not a great opinion to begin with, even ignoring the fact that this presentation might be necessary to reach a meaningful audience.