The social side, as in sharing files and folders, is fairly fundamental. The social posts in the feed are an add on. In the feed, everything is still E2EE and you choose the audience. The use case for the social posts is postings photos thoughts, etc to your friends/family in a way that is private and not feeding surveillance capitalism. We do plan on letting you customise the left sidebar though, in which case you could just remove the newsfeed if you want.
1 Like
Did you follow the instructions at https://flatpak.peergos.org/ ?
Yes!
This is the error:
Descarga
- [✗] org.peergos.Peergos master i peergos 129,5 MB / 308,9 MB
error: Fallo al instalar org.peergos.Peergos: Mientras se está cargando app/org.peergos.Peergos/x86_64/master desde el repositorio remoto peergos: While fetching https://flatpak.peergos.org/objects/8e/c2cf3f2154229e77eb02ee7751e5cbf7b38ca0004b107e5a21db69b89981a4.filez: [18] Transferred a partial file
Hmm let me investigate.
1 Like
Hmm I’ve just done a fresh install of it on x86_64 Linux mint and it installed fine. Does it error if you try again?
1 Like
Yes, same error. I’m on Fedora 43 Workstation.
I’ve been using Filen for quite some time now, and thus far, it suits my needs just fine. I haven’t run into issues where files actually disappeared remotely, but I can confirm some bugs pop up every now and then. I’m OK with that for the moment, since I expected as much this early in the game. As far as I can see, their software keeps improving. Personally, I don’t care much for chat and sharing features either, which Filen is also trying to facilitate / encourage (Notes / Chats / Contacts?). In their case I presume (and fear) it’s because they want to focus on companies in the long run. Let’s hope they won’t pivot towards space technology like SpiderOak… 
Cryptomator has been mentioned quite often in this thread, which makes me wonder: woudln’t that neutralize the advantages of incremental backups? (Serious question, I haven’t taken a deep dive yet) Either way, I do like the concept of encrypting all data prior to sending it to external cloud services.
@ianopolous Props for popping up here and responding to feedback. 
3 Likes
I can reproduce this on Fedora. Thank you. I will investigate. EDIT: It seems to work fine now.
I think so, if Filen is not reproducible.
Shouldn’t Cryptomator works with every cloud storage?
Very nice.
Is there are reason why its not in the Flathub repo?
The flathub reviewer didn’t understand what a desktop app is. It’s fine, we have more control this way.
2 Likes
You mean this? Add org.peergos.Peergos by ianopolous · Pull Request #7752 · flathub/flathub · GitHub
Unbelievable.
Yep, that’s the one. I tried asking in their chat room as well, and got personally attacked for using Java and the noped out of there.
Look I don’t necessarily agree with the rule they’re citing, but this is an extremely strange characterization of what happened in that thread.
They said that, because the UI of your app is just a web browser set to open a locally hosted page, it does not meet the criteria for being listed on Flathub
This doesn’t have a UI. It just spawn a web browser. This is not suitable for flathub.
They cited Requirements | Flathub Documentation , which does seem to explicitly disallow such apps
Simple web wrapper applications that embed local or remote content in a web engine without providing significant polish, functionality, or meaningful desktop integration will not be accepted.
I don’t see how this rule could be read as allowing your app.
You argued that other similar apps have been allowed in the past, which seems fair to bring up, and they responded that two wrongs don’t make a right, which also seems fair to me.
I think regardless of your position on that rule, it doesn’t seem even remotely appropriate to expect this reviewer to unilaterally choose to ignore it in your case, and extremely unprofessional to go around characterizing what happened as
I seriously question the veracity of this based on your characterization of the pull request discussion.
1 Like
I really don’t want to re-litigate this here but the sync client in the desktop app runs outside the browser (as it has to to access native folders). And now we have the native drive mount as well. That is anything but a “simple web wrapper”.
2 Likes
I think you’re intentionally misreading the rule to your benefit. The rule requires
meaningful desktop integration
Which it seems you don’t even dispute isn’t present.
Obviously. That doesn’t provide integration with the desktop. Flathub clearly wants native desktop UIs, which your app doesn’t have. OS integration is not the same as desktop integration.
Again, I won’t defend the rule itself, but what do you want the reviewer to do, considering that simply is the rule?
I don’t know if that provides what they’re looking for or exactly what that does. Have you asked the reviewers? If not I don’t see how that’s relevant.
Of course you don’t. You won’t come out looking very good. You preferred everyone else just take your word for it that you’re the good guy and big Flathub was being unfair.
Sorry. Hope whatever this approach you’re running with is works out for you.
1 Like
You don’t need to take my word for anything. Go and read the matrix chat room log. There is a chance I might misunderstand their rules, but that is definitely not intentional and is exactly why I asked for clarification. That is all I wanted from the reviewer - clarification of what the rules actually mean, but they stonewalled and then personally attacked me in their chatroom when I asked there.
Please be a little more generous with FOSS maintainers. We are all over worked and underpaid (including flathub). I don’t want to re-litigate this here because it is a massive waste of my time I already have plenty of other opinions of that discussion validating my view from other FOSS maintainers from other projects.
This is exceedingly ironic considering how you talk about the Flathub maintainers, and also this is what I am asking of you here? Are you the only FOSS maintainer who should enjoy that generosity?
I acknowledge I don’t know what happened in the chat logs. I am skeptical your characterization is accurate based on (my central point) your blatant misrepresentation of the pull request discussion. I will check them when I have time to search, but I don’t think they’re entirely relevant.
I think that’s fair to ask for. Also, that reviewer seems not at all polite or respectful in other PR discussions I’ve seen them in. I don’t think they were particularly out of line towards you specifically in the PR discussion at least and their actual decision seems totally appropriate based on the rules, though.
That’s fine. My critique was your disrespectful attitude towards Flathub maintainers because they followed the rules that were previously established. I repeat, what do you want them to do?
It wasn’t a massive waste of your time to take cheap shots at Flathub though? It only becomes a waste once you’re called out?
Regardless I do agree this isn’t as productive as I had hoped it would be, so I will not fault you from stepping away. You can have the last word if you wish, I will not respond further.
1 Like
It’s not ironic at all. I include them in that and had that in mind in my discussions with them (I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt) - they also have to deal with a lot of ai slop/low effort submissions. My characterization of them is based on the PR AND the matrix discussion/attack.
Just to clarify I’m not debating their decision or the rules. I just wanted to understand the rules, which are vague, as evidenced by you having a different opinion to myself and many others.