Fan of Flatpaks ...or Not?
-
That's just not true. I used to use flatpak and it would download nvidia drivers for each one.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Huh?
Either it did something it shouldn't, or the system updated Nvidia drivers every time for no apparent reason. I have an Nvidia GPU, running proprietary drivers, and haven't ever witnessed anything of the kind.
-
Every gb matters on a 250gb laptop lol
Gigabyte - sure, but it's not typical for a flatpak to bring so many heavy dependencies.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I've never had a problem with flatpaks or snaps.
-
What’s a flatpak? Is that like a worse NixOS package? I prefer NixOS, BTW.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]sandboxed application bundle installed from a flathub-compatible store or a local source (github etc)
-
And then there is software like OBS, which is known for being borderline unusable when not using the only officially supported way to use it on Linux outside of Ubuntu – which is Flatpak.
But why is that? I mean just because it is packaged by someone else does not mean its unusable. So its not the package formats issue, but your distribution packaging it wrong. Right? In installed the Flatpak version, because they developers recommended it to me. I'm not sure why the Archlinux package should be unusable (and I don't want to mess around with it, because I don't know what part is unusable).
But why is that?
Because the OBS developers say so.
And since I’m not on Ubuntu, I use the Flatpak version to get OBS as intended bey the OBS developers.
So its not the package formats issue, but your distribution packaging it wrong. Right?
Exactly. Most distributions fail hard when it comes to packaging OBS correctly. The OBS devs even threatened to sue Fedora over this.
https://gitlab.com/fedora/sigs/flatpak/fedora-flatpaks/-/issues/39#note_2344970813
-
Immutable OSes are difficult to use for coding or other tasks that include installing many terminal utilities and for that reason, I don't recommend them and certainly don't want them to be the future of Linux distros. And if I'm going to create a container running a different distro to install and run the apps I want to use, then I may as well use that distro on my host.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]You just move to user directory installation of most tools via brew on Linux. It's not difficult. The Bazzite distro handles all this incredibly well via brew, flatpaks, and distrobox.
-
But why is that?
Because the OBS developers say so.
And since I’m not on Ubuntu, I use the Flatpak version to get OBS as intended bey the OBS developers.
So its not the package formats issue, but your distribution packaging it wrong. Right?
Exactly. Most distributions fail hard when it comes to packaging OBS correctly. The OBS devs even threatened to sue Fedora over this.
https://gitlab.com/fedora/sigs/flatpak/fedora-flatpaks/-/issues/39#note_2344970813
The quoted image does not say so, they do not say the native packaging from your distribution is borderline unusable. That judgement was added by YOU. The devs just state the package on Archlinux is not officially supported, without making a judgement (at least in the quoted image).
As for the Fedora issue, that is a completely different thing. That is also Flatpak, so its not the package format itself the issue. Fedora did package the application in Flatpak their own way and presented it as the official product. That is a complete different issue! That has nothing to do with Archlinux packaging their own native format. Archlinux never said or presented it as the official package either and it does not look like the official Flatpak version.
So where does the developers say that anything that is not their official Flatpak package is "borderline unusable"?
-
I use SystemD binary Gentoo with Flatpaks. Sue me.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Absolute Dogshit
-
As someone who uses Flatpak you can still use the terminal to install, uninstall and do maintenance, not sure why people believe terminal is useless with Flatpak
Flatpaks are containers, same as Snaps, I personally prefer Flatpaks over Snaps, but just my personal choice. I use Flatsweep and Flatseal apps to help administrate Flatpak apps, but use terminal as well
I've no real preference so long as my PC starts stuff. The reason I avoid flatpaks is because I have at some point acquired the habit of anything I install that's not an appimage I pretty much launch from the terminal and I remember trying flatpaks and them having names like package.package.nameofapp-somethingelse and I can't keep that in my head.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The issue I have with flatpaks is the size for most applications. It just doesn't make sense for me. Not that it's not useful and has it's purposes.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm 2 months into my Linux journey and I don't use flatpak. I've had the odd problem with it. I stick to pacman and yay now.
