@rlengland @glb Alright, I'm done writing the article. Can one of you check?

I'm going to create a featured image later.

@theevilskeleton I think you've used the word "differences" in your article in a peculiar way. To illustrate the point, can you list as examples two differences between Fedora flatpaks and Flathub flatpaks?

In usability, they should be more or less the same. The point of the article is to compare The Flathub and Fedora Flatpaks remotes, not Flatpak applications from these remotes.

Is there a word that is more fitting?

It is just your phrasing that I find awkward. In your article, you state, "This article compares the main differences ...". But "differences" are just expressions of how things are not the same. One doesn't normally "compare" them.

• A similarity between the sky and the ocean is that both are blue.
• A difference between the sky and the ocean is that the former is a gas whereas the latter is a liquid.
• A difference between ice and fire is that the former is a solid whereas the latter is a plasma.

Comparing the differences listed above, we can see that both use the word "whereas".

Does the example above make sense to you? I don't think it really makes any sense to "compare the differences".

Edit to add:

In your previous reply, you phrased it much better: "The point of the article is to compare The Flathub and Fedora Flatpaks remotes". A common and well-understood expression goes along the lines of "Comparing and Contrasting X and Y". Perhaps something along those lines would make a better title line? I.e.: "Comparing and Contrasting Fedora flatpak remotes versus Flathub flatpak remotes".

Also, "Ranging from different policies, ways of distribution, implementation, etc." is not a complete sentence. It lacks a subject. What "ranges from different policies, etc."?

Oh I see now, and yes, it makes sense. I didn't even notice that part.

Also, "Ranging from different policies, ways of distribution, implementation, etc." is not a complete sentence. It lacks a subject. What "ranges from different policies, etc."?

Maybe "They range from different [...]" would be better?

I edited the title and the introduction. Does it look better?

Does it look better?

I think it is starting to improve. 🙂

The current version of your title appears to be saying that you are comparing "flatpaks" to "remotes" (the former made by Fedora and the latter made by Flathub). Is that what you mean to say?

The first paragraph starts out "In the previous article in the series ...". What series? You haven't mentioned a series before. I think you mean to say "In the previous article in this series ...".

Also, in the following excerpt, you appear to be using the singular determiner "its" in reference to the plural noun "flatpaks". You should instead use the plural determiner "their".

... how to get started with Fedora Flatpaks and its basic usage.

Also, it is not "wrong", but the word "usage" is a bit archaic and it has a slightly negative connotation. I believe "use" is the more modern term without the negative connotation.

Edit to add:

Also, the following sentence might be a bit too complex. I had to reread it the first time I saw it because it looks like you are listing four things that are being compared.

This article compares and contrasts between Fedora Flatpaks, Fedora Project’s Flatpak repository (remote), and Flathub, the de-facto standard Flatpak remote.

You are trying to pack too much information into a single sentence. It is better in terms of readability to break that sort of sentence up into smaller and easier-to-understand pieces.

This article compares and contrasts between the Fedora Flatpaks remote and the Flathub remote. Fedora Flatpaks is the Fedora Project’s flatpak repository. Flathub is the de-facto standard flatpak remote.

Note also that you should only uppercase the first letter of "flatpak" when it is being used as a proper noun. It seems that you are referring to "Fedora Flatpaks" as a specific (proper) noun but the name of the other remote is just "Flathub". Is "Fedora Flatpaks" the official name of the Fedora Project remote?

The current version of your title appears to be saying that you are comparing "flatpaks" to "remotes" (the former made by Fedora and the latter made by Flathub). Is that what you mean to say?
[...]
Note also that you should only uppercase the first letter of "flatpak" when it is being used as a proper noun. It seems that you are referring to "Fedora Flatpaks" as a specific (proper) noun but the name of the other remote is just "Flathub". Is "Fedora Flatpaks" the official name of the Fedora Project remote?

