LibreOffice System or flatpak?

[LYo]

Hi all.

In Linux Mint there is a LibreOffice system, but if I check the system build the flat pack build had a newer build. There are also no updates on the system build, but flat pack gets regular updates.

What is best?

Keep old build of remove and install flat pack build?

[AZgl1800]

I have always just used what is in the Software Manager,
I prefer Stable vs "moving targets"

[ILuvLinux]

I have always just used what is in the Software Manager,
I prefer Stable vs "moving targets"


lo.jpg

+1

[BenTrabetere]

Somewhat like AZgl1800, I stick with the default system package (no PPA) for stability and compatibility. However, I use the AppImage on a daily basis - it lets me use the current Fresh release, and it does not interfere with the installed system version.

I have used the AppImage for almost as long as I have been using Linux - I frequently use the system package and the AppImage at the same time, but never on the same document, and I have never had any issues. One major advantage with the AppImage for me is I can return to using the earlier AppImage if a new release gives me problems. Download here: https://www.libreoffice.org/download/appimage/

[motoryzen]

BenTrabetere, cool to know all that

The only problem I've encountered ( and mind you, I've only tried an appimage of only one application. openshot ) is that Openshot wouldn't launch with the preset settings I can set in the regular system .deb installation version ( via sudo apt install openshot-qt -y ).

Or..if it CAN...I haven't figured out how to make the appimage save and launch with those particular settings ( which include specific Mbs or Kb video and audio bit rats for my exported videos .

I too would love to switch all my productivity programs to appimages only and nuke the installs both flatpak and regular system of them but that scenario of Openshot appimage is what stops me. I don't want to have to manually re-enter settings over and over on every single new appimage launch or project. I'm open to learning how my goal can be done though.

== back closer on topic now though ===

I've tried the flatpak version and had weird results ( mind you all though..this was at least a year ago so that was a different flatpak version versus different .deb available-via-software manager version ) such as it not saving my settings such as a black background and dark theme compliance ( Mint 21.2 here still )

So I've stuck with the .deb version in software manager. Currently i have version 7.3.7.2

[LYo]

I have always just used what is in the Software Manager,
I prefer Stable vs "moving targets"


lo.jpg

But the flat pack also shows the stable version, only newer.
24.8.1.2
stable

https://nl.libreoffice.org/download/dow ... breoffice/

[AZgl1800]

I have always just used what is in the Software Manager,
I prefer Stable vs "moving targets"


lo.jpg

But the flat pack also shows the stable version, only newer.
24.8.1.2
stable

https://nl.libreoffice.org/download/dow ... breoffice/

when I get something that works for me,
I quit experimenting, just don't have the time, nor the wish to fool around with it anymore.

[tadaensylvermane]

Something that advertises itself as stable does not automatically mean that is accurate. Mint repository packages are well tested and vetted. The newest version of things aren't, by nature of being the latest and greatest. This does not mean they aren't stable. But statistically they will be less reliable than an older version.

The Windows world has people thinking the newest versions of everything must be the best. The reality is that in all but a very small number of edge cases the changes that are included in the latest versions of things don't even have any impact on 99.9999999999999999% of the normal users of said software. And if it's security patches you are worried about the repository version has all security patches backported. So it's just as, if not more secure than the latest and greatest and more reliable to boot. It's a no lose deal.

TLDR. Unless you have an actual reason beyond "Its the newest!" to upgrade something you probably shouldn't. Actual reasons being out of support, or broken. It's only an opinion but make an informed choice about it. If you can look at the patch notes to the latest and greatest and it's like reading a foreign language, then nothing in it will affect you in the slightest 9 times out of 10.

This advice is meaningless if you are getting the latest strictly to go bug hunting of course. In that case all bets are off.

[minthelp777]

Well, I went from the system one in the Software Manager to the Flatpak one (in the Software Manager) because themes weren't working properly for me (light and dark, and I switch between both) and it had more fixes and newer stuff. Flatpaks are always kept more up-to-date (which is better for security, bugs, etc) and if ever do I notice a compatibility issue, which is very rare, I switch back to the regular Software Manager version (I think I've only ever done that with GNote...) Why not try them both out?

[Shiva]

Flatpaks are always kept more up-to-date (which is better for security, bugs, etc)

I experienced exactly the opposite.

Under LM 19.2 or 19.3 if I remember correctly, LO had a major bug in the 6.x.x version. The only fix was to use the package version.

The more you use external packages (flatpak, PPA, ...) the less your system matches the developpers' setup (one has to assume that the team uses the apps they put in the repos when building a distro)., not speaking of the job done before by the Ubunutu team for standard Mint and the Debian team for LMDE.

IMHO, "overriding" this native configuration with something else than updates (which are the real keepers of security) should always be thought twice and only done if the benefit outweight the harm (I remember using the Gimp flatpak when it stepped from 2.8 to 2.10 when my work was really benefiting from that upgrade).