-
Why do you think it is not useful?
I replaced Firefox system package with Flatpak because I think browser is the most used and vulnerable thing in my system. And the size seemed reasonable.
I did not replace Thunderbird because its size is almost 10 times.
The person you're replying to is talking about the permissions manager flatseal, not flatpaks
-
Wow that's actually big difference, thanks for bringing it up!
Good news, though, is that you are free to install Gimp as a native package, and use Flatpaks for the rest.
That's made up, GIMP is like 90MB you can see it listed on the website and confirm it by installing it: https://flathub.org/apps/org.gimp.GIMP
-
The issue I have with flatpaks is the size for most applications. It just doesn't make sense for me. Not that it's not useful and has it's purposes.
Flatpaks aim to be a middle ground between dependency hell and "let's pull in the universe" bloat.
Applications packaged as Flatpaks can reference runtimes to share "bases" with other applications, and then provide their own libraries if they need anything bespoke on top of that.
-
I've no real preference so long as my PC starts stuff. The reason I avoid flatpaks is because I have at some point acquired the habit of anything I install that's not an appimage I pretty much launch from the terminal and I remember trying flatpaks and them having names like package.package.nameofapp-somethingelse and I can't keep that in my head.
I've actually been discussing the idea of Flatpaks offering "terminal aliases", similar to what Snaps do, with some people involved in Flatpak. It's something that could happen in the future, but for now, you can totally create an alias to run a Flatpak from a single word, it's just a PITA.
-
Flatpaks aim to be a middle ground between dependency hell and "let's pull in the universe" bloat.
Applications packaged as Flatpaks can reference runtimes to share "bases" with other applications, and then provide their own libraries if they need anything bespoke on top of that.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]And they are still, in my experience, slow to load, a cumbersome addition to the update process, and often un-necessary.
Don't get me wrong, if you're in a tight spot and can't make two significant software packages work in a distribution due to conflicting library version requirements... some kind of lightweight container solution is attractive, expedient, and better than just not supporting one of the packages. But, my impression is that a lot of stuff has been moved into flatpak / snap / etc. just because they can. I don't think it's the best, or even preferred, way to maintain software - for the desktop environment.
(Returns to checking on his Docker containers full of server apps on the R-Pi farm...)
-
I've never had a problem with flatpaks or snaps.
I wouldn't say I have had a problem with snaps or flatpacks either. I uninstall all snaps first thing when I install recent Ubuntu versions, and I have never messed with flatpacks, so... no problems.
-
Personally I am okay with them actually. I use several on my system and having each app allowed to have different permissions is super useful.
But also I like things that are directly installed cause they seem just a tad faster performance wise.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The thing that grinds my gears is when I'm doing an apt update and then it goes off to check on the snaps and drags the process out a lot longer. It doesn't help that they're slower to load the apps too. Then there's the additional attack surfaces to accumulate more CVE reports (and more out of date library versions on your system begging for a security patch...) Mostly, I just purge snap support from Ubuntu these days - but for people who don't notice / mind such things, you do you - maybe they'll eventually improve the lightweight container system until the rest of us don't notice it either.
-
I don’t really care about all these different things, as long as none of them become a crazy confusing mess, like Windows DLLs.
The one "good" thing about containers is that you keep your DLL-like mess localized. Just one or a few related apps run in the container and if they want / need some weird library version, they can have it without breaking other things.
-
I spent my time fighting AppImages until Canonical started to force Snap on me. I hated Snap so bad it forced me to switch distros. Now I appreciate Flatpak as a result and I don't find AppImages all that bad, either. Also, I haven't found myself in dependency-hell nor have I crashed my distro from unofficial Repos in well over a decade.
-It's a long way of saying It works for me and it's not Snap.
There's a lot to dislike about Canonical, but snaps is still relatively easy to purge and just get on with your underlying Debian package support...
