For example, I’m using Debian, and I think we could learn a thing or two from Mint about how to make it “friendlier” for new users. I often see Mint recommended to new users, but rarely Debian, which has a goal to be “the universal operating system”.
I also think we could learn website design from… looks at notes …everyone else.

  • @thingsiplay@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    12
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    This is extremely simple to fix with scripts that can be automatically created on install time. Here is a quick script I just wrote. It will search for first matching app and run it. Just save the script as flatrun, give it executable bit and put it into $PATH. Run it as like this: flatrun freetube

    #!/usr/bin/env bash
    
    # flatrun e
    # flatrun freetube
    
    if [ "${#}" -eq 0 ]; then
    	flatpak list --app --columns=name,application
    else
    	app="$(
    		flatpak list --app --columns=name,application |
    			grep -i -F "${@}" |
    			awk -F'\t' '{print $2}'
    	)"
    
    	if [ -z "${app}" ]; then
    		flatpak list --app --columns=name,application
    	elif [[ "$(echo "${app}" | wc -l)" -gt 1 ]]; then
    		echo "${app}"
    	else
    		flatpak run "${app}"
    	fi
    fi
    

    Edit: Just updated the script to output the list of matching apps, if it matches more than one.

    • @rollingflower
      link
      Deutsch
      78 months ago

      Yes and I did a similar script but “just create a script” is a really bad solution.

      Apps should need to declare a shortname and flatpak should have a shortcut for those with a separated command like flatrun.

      • @thingsiplay@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        48 months ago

        I personally don’t think that creating a script is a bad solution. The entire Linux eco system is based around composable components (especially when we talk about terminal commands). Most of the Flatpak applications are available through GUI menus (.desktop files) and that’s the focus of Flatpak. And I think it’s a design decision not to expose every application as a separate program in the $PATH by default. This way there is less of a chance to collide with anything random on the system, if they have the same name.

        Having said this, I still agree it would be beneficial for most users if there was a way to automatically create scripts in a special bin folder, that is available in the $PATH. The problem is, what application name should it have? What about different versions of the same program? The entire Flatpak concept was not designed for this, so creating a script for your personal use is not a bad solution.

        • @rollingflower
          link
          Deutsch
          28 months ago

          Repeating, apps should need to declare a shortname. I think my script currently has no mechanism for detecting duplicates

          • @thingsiplay@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            48 months ago

            Please read my reply before you repeat. How should the different versions of an application be handled? What if the shortname is already taken? There will be collisions, which the longname tries to solve. Flatpak is not a repository where all names can be checked against, this is the job of a repository like Flathub. What about different versions of an application?

            This is not a simple case of forcing to specify shortnames.

      • _NoName_
        link
        fedilink
        18 months ago

        I think a good solution would to just have that script autogenerated by the flatpak, honestly.

        • @rollingflower
          link
          Deutsch
          38 months ago

          That would mean the app has access to the path, which was explained as insecure in another place