The thing that really irritates me is that the Flatpak developrs not only knowingly violates the XDG base directory spec, but also tries to obscure the fact that they are doing it.
It took half a decade to get to a state where one can reasonably assume that applications follow the standards of the operating system they run on. I have zero appetite for new applications regressing on that.
Snaps (as far as I can tell from my limited usage) don’t necessarily do the same. “Classic” snaps (which are almost entirely developer-centric) honor XDG, which blissfully covers everything I personally need except Slack; everything else is more like Flakpak. This does irritate me, but I’m also not clear how they’d do it with the sandbox model they chose. (Not saying they can’t, mind; just it’s not obvious to me how.)
The thing that really irritates me is that the Flatpak developrs not only knowingly violates the XDG base directory spec, but also tries to obscure the fact that they are doing it.
It took half a decade to get to a state where one can reasonably assume that applications follow the standards of the operating system they run on. I have zero appetite for new applications regressing on that.
Snaps (as far as I can tell from my limited usage) don’t necessarily do the same. “Classic” snaps (which are almost entirely developer-centric) honor XDG, which blissfully covers everything I personally need except Slack; everything else is more like Flakpak. This does irritate me, but I’m also not clear how they’d do it with the sandbox model they chose. (Not saying they can’t, mind; just it’s not obvious to me how.)
I think they could still sandbox stuff, just do it in the established
.config,.cache,.localdirectories.