• Allero@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    24 minutes ago

    Certainly a fan, and I don’t understand the hate towards it.

    Flatpaks are my preferred way of installing Linux apps, unless it is a system package, or something that genuinely requires extensive permissions like a VPN client, or something many other apps depend on like Wine.

    The commonly cited issues with Flatpaks are:

    • Performance. Honestly, do you even care if your Pomodoro timer app takes up 1 more megabyte of RAM? Do you actually notice?
    • Bloat. Oh, yes, an app now takes 20 MB instead of 10 MB. Again, does anybody care?
    • Slower and larger updates. Could be an issue for someone on a metered traffic, or with very little time to do updates. Flatpaks update in the background, though, and you typically won’t notice the difference unless you need something newest now (in which case you’ll have to wait an extra minute)
    • Having to check permissions. This is a feature, not a bug. For common proponents of privacy and security, Linuxheads grew insanely comfortable granting literally every maintainer full access to their system. Flatpaks intentionally limit apps functionality to what is allowed, and if in some case defaults aren’t good for your use case - just toggle a switch in Flatseal, c’mon, you don’t need any expertise to change it.

    What you gain for it? Everything.

    • Full control over app’s permissions. Your mail client doesn’t need full system permissions, and neither do your messengers. Hell, even your backup client only needs to access what it backs up.
    • All dependencies built in. You’ll never have to face dependency hell, ever, no matter what. And you can be absolutely sure the app is fully featured and you won’t have to look for missing nonessential dependencies.
    • Fully distro-agnostic. If something works on my EndeavourOS, it will work on my OpenSUSE Slowroll, and on my Debian 12. And it will be exactly the same thing, same version, same features. It’s beautiful.
    • Stability. Flatpaks are sandboxed, so they don’t affect your system and cannot harm it in any way. This is why immutable distros feature Flatpaks as the main application source. Using them with mutable distributions will also greatly enhance stability.

    Alternatives?

    AppImages don’t need an installation, so they are nice to see what the program is about. But for other uses, they are garbage-tier. Somehow they manage both not to integrate with the system and not be sandboxed, you need manual intervention or additional tools to at least update them/add to application menu, and ultimately, they depend on one file somewhere. This is extremely unreliable and one should likely never use AppImages for anything but “use and delete”.

    Snaps…aside from all the controversy about Snap Store being proprietary and Ubuntu shoving snaps down people’s throats, they were just never originally developed with desktop applications in mind. As a result, Snaps are commonly so much slower and bulkier that it actually starts getting very noticeable. Permissions are also way less detailed, meaning you can’t set apps up with minimum permissions for your use case.

    This all leaves us with one King:

    And it is Flatpak.

    • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 minutes ago

      The few things I don’t like about flatpaks (which become a problem on atomic distros that use almost all flatpak by design):

      • Some types of embedded development is essentially impossible with flatpaks. Try getting the J-link software connected with nrftools and then everything linked to VScodium/codeoss

      • Digital signing simply doesn’t work, won’t work for the foreseeable future, and is not planned to get working,

      • Flatpaks sometimes have bugs for no reasons when their package-manager counterparts don’t (e.g. in KiCAD 8.0, the upper 20% or so of dialog boxes were unclickable with the mouse, but I could select and modify them with the keyboard, only the flatpak version)

      • The status on whether it is still being actively developed or not (at least I hear a fair amount of drama surrounding it)

      But besides those small things, it seem great to me.

    • brax@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 minutes ago

      Flatpaks, appimages, snaps, etc: why download dependencies once when you can download them every time and bloat your system? Also, heaving to list installed flatpaks and run them is dumb too, why aren’t they proper executables? “flatpak run com.thisIsDumb.fuckinEh” instead of just ./fuckinEh

      No thanks. I’ll stick to repos and manually compiling software before I seek out a flatpak or the like.

      This shit is why hobbies and things should be gatekept. Just look at how shit PC design is these days. Now they’re coming after the OS.

    • nitrolife@rekabu.ru
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 minutes ago

      I’ve been working on Linux for 15 years now and I perfectly remember the origin of many concepts. If you look at it through time, what would it be like:

      1. We can build applications with external dependencies or a single binary, what should we choose?
      2. The community is abandoning a single binary due to the increased weight of applications and memory consumption and libraries problems
      3. Dependency hell is coming …
      4. Snap, flatpack, appimage and other strange solutions are inventing something, which are essentially a single binary, but with an overlay (if the developer has hands from the right place, which is often not the case)
      5. Someone on lemmy says that he literally doesn’t care if the application is built in a single binary, consumes extra memory and have libraries problems. Just close all permissions for that application…

      Well, all I can say about this is just assemble a single binary for all applications, stop doing nonsense with a flatpack/snap/etc.

      UPD: or if you really want to break all the conventions, just use nixos. You don’t need snap/flatpack/etc.

  • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    43 minutes ago

    I kinda like flatpaks being an option, not sure when they are the only option though.

