They don’t have to! Flat pack doesn’t remove all other ways to install software. But for 95% of use cases, it will do just fine.
Tell this to canonical, they even firefox put in the snap. You know that when choosing “quickly compile something for a flatpack” and “support 10+ distributions”, the developers will choose a flatpack. Which in general looks fine, until you realize that everything is just scored on the mainline of libraries and molded on anything. The most striking example of this is Linphone. just try to compile it…
Snap is cancer, and what Canonical does is insane.
In any case, it is unlikely someone will make an exclusive Flatpak for what doesn’t work inside Flatpak. But I understand it means a lot for user choice and ability to compile programs they way you want, so I fully support shipping Flatpaks alongside classical packages and source code.
Tell this to canonical, they even firefox put in the snap. You know that when choosing “quickly compile something for a flatpack” and “support 10+ distributions”, the developers will choose a flatpack. Which in general looks fine, until you realize that everything is just scored on the mainline of libraries and molded on anything. The most striking example of this is Linphone. just try to compile it…
Snap is cancer, and what Canonical does is insane.
In any case, it is unlikely someone will make an exclusive Flatpak for what doesn’t work inside Flatpak. But I understand it means a lot for user choice and ability to compile programs they way you want, so I fully support shipping Flatpaks alongside classical packages and source code.