At the present day, I can do everything I want with the native apps and those I installed through apt, relying on Debian's reputation of stability (I use LMDE6). So no need to use "extras"...

[minthelp777]

Flatpaks are always kept more up-to-date (which is better for security, bugs, etc)

I experienced exactly the opposite.

Under LM 19.2 or 19.3 if I remember correctly, LO had a major bug in the 6.x.x version. The only fix was to use the package version.

The more you use external packages (flatpak, PPA, ...) the less your system matches the developpers' setup (one has to assume that the team uses the applications they put in the repos when building a distro)., not speaking of the job done before by the Ubunutu team for standard Mint and the Debian team for LMDE.

IMHO, "overriding" this native configuration with something else than updates (which are the real keepers of security) should always be thought twice and only done if the benefit outweight the harm (I remember using the Gimp flatpak when it stepped from 2.8 to 2.10 when my work was really benefiting from that upgrade).

At the present day, I can do everything I want with the native applications and those I installed through apt, relying on Debian's reputation of stability (I use LMDE6). So no need to use "extras"...

With over two dozen Flatpaks installed and in use every day, I've never run into or heard about what you've posted. Yes, every software application can have bugs (including System versions), but Flatpaks have the advantage of more frequent updates which will apply those bugfixes, as well.

System packages are intended to be known stable versions, that are confirmed to run without any issues on LM, as I understand it. But that isn't always the case. This also means they often are missing the latest features, bug fixes, and security improvements (especially important for things like web browsers and email clients, for example). If you've ever used the mail client Geary or the Gnome Calendar you would know what I'm talking about. Those applications had multiple crippling bugs for ages (over a year each, at least), where you couldn't create recurring events or resize windows, and so on. Only the Flatpak allowed you to get the latest versions that fixed those problems. Now I don't use either since I switched to Betterbird (Flatpak).

And, I'm sorry, but your claim about "your system not matching the developer's setup" by using Flatpaks is pure conjecture. Also, if Flatpaks were such frankenstein versions of their software, and were so terrible overall, developers wouldn't be providing them. And not many people would be using them if there were such egregious issues with them, as you're implying.

[Shiva]

And, I'm sorry, but your claim about "your system not matching the developer's setup" by using Flatpaks is pure conjecture.

It's no conjecture : you should read the April 2024 Monthly News of the LM Blog https://blog.linuxmint.com/?m=202404
and especially section Flatpak verification is extremely important
and more especially keep this part of Clem's assessment about Flatpaks in mind :

Code: Select all

We’ve been lucky so far. We really need to take action:

    We’ll update the Software Manager to not show unverified Flatpaks by default. This will be an opt-in.
    When shown, unverified apps will have a score of 0. The score can help a user build trust towards the application, but the issue here isn’t the application, it’s the fact that the maintainers aren’t who people think they are.
    When shown, unverified apps will be clearly marked as unverified.

We’re fully aware this goes against convenience and will hurt Linux Mint a little bit. It might not be a popular decision but we think it’s a very important one.

By the time malware hits Flathub, we hope these measures and the measures taken by Flathub will have minimized the number of exposed users and raised awareness around the risks which are being taken.

NB : The measures taken by Flathub is a check of all the flatpaks, but they're only about half of the way (50%). About security, "malware hits Flathub" because anyone can "pak" an app and harm your system by maliciousness or incompetence (see the Chrome example and refi64 : even if this guy is clean, it could be the opposite and many systems could have been harmed).

[AZgl1800]

I looked at BetterBird, but did not find any info on how to install it

[minthelp777]

And, I'm sorry, but your claim about "your system not matching the developer's setup" by using Flatpaks is pure conjecture.

It's no conjecture : you should read the April 2024 Monthly News of the LM Blog https://blog.linuxmint.com/?m=202404
and especially section Flatpak verification is extremely important
and more especially keep this part of Clem's assessment about Flatpaks in mind :

Code: Select all

We’ve been lucky so far. We really need to take action:

    We’ll update the Software Manager to not show unverified Flatpaks by default. This will be an opt-in.
    When shown, unverified apps will have a score of 0. The score can help a user build trust towards the application, but the issue here isn’t the application, it’s the fact that the maintainers aren’t who people think they are.
    When shown, unverified apps will be clearly marked as unverified.

We’re fully aware this goes against convenience and will hurt Linux Mint a little bit. It might not be a popular decision but we think it’s a very important one.

By the time malware hits Flathub, we hope these measures and the measures taken by Flathub will have minimized the number of exposed users and raised awareness around the risks which are being taken.

NB : The measures taken by Flathub is a check of all the flatpaks, but they're only about half of the way (50%). About security, "malware hits Flathub" because anyone can "pak" an app and harm your system by maliciousness or incompetence (see the Chrome example and refi64 : even if this guy is clean, it could be the opposite and many systems could have been harmed).