Yes. "Fedora Flatpaks" is the name of the remote. It's not a name we all agreed on, but I've seen developers call it like that. It's mentioned in the Fedora Developer page:

To add the Fedora Flatpaks repository (built in Fedora), run: [...]

https://developer.fedoraproject.org/deployment/flatpak/flatpak-usage.html

Also, in the following excerpt, you appear to be using the singular determiner "its" in reference to the plural noun "flatpaks". You should instead use the plural determiner "their".

Since it's a noun, in theory, "Fedora Flatpaks" should be in singular right?

It's really confusing because the name makes it sound like it's in plural, but I'm unsure. Maybe I should recap the previous article. What do you think?

The first paragraph starts out "In the previous article in the series ...". What series? You haven't mentioned a series before. I think you mean to say "In the previous article in this series ...".

Yes, thanks.

Also, it is not "wrong", but the word "usage" is a bit archaic and it has a slightly negative connotation. I believe "use" is the more modern term without the negative connotation.

Sure.

Also, the following sentence might be a bit too complex. I had to reread it the first time I saw it because it looks like you are listing four things that are being compared.

This article compares and contrasts between Fedora Flatpaks, Fedora Project’s Flatpak repository (remote), and Flathub, the de-facto standard Flatpak remote.

You are trying to pack too much information into a single sentence. It is better in terms of readability to break that sort of sentence up into smaller and easier-to-understand pieces.

This article compares and contrasts between the Fedora Flatpaks remote and the Flathub remote. Fedora Flatpaks is the Fedora Project’s flatpak repository. Flathub is the de-facto standard flatpak remote.

I like that.

I've edited the article.

Since it's a noun, in theory, "Fedora Flatpaks" should be in singular right?

It's really confusing because the name makes it sound like it's in plural, but I'm unsure. Maybe I should recap the previous article. What do you think?

Yes. You are right. I didn't realize until just now that "Fedora Flatpaks" is the proper name of the repository. Things read much better now that I understand that.

The link back to the previous article is probably sufficient. I wouldn't "recap" too much. I think the sentence, "Fedora Flatpaks is the Fedora Project’s flatpak repository.", as suggested earlier is enough to clear up the confussion.

FYI, "Flatpak" is a proper noun so the first letter should always be capitalized.

Anyway, what do you think? I edited a bit and it looks a lot better.

FYI, "Flatpak" is a proper noun so the first letter should always be capitalized.

It is news to me. But OK.

I think the following sentence could still use a little work.

They range from different policies, ways of distribution, implementation, etc.

A "range" normally has a beginning and an end (e.g. "From A to Z"). Since you don't appear to be specifying a range but rather a simple list, perhaps something more along the following lines would make more sense?

The things that differ between the remotes include but are not limited to their policies, their ways of distribution, and their implementation.

Thanks.

I moved the whole "Sources" paragraph inside the "Packages" heading because it fits there.

The phrasing of the below sentence is very subtly off.

Despite having many similarities, both Flatpak remotes have many differences.

When you say "both Flatpak remotes have many differences" you imply that "Flatpak A has many differences" AND "Flatpak B has many differences". It sounds as if you are saying that they each have their own, internal/intrinsic "differences".

I think you mean to say the following.

Despite having many similarities, the Flatpak remotes have many differences.

Also, the preposition "despite" implies a contradiction (e.g. "Despite being very large, a dirigible is relatively light"). But two things "having similarities" in no way suggests that the two things "have no (or few) differences". You should probably omit that preposition in this case and just state the two facts. I.e.:

These Flatpak remotes have many similarities and many differences.

Though the above sentence doesn't really mean much other than to imply that there are many attributes to compare and contrast. It might be better yet to just omit the whole sentence.

Also, the below sentence is repeated in the first paragraph.

Fedora Flatpaks is the Fedora Project’s Flatpak repository.

Edited. Can you check?

It is getting better all the time. 🙂

The following sentence is missing a verb. It is also a bit long and complex. It would be good to break it up into several smaller sentences that each make a unique point.

A downside, unlike the OSTree format, the OCI format does not yet support delta upgrades, thereby needing to inefficiently download each upgrade without saving bandwidth.

Also, the third clause of the following sentence is missing a verb.

