Fan of Flatpaks ...or Not?
-
This post did not contain any content.
i had a hard time getting used to them but now i love them in mint i can switch between the package version and flatpak version and usually the fp one is more updated
-
This post did not contain any content.That reminds me, is Flatpak packaging CLI tools already?
-
This post did not contain any content.
IDK why you're being so rage baity. Its easy to avoid flatpaks if you dont like them. Only thing I've ever found as an obstacle was adding the binaries to my PATH so I can launch it with dmenu_run. Otherwise my package manager works well enough.
Bonus points: Write a PKGBUILD that installs flatpaks to /opt and symlink out binaries as needed.
-
That reminds me, is Flatpak packaging CLI tools already?
AFAIK, no
-
This post did not contain any content.
there's a gui for flatpaks?
-
IDK why you're being so rage baity. Its easy to avoid flatpaks if you dont like them. Only thing I've ever found as an obstacle was adding the binaries to my PATH so I can launch it with dmenu_run. Otherwise my package manager works well enough.
Bonus points: Write a PKGBUILD that installs flatpaks to /opt and symlink out binaries as needed.
Just a conversation opener, relax. Only one here shaking a fist in the air is you.
-
there's a gui for flatpaks?
No gui's to my knowledge, but there are package managers that can install them, such as Bauh.
-
This post did not contain any content.
There are merits to using flatpaks. With flatseal application, you can fine-tune the permissions given to a certain flatpak application. The best thing is restricting internet usage.
-
i had a hard time getting used to them but now i love them in mint i can switch between the package version and flatpak version and usually the fp one is more updated
On the other hand each flatpak uses >1Gb of disk where deb packages rarely require more than 100Mb
-
On the other hand each flatpak uses >1Gb of disk where deb packages rarely require more than 100Mb
See, I only use flatpaks sparingly for this reason, but in some cases they're indispensable when you don't want an application to access certain parts of your system. The sandboxing is what makes them useful, in my opinion. For everything else, there's the deb packages.
-
On the other hand each flatpak uses >1Gb of disk where deb packages rarely require more than 100Mb
That's not really true. It lists all the flatpak dependencies in that disk use, but a lot of those are shared, so they don't actually use that much each if you install more than one, and the deb dependencies aren't included at all. Flatpaks really do use more space, especially if you only have a small number of them, but it's not as bad as that.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
I love installing things from the CLI and prefer to only do it that way but Linux needs a single click install method for applications if it’s ever going to become a mainstream OS. The average person just wants to Google a program, hit download and install. If not that then they want to use a mobile-like App Store.
Flatpak is kind of perfect at achieving both those things
-
This post did not contain any content.
Former OS security here (I worked at an OS vendor who sold an OS or two and my job involved keeping it secure).
Fuck no.
Sorry if that makes you downvote, but it doesn't make them safer.
-
Flatpaks are good, especially compared to snap.
The future is atomic OS's like silverblue, which will make heavy use of things like flatpak.
Atomic distros are cool, and I'm sure they will only get more popular, but I don't buy the idea that they're "The" future. They have their place, but they can't really completely replace traditional distros. Not every new thing needs to kill everything that came before it.
-
Former OS security here (I worked at an OS vendor who sold an OS or two and my job involved keeping it secure).
Fuck no.
Sorry if that makes you downvote, but it doesn't make them safer.
cool, thanks
-
I love installing things from the CLI and prefer to only do it that way but Linux needs a single click install method for applications if it’s ever going to become a mainstream OS. The average person just wants to Google a program, hit download and install. If not that then they want to use a mobile-like App Store.
Flatpak is kind of perfect at achieving both those things
There have been GUI package managers for decades.
-
Flatpaks are good, especially compared to snap.
The future is atomic OS's like silverblue, which will make heavy use of things like flatpak.
Having nails driven into my testicles is better than snap. It's not a high bar.
-
This post did not contain any content.
They always seem to have some critical limitation. Handbrake is too slow via flatpak to work. Flatpak Zoom had no camera access. Flatpak-only Zen browser can't use passkeys. Zen browser asks to be my default browser every time I open it, even though it is and I always say yes; is this a flatpak limitation? I don't know, and I'd prefer not to have to figure it out just for some theoretical benefits and more overhead.
-
I get the convenience, I really do, and works on every linux distro which is a plus, but I usually stay clear of them because of the bloat. Maybe that is a misconception on my part. I should preference that with the fact I use Arch (btw)...so AUR usually has everything I need.
FP and Electron both are brutal on limited storage, so being able to pick and choose where needed can be helpful.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I used them for some things, but other things still don't work quite right. Take Steam for example. I do love flatpaks for testing out apps, things with really finicky dependencies, or pinning a specific version of a software that I want to continue to work in the future. However, for most things, Arch + AUR just covers all my needs without any hiccups.
To me flatpaks are sort of like NixOS. All the benefits they provide aren't something I need on a daily basis. Rolling back works just fine 99% of the time with
downgrade. I already have system backups. Despite what some articles might insist, things don't just break all the time. I'm not running untrusted software.Basically no solution is perfect, but they don't need to be. If the benefits I gain can be recreated through other methods without the tradeoffs they introduce, then I will go with that. Of course, that isn't to say they don't have their place, but sometimes I feel like some people think that "being designed from the ground up" to handle certain use cases is always better than whatever "cobbled together" thing we currently have and that isn't always the case. I'm specifically quoting those two phrases because these are the exact phrases you will hear projects using to justify their existence. In fact, I would go so far as to say that some people have outright confused modularity for "cobbled together".
One last example I want to make is that I make use of projects like the fish shell and helix editor. In these cases, I find the features they introduce to be worth the tradeoffs and work better because of being designed "from the ground up" to do what they do. However, I don't make use of immutable systems, containers such as docker, or say filesystems such as btrfs. The features they provide are not useful enough to me compared to the problems they introduce.