Maybe this is a language issue, but you wrote,

The more you use external packages (flatpak, PPA, ...) the less your system matches the developpers' setup

That is conjecture because it is not true, nor is it what Clem and co. are talking about. They are talking about developers needing to be verified and that the packages they put on Flathub are indeed actually from them. I agree with Clem and co. and this.

You also wrote,

IMHO, "overriding" this native configuration with something else

Nothing is "overriding" what the real developers put up on Flatpak. You suggest that "all external packages" are "not the same as the developer's setup", as though a mysterious and magical process infects them while they are being built for Flatpak by their own developers. That's not true.

The issue is about whether or not the actual developers are the ones who posted the application in question on Flatpak. This is the same as Apple's app store vs Google Play when they first started - anyone could put any app on Google Play while apple verified and looked at the code of every single app. This I know for a fact. This is similar (not exactly the same, mind you) to what Clem and co. are proposing. It is not a problem with Flatpak's build system resulting in flawed applications like you implied, it is simply verification of the developers.

And no package management system is perfect. If it was, every System Package version of an application on the Software Manager would always work and be free of bugs, but they aren't, either (as I've pointed out in my last post). All the Flatpaks I have used would fall into the category of being "verified", because they are from established, trusted developers. Unless some scammer beat them to the punch and got up on Flatpak first, and if they did, the real developers would let everyone know to avoid that application, but that hasn't happened as far as I know. But it does not reveal an inherent "flaw" in the Flatpak system, it only reveals that anyone can put an application up as a Flatpak.

You may dislike Flatpaks, but your experience and opinion is not the definitive one. I maintain that Flatpaks are fine if you are using major software applications made by (relatively) trusted developers (ie. most popular Linux applications by Mozilla, LibreOffice, Gnome, and many others, etc).

Sure, you need to trust the developers and be careful and use common sense, that goes without saying. You can download any AppImage from anyone and run it - but you should trust them first. The issue with Flatpaks isn't the Flatpak system in itself, it is whether or not the developers can be trusted, and most can, thus making most Flatpaks quite trustworthy, even now, which my experience with many Flatpaks does support.

[minthelp777]

I looked at BetterBird, but did not find any info on how to install it

You can install the Flatpak version of Betterbird from the Software Manager (and I do believe that it's the real developer).

[bendipa]

I have always just used what is in the Software Manager,
I prefer Stable vs "moving targets"


lo.jpg

But the flat pack also shows the stable version, only newer.
24.8.1.2
stable

https://nl.libreoffice.org/download/dow ... breoffice/

Aw man! The 24.2.6 LibreOffice version that comes with LM22 will do everything you could possibly want from a spreadsheet and more. If you really want 24.8.1, it's available to download as a .deb file from LO's website, but why would you need to?

As for Flatpaks, personally I'd leave well alone. Stick to the most recent version from the appropriate website, or maybe a slightly older version from the official repos.

[ytene]

Earlier this year I had the weirdest error with LibreOffice: when using "Calc", I was unable to scroll up or down a workbook. The problem seemed to come with a new version of LibreOffice shipped via Update Manager.

I posted on the LibreOffice forums to ask for help and after quite a bit of interesting but ultimately inconclusive triage, the recommendation was to take one of their own packaged versions and try that, because the Mint edition is always quite a bit behind the curve in currency terms. I chose AppImage, mainly because it comes as a single executable that can simply be dropped in a file system and linked.

I did as suggested, the issue was resolved and I've been running that way ever since. I don't have any issues with staying version-current, because the application itself notifies me when a new version is available via an automated check. Because I've used Menu Editor to create links to the downloaded binary, installing a new version is as simple as downloading the file, running an AV check with ClamTk, then a quick file shuffle - renaming the existing, active binary with _{old version number} and then dropping the new file in the dedicated App folder. Works like a charm. Just to be clear, though: when I created new menu entries for my AppImage version of LibreOffice, I didn't replace the existing ones, I added new. So when I go to Menu>>Office, I see, "Writer" and "Writer 2", and the "2" version always points to my AppImage file. I did this because I didn't want my actions to break Mint's normal package management operations - and because of course the Mint Updater will continue to pull in new versions via that route.

Obviously AppImage files are relatively bulky when compared to traditional apt package files, but I do this for just this application and it is quick and easy. Not something I'd want to entertain for a significant number of apps - but for LibreOffice it's very effective.

Just note that if this is something you do consider trying, then after you ClamTk the download to ensure it is malware-free, you need to "chmod +x" the file to give it the "executable" attribute, otherwise nothing will happen when you point to it from the Menu. You don't need to use a console to do this if you're not comfortable - you can activate the relevant functionality in the Nautilus file manager and get the same result that way.

Overall I found this to be a quick, simple and non-intrusive fix to the problem of staying "current" with LibreOffice versions.