For example GTK applications use the GNOME runtime (org.gnome.Platform), Qt applications use the KDE runtime (org.kde.Platform), the freedesktop.org runtime (org.freedesktop.Platform) for everything else.

There are also a lot of extra commas and a few missing commas throughout the article. But that is getting even more subjective and I think I've probably nitpicked at this article enough for now. Overall I think it will be good enough after you've fixed the above two sentences. You can go ahead and run this tomorrow assuming you have an image done for it by then.

Thanks for the contribution. 🙂

@glb about the capital "F" in Flatpak:

All the letters in “GNOME” and “GTK” should be capitalized. Only the first letter in “Flatpak” and “Flathub” should be capitalized.

https://foundation.gnome.org/logo-and-trademarks/

Anyway, I added a featured image. Does it look good?

The cover image LGTM. I like how you broke up the words across different lines and used a slightly different font size to help distinguish the proper nouns from the other words.

As for the using the logo stylizing in the typeset, sometimes that is a little controversial (c.f. Matrix). The Nvidia logo, for example, is all upper case but when the name is typeset in the print of the corresponding Wikipedia article, they use the normal uppercase-only-the-first-letter-of-proper-nouns rule. But yeah, go with whatever the most "official" source you can find says to do.

Edit to add:

I just discovered in the Wikipedia article on GNOME that the name was originally an an acronym for "GNU Network Object Model Environment". It is the normal rule to uppercase all the letters of Acronyms.

I just discovered in the Wikipedia article on GNOME that the name was originally an an acronym for "GNU Network Object Model Environment". It is the normal rule to uppercase all the letters of Acronyms.

Yup, but nowadays GNOME doesn't really mean anything anymore.

It doesn't look like you've scheduled this article to run at 08:00 UTC yet. Please do go ahead and schedule it for Monday the 7th at 08:00. We'd like to avoid having extremely long periods of deadtime if possible.

Is it okay if I schedule for the next day? I just found this:

This project is described in detail on the Flathub Discourse but goal is to add a process to verify first-party apps on Flathub (ie uploaded by a developer or an authorised representative) and then make it possible for those developers to collect donations or subscriptions from users of their applications. We also plan to publish a separate repository that contains only these verified first-party uploads (without any of the community contributed applications), as well as providing a repository with only free and open source applications, allowing users to choose what they are comfortable installing and running on their system.

https://foundation.gnome.org/2022/01/21/further-investments-in-desktop-linux/

I'd like to make some final edits tomorrow, to mention that there are plans on separating free and open source software with proprietary software.

Sadly, I won't be able to schedule.

Yeah. I agree. That content is definitely something worth mentioning in your article and it is worth waiting for.

What do you mean by you won't be able to schedule? As an editor, you should be able to schedule articles in WordPress.

You can ignore that :sweat_smile:. I meant to say that I'll need to schedule for the next day.

@glb I just edited, what do you think? The change has been made in the "Types of packages published" paragraph.

You don't need a comma before "as" in your sentences. But otherwise, it looks good to me. Thanks.

Thanks. I just saw that it was scheduled.

@glb can you add this article to the series?

No problem. Done.

@glb I'll have to cancel the schedule because there are some misinformation. In the article, I've stated that Fedora Flatpaks doesn't do delta updates, but it's actually wrong: https://youtu.be/jx9ZXf3_IFw?t=474

Edit: Nevermind. I just removed the line that mentions delta updates.

@glb I'd like to add a new paragraph to mention the amount of applications available on both remotes. Is it okay if I can cancel the schedule, write a bit and wait for you to review it?

Yes. Of course. I'll update the schedule and delay this article for another 24 hours. We can keep moving it back as long as you need really. I was just hoping to get something out sooner rather than later to keep from going too long without publishing something.

@glb I just added the paragraph "Number of applications". What do you think? If there are minor issues, you are free to fix it and schedule for tomorrow.

Thanks @theevilskeleton. I made some slight wording tweaks and scheduled this to go out tomorrow. I changed "less" to "fewer" because the plural noun "applications" is countable (ref. Fewer vs. Less).