Can I ignore flatpak indefinitely?

[nullpotential@lemmy.dbzer0.com]

Yes you can. I do. If a software does not offer build instructions, which is rare, I just do not use it.

[ambiguousprops@lemmy.today]

Not to be that person, but you aren't restricted to those solutions for software, that's what rpm-ostree is there for. It layers applications over your system image and installs software in a similar manner to a "normal" package manager.

[untorquer@lemmy.world]

I just use it if the package/dependencies aren't available or functional in the default arch repo. I like to be able to turn nuts and bolts but also avoid it when it's inconvenient.

2 package managers is fine for me.

[cypherpunks@lemmy.ml]

Downsides of distro pacakges:

• someone needs to package an application for each distro
• applications often need to maintain support for multiple versions of some of their dependencies to be able to continue to work on multiple distros
• users of different distros use different versions of the application, creating more support work for upstream
• users of some distros can't use the application at all because there is no package
• adding 3rd party package repos is dangerous; every package effectively gets root access, and in many cases every repo has the ability to replace any distro-provided package by including one with a higher version number. 3rd party repos bring the possibility of breaking your system through malice or incompetence.

Downsides of flatpak:

• application maintainers are responsible for shipping shipping their dependencies, and may not be as competent at shipping security updates as distro security teams
• more disk space is used by applications potentially bringing their own copies of the same dependencies

[whostosay@lemmy.world]

I've used it here and there when there is no other option, still no problems yet for the OS itself, but I have run into issues installing certain things, most likely due to my lack of knowledge.

I think I may be giving arch another shot soon as my needs have changed and it was so godamn close to everything I needed.

[whostosay@lemmy.world]

Do you have a resource I can take a look at for what this implies at what it accomplishes?

[jokeyrhyme@lemmy.ml]

Can I ignore flatpak indefinitely?

Sure, at least until software you want to use is flatpak only, e.g. Bottles

[sorter_plainview@lemmy.today]

Haa understood. In that perspective yes it is not simple. I would also be happy if pacman had better support for AUR.

But I have a different perspective on this. I always look for the right or the best tool available to do something. So I'm not that hesitant to use another tool for AUR. I guess it's a personal preference after all.

[notanapple@lemm.ee]

rpm-ostree is intended to be the last resort because layering causes issues with updates and other things

[ambiguousprops@lemmy.today]

Sure, I was just saying that you could use it and aren't necessarily restricted to the other options.

[shareni@programming.dev]

Or use a stable distro and need a package newer than 2 years.

[timlovestech@badatbeing.social]

You don't have to use an AUR helper, you could build it all with makepkg, but the helper just allows you to save time searching, downloading, and building.

[decker108@lemmy.ml]

Sure you can! Just run alias flatpak=snap and you'll be golden.

(I'll show myself out...)

[argon@lemmy.today]

Another upside is the easy permission management.

You can revoke network access from your password manager to reduce attack surface; you can revoke camera access from your chat app to prevent accidentaly enabling it; You can restrict an App's file system access to prevent unwanted changes; etc.

It's not yet fit to protect from malicious apps, but it still finds some use.

[churbleyimyam@lemm.ee]

If your distro provides everything you need then I would avoid flatpak. Getting apps to speak to each other is a pain, updates use more data, backups and restores take much longer, they don't perform as well and config files are not necessarily where you expect them to be.

I have Debian Stable on an older laptop and only install apps as flatpaks if they are not available otherwise. I also have a very new laptop with Fedora on it (because it needs a newer kernel) and have had to install more flatpaks just to make things work properly, because they include their dependencies, codecs etc which are missing in Fedora. Appimages seem to do this too and I find them preferable to flatpak because they integrate more predictably with my system. Apps are slower to launch though and have to be manually updated.

Like you, I'd prefer to just have a package manager and a single source of software and plan to go back to Debian when my newer machine is supported by it.

[sexualpolytope@lemmy.sdf.org]

That's what I do. But then I mostly use Arch or Arch based distros (e.g. EndeavourOS). So I have access to AUR. If something isn't on AUR (very rare, but can happen), I just create the package for it and publish to AUR. I do use some AlmaLinux machines as server. I don't really need many programs outside of the standard repos there since I use them mostly for hosting Docker images. But if I do need to install something like that, I've some self-written LURE install scripts.

[skilltheamps@feddit.org]

Only if the application source code fits the API of the library versions on your system. Otherwise you also need to port the application to your available library versions. Also using different dependency versions might surface bugs that you have to sort out yourself.

I only want to point this out because it often seems that the people that complain about flatpak do not grasp what maintaining a package entails, and your suggestion effectively puts you in the position of being a package maintaier for your specific distro. (But the upshot is that with open source software you are always free to do this, and also share it with other people through (community-) repositories)

[kixik@lemmy.ml]

FLOSS used to include the ability to build software. Perhaps that's not important anymore but now a days some developers don't attend problems with their build recipes because they only consider what they release through binaries, whether on flatpak or whatever other binary repository they like. At least I dislike that, it's ok to me some or most users would prefer to grab a bloated binary rather than building anything, but that doesn't mean forgetting about those actually wanting to build from source, or wanting to use shared libraries and software from their distros, actually that's a requirement for free/libre software repositories. Not sure if the tendency is to move the gnu+linux users into app stores like the ones on windows, now ubuntu snaps, android play store and the like. Sure there's more security with sandboxing, but nothing one can't get with firejail, and if wanting MAC as well then firejail + apparmor for example.

At any rate, just my little rant. And if you're wondering, I use AUR on Artix, and I really hope I won't have a need for a flatpak stuff.

[dingdongitsabear@lemmy.ml]

it comes down to how you use your system. if you're fine using is as described and you're on a distro that gets newest versions, keep on truckin'.

for me, I hate rebooting. I like to leave my system and return to it, be it laptop or desktop, and continue where I left off. sometimes that goes on for days, sometimes weeks. that's virtually impossible when updating both system and app stuff constantly, e.g. new kernel, mesa, plasma, whathaveyous.

so I keep my system stuff that's handled with the package manager and my app stuff separate. almost all of my GUI apps are flatpak and they are on a systemd timer so they get updated daily. my systems don't bother me with update alerts, don't do shit in the background and that's how I like it. once a month or so I do a system upgrade and reboot.

[coldwater@lemmy.ca]

Arch based distros (except for Manjaro) has every FOSS and some proprietary software on the AUR