  • Commiunism@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    29 minutes ago

    I like them as an option, there are some programs like Bottles or specific game launchers that work under flatpak better than the versions available via native package manager (with Bottles in particular, you can use various built-in sandbox features via flatpak which makes things a bit more secure), but it’s also a bit of a pain because it’s an additional package manager you have to update separately now, or tweak if things go wrong.

  • Default_Defect@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    My favorite part of the linux experience is the FREEDOM, but also being talked down to for not using my freedom correctly, I should only do things a specific way or I might as well just use windows.

    • brax@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 minutes ago

      Because using your freedom to promote options that restrict freedom means helping to remove your freedom. But hey, what do the Linux elders know? Clearly the new people into Linux are far smarter…

    • Jankatarch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      You don’t have to do as they say but doing so lets you talk down to others who aren’t. So it’s a fair trade.

  • Ardens@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Not a fan. There’s often trouble, and some settings is hassle, and sometimes not even working.

  • juipeltje@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    56 minutes ago

    I’m starting to think that in terms of features and possiblities, nix might truly be the best third party package manager of all. But the downside is that especially when using it the way it’s recommended, combined with home manager, it has the steepest learning curve. Also graphical apps can be problematic. There is a tool called nixgl that tries to solve this, but it’s a wrapper, so when a nix application opens a child process that needs to use the native system drivers, that childprocess is also wrapped in nixgl and it breaks. I recently found a neat workaround on github to solve this in a better way, which is to create a driver package manually with home manager, and symlink it to /run/, which is also where the drivers are linked on NixOS. This is a gamechanger to me because with no driver problems anymore, you can install almost everything through nix on pretty much any distro, except maybe for some programs that need system level access to run. You can install graphical programs, cli programs, and even entire window managers with it. I’m using full NixOS at the moment, but i’m seriously debating moving back to void linux with nix on top. Currently messing with it in a vm to test my configs.

  • data1701d (He/Him)@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 hours ago

    I’d take a well-maintained native package for my distro over a Flatpak, but sometimes, a Flatpak is just the the easiest way to get the latest version of an application working on Debian without too much tinkering - not always no tinkering, but better than nothing.

    This is especially true of GIMP - Flatpak GIMP + Resynthesizer feels like the easiest way to experience GIMP these days. Same with OBS - although I have to weather the Flatpak directory structure, plugins otherwise feel easier to get working than the native package. The bundled runtimes are somewhat annoying, but I’m also not exactly hurting for storage at the moment - I could probaby do to put more of my 2 TB main SSD to use.

    I usually just manage Flatpaks from the terminal, though I often have to refresh myself on application URLs. I somewhat wish one could set nicknames so they need not remember the full name.

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Flatpaks are pretty great for getting the latest software without having to have a cutting edge rolling release distro or installing special repos and making sure stuff doesn’t break down the line.

    I use Flatpaks for my software that I need the latest and greatest version of, and my distros native package for CLI apps and older software that I don’t care about being super up to date.

    My updater script handles all of it in one action anyways, so no biggie on that either.

    Flatpaks are the best all-in-one solution when compared to Appimages or Snaps imo.

  • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    If it’s a mostly self-contained app, like a game or a utility, then Flatpak is just fine. If a Flatpak needs to interact with other apps on the host or, worst case, another Flatpak it gets tricky or even impossible. From what I’ve seen though, AppImage and Snap are even worse at this.

    • Uairhahs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      32 minutes ago

      Flatpak doesn’t support dev device access no matter what I use flatseal and all the shabang, so bottles is useless to me for a lot of the wine applications I would like to “not emulate”

  • the_wiz@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Flatpaks together with “immutable” distributions, Wayland and systemd are a heresy, a crime against the UNIX principles, a disgrace in the eyes of of SED and AWK. REPENT! Save your immortal core dumps and return to the one true /home !

  • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    i like it. they are very convenient, work every time, and solves the distribution problem.

    • underscores@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      51 minutes ago

      Me pretty much only ever using arch Linux: “what the fuck is a flatpak”

      I once had to install Firefox into wsl (Ubuntu) and I wanted the kms on the spot.

      But maybe it’s not that bad for newer people to get started with Linux.

  • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Flatpak have their own set of issues. One thing is, that Flatpak applications do not integrate that easily and perfect like a native package. Either rights are to given, you need to know what rights are needed and how to set it up. Theming can be an issue, because it uses its own libraries in the Flatpak eco system instead your current distributions theme and desktop environment.

    But on the other hand, they have actually a permission system and are a little bit sandbox compared to normal applications. Packages often are distributed quickly and are up to date directly from the developers, and usually are not installed with root rights.

    I’m pretty much a CLI guy as well and prefer native packages (Arch based, plus the AUR). But I also use Flatpaks for various reasons, alongside with AppImages.

  • The_Grinch [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I don’t like how so many distros ship with discover configured to install flatpaks by default. It’s a huge newbie trap when you click “open file” and uh where are all my files?? You should only install a flatpak if the program is not available for your OS, or if the native version doesn’t work for some reason.