Feoh<p><a href="https://oldbytes.space/tags/Fedora" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Fedora</span></a> <a href="https://oldbytes.space/tags/KDE" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>KDE</span></a> <a href="https://oldbytes.space/tags/flatpak" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>flatpak</span></a> record thus far:</p><p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://floss.social/@zenbrowser" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>zenbrowser</span></a></span> - Couldn't get it to launch reliably for blood or money. Filed an issue. Also just installed the standalone binary and bujilt my own KDE desktop icon. Works great now :)</p><p><a href="https://oldbytes.space/tags/BitwigStudio" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>BitwigStudio</span></a> - Splash screen appeared but app wouldn't run when launched from the KDE menu. Got the command line invocation out of "Edit Application" and tried that. It worked! Signed in, and from then on it runs just fine by the usual method. 🤷 </p><p>Not an amazing new user experience, but I do recognize that Fedora KDE is just a young'un and those of us who install it will pay the early adopter tax.</p><p>I recognize that Flatpak's security model is seriously amazing, but I wonder if there's more complexity there than the average vendor wanting to ship an app can readily handle?</p><p>Clearly I need to study some of this to see if I can help in any way. Flatpak is clearly here to stay, probably would be good for all of us to try to smooth out the kinks, at least for apps where sandboxing makes sense.</p>