this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
253 points (88.4% liked)

linuxmemes

20798 readers
1323 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Its even worse when you force Firefox to use wayland its icon doesn't even show.

Edit: Oh since everyone now is confused; I only have the flatpak version of Firefox installed yet it doesn't use the pinned icon and doesn't even use the firefox icon under wayland at all.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] om1k@sopuli.xyz 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)

looks more like a KDE issue rather than a flatpak issue

[–] heimchen@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 1 year ago

I use gnome and it works with custom Icons so 🫥

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah I'm a heavy flatpak user on both Gnome and KDE and this only happens on KDE for me. Maybe it'll get sorted in Plasma 6.

[–] BearPear@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I use flatpak and I actually like it. It is one of the ways I can get up to date packages on Debian.

[–] SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

Man up and use unofficial repos that break your system like the rest of us

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] abc@lemmus.org 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't get it. Do you have two versions of Firefox installed?

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 15 points 1 year ago

Don't know about the OP, but I only have one version installed. If I don't have it open, a single icon shows on the task bar. If I press that icon, FF opens and a second icon shows up, that represents only the opened FF, while the original icon remains.

[–] warmaster@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What are you talking about ? isn't the firefox icon on the left a standard app from a distro repo instead of a flatpak like the one on the right ?

[–] lockedcasket@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In that particular screenshot I believe you’re right: the one on the left is Firefox ESR while the icon on the right is whatever flatpak version available.

But I know what OP is referring to as it is a open bug currently, the DE don’t doesn’t recognize the launched instance as the pinned program due to the way Flatpak launched apps. Not an issue with Firefox in particular

[–] dorumon@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I actually took the screenshot myself and yes it is a bug* specifically with Flatpak.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] the_q@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Man, everything works great on my PopOS AMD rig with Wayland.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DeeBeeDouble@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

I use the Firefox flatpak on multiple different desktops and distros and I've never seen this issue. All on wayland (no difference on x11 either). Weird.

[–] aport@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago
[–] furzegulo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago

i have no issues with flatpak, once i found out how to fix gtk scaling and theming issues on kde. here's a link if anyone has those problems as well https://bugsfiles.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=135846.

[–] shotgun_crab@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I'm using KDE + Firefox Flatpak + Papirus Icons and I haven't had this issue (so far). Could it be an icon pack issue or something similar? Otherwise yeah it's either KDE or the flatpak

[–] toasterboi0100@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is this really a flatpak issue? I've been dealing with this with Firefox periodically for many years, even before flatpak

[–] hschen@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

I run flatpak firefox and kde wayland and have no such issue

[–] halfempty@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I never intend to use a flatpak or snap, and avoid them like the plague. The whole concept is incredibly ugly to me, and wasteful of computer resources.

[–] BlueBockser@programming.dev 21 points 1 year ago (25 children)

The whole concept is incredibly ugly

Depends on the viewpoint. As a software consumer, sure. As a software producer though, not having to deal with with tons of different packaging formats and repositories for different distributions and versions is a blessing.

load more comments (25 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Hovenko@iusearchlinux.fyi 3 points 1 year ago

Oh.. dude… Fanboys won’t like that…

[–] Intralexical@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

bwrap is so much better without Flatpak.

To start you off: $ bwrap --dev-bind / / --tmpfs ~ bash

This basically gives you a shell in a clean virtual home directory (but no meaningful security improvement yet). You can test new builds of software as if you have only the default settings. If you need to access files, move them to /tmp/.

To see the clean virtual home directory, replace --tmpfs ~ with --bind "$(mktemp -d)" ~. You can browse it where mktemp puts it (usually /tmp/*).

To start to lock down security, replace the --dev-bind with --ro-bind, and add various --new-session, --uid/--gid, and --unshare-all/--unshare-* flags. You can run untrusted and semi-trusted/less-trusted applications with less security risk this way (as long as you're aware of pitfalls, such as the /tmp/.X11-unix/X0 socket and other possible avenues of escape).

To block network access, use --unshare-net or --unshare-all. To virtualize /dev and /proc, use --dev /dev and --proc /proc.

Some programs might need --dev-bind /dev/dri /dev/dri for graphics driver access, or similar constructs.

EDIT: …I actually created a way to create completely portable application executables for Linux by using bwrap (or proot, as a fallback) to virtualize a Nix root from inside an AppImage, earlier this year. bwrap offers a lot of granularity in modifying and containing the virtual environment, to the degree that you can basically emulate an entire guest OS/distro on top of the host distro, without even needing root privileges— And without even needing bwrap itself to be installed, since it can work using entirely standard Linux kernel features.

load more comments
view more: next ›