Fan of Flatpaks ...or Not?
-
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...
-
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...)
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I'm running an immutable distro at the moment (GNOME OS), and I felt no loss of performance due to Flatpaks. Snaps, on the other hand, do have a perceivably longer launch time.
Given that it's an immutable distro, everything I need needs to be either a Flatpak, a Snap, an Appimage or an extracted tarball, otherwise it runs in a container. The advantage of this system is stability and making the host incorruptible, as well as the ability to very easily roll back updates or failed systemd-sysext layers.
Not everything can run in a Flatpak at the moment, but we're hoping the evolution in Flatpak, XDG portals as well as encouraging developers to use the available XDG portals can make this a possibility someday. Namely, IDEs don't run that well in a Flatpak, but GNOME Builder has proven that it's 100% possible with the currently available XDG portals as well as connecting your IDE or editor to a container.
-
I'm running an immutable distro at the moment (GNOME OS), and I felt no loss of performance due to Flatpaks. Snaps, on the other hand, do have a perceivably longer launch time.
Given that it's an immutable distro, everything I need needs to be either a Flatpak, a Snap, an Appimage or an extracted tarball, otherwise it runs in a container. The advantage of this system is stability and making the host incorruptible, as well as the ability to very easily roll back updates or failed systemd-sysext layers.
Not everything can run in a Flatpak at the moment, but we're hoping the evolution in Flatpak, XDG portals as well as encouraging developers to use the available XDG portals can make this a possibility someday. Namely, IDEs don't run that well in a Flatpak, but GNOME Builder has proven that it's 100% possible with the currently available XDG portals as well as connecting your IDE or editor to a container.
Not mocking: can you share any good guides to practical immutable systems?
What I observed of Ubuntu Core made a strong "not ready for prime time, and even if it was I don't want it" impression on me.
-
Not mocking: can you share any good guides to practical immutable systems?
What I observed of Ubuntu Core made a strong "not ready for prime time, and even if it was I don't want it" impression on me.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Ubuntu Core, based on Snaps, is very much not ready for prime time IMO. It's kind of a mess outside of server use.
Look instead at Fedora Silverblue, Vanilla OS, and for the bleeding edge of immutable systems, GNOME OS.
KDE is about to launch their analogue to GNOME OS relatively shortly, named "Project Banana". These two are not exactly distros as they do not distribute the kernel, they are simply platforms that layer a bunch of images together to create a stable, reproducible system. There's also OpenSuSE Aeon, but I don't like its style of immutability as it's immutable by rootfs lock-out rather than immutable by image.
As for advice, learn how to use Distrobox / Toolbx containers. If you're a developer, this is where you will be working.
Immutable Linux is still young, and a lot of software isn't written with it in mind, so expect some growing pains.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Is that supposed to be Ed Norton, or just an uncanny coincidence?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Furniture? Integrated circuit packaging?
-
Ubuntu Core, based on Snaps, is very much not ready for prime time IMO. It's kind of a mess outside of server use.
Look instead at Fedora Silverblue, Vanilla OS, and for the bleeding edge of immutable systems, GNOME OS.
KDE is about to launch their analogue to GNOME OS relatively shortly, named "Project Banana". These two are not exactly distros as they do not distribute the kernel, they are simply platforms that layer a bunch of images together to create a stable, reproducible system. There's also OpenSuSE Aeon, but I don't like its style of immutability as it's immutable by rootfs lock-out rather than immutable by image.
As for advice, learn how to use Distrobox / Toolbx containers. If you're a developer, this is where you will be working.
Immutable Linux is still young, and a lot of software isn't written with it in mind, so expect some growing pains.
I'm on silverblue, well, bluefin, specifically.
So far so happy
️ -
This post did not contain any content.
It's a neat concept. The distro-agnostic aspect is definitely a plus for some people but I still prefer distro-specific installation methods. The only time I would seek out the Flatpak version of a particular software is when it's the only version available.
-
This post did not contain any content.
flatpaks are fine and useful, i just wish we didn't move into a scenario where applications that used to be easily available in distro repos start moving away from them and are only available through flatpaks. distro packages are just so much more efficient in every way. flatpaks are easier on maintainers and developers but that comes at a cost to the user. i have about a dozen or less flatpak apps installed and already i have to download at least 2 gigs of updates each week. i run debian
