• TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    Flatpaks aren’t perfect, but I think it’s a good solution to the fragmentation problem that is inherent to Linux.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Precisely. Flatpaks solve an important problem. Perfect should not be the enemy of good.

      Binary compatibility is a sad story on Linux, and we cannot expect developers — many of whom work for free — to package, test, debug, and maintain releases for multiple distributions. If we want a sustainable ecosystem with diverse distributions, we must answer the compatibility question. This is a working option that solves the problem, and it comes with minor security benefits because it isolates applications not just from the system but from each other.

      It’s fair to criticize a solution, but I think it’s not fair to ignore the problem and expect volunteers to just work harder.

      • nexussapphire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Also companies are lazy and if we don’t want to be stuck on Ubuntu for proprietary app stability. We should probably embrace something like flatpak. Also when companies neglect their apps, it’ll have a better chance of working down the road thanks to support for multiple dependency versions on the same install.

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      that website is such a joke, I can’t believe the guy’s still paying for the domain name… The whole argument boils down to “Many flatpak apps don’t make use of the sandbox by default, which is <somehow> less secure than not having a sandbox at all” and “this one app I like doesn’t work in flatpak, therefore all of it is bad”.

      …unless it literally is a joke and I’m just missing out on the sarcasm?

      • user@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Its only worse than not having it at all in the sense of giving users a false sense of security. Imagine if apps on mobile could decide what permissions they want automatically granted without the user opting in. The sandbox HAS to be enforced by default to be good. And the other issue with flatpak is the security, which we had several problems with in the past. On the same note, people criticise snap but its a much more competent solution from a technical standpoint regarding security and since people get all their apps from flathub anyways, the “propreitary” backend is mostly irrelevant. And before anyone says “snap store had malware hosted” that is not an issue with the format itself but the infrastructure.

        • user@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Also. Maintaining snap packages are easier for developers, and companies, therefore they are more likely to distribute apps on Linux to begin with.

  • iopq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Nix: you package it yourself and do a pull request

    Sadly, many flatpaks don’t even work on NixOS properly because of assumptions about the file structure or similar

  • e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Haters aren’t worth listening to. Doesn’t matter if it is flatpak, systemd, wayland, or whatever else. These people have no interest in a discussion about merits and drawbacks of a given solution. They just want to be angry about something.

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I know, right!? Add gimp to that list as well. I can go on and on about shortcomings of gimp despite being a happy user. The average gimp hater, on the other hand, doesn’t have anything to say besides “the UI is dumb and I can’t figure out how to draw a circle”

  • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m new to Linux. Every time I’ve had a major issue with an application it turned out to be due to a flatpak. I’ll stick with other options for the time being.

  • Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’ve never used it. Its like all the others though and I have been forced to use snaps. Those I slowly replace every time I decide to start fresh.

  • macniel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Flatpak is nice but I really would like to see a way to run flatpakked application transparently e.g. don’t have to

        flatpak run org.gnome.Lollypop
    

    and can just run the app via

        Lollypop
    
    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      You could make aliases for each program, but I agree, there should be a way to set it up so they resolve automatically.

    • olutukko@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      aur is the only thing I miss. I do like fedora with i3 very much but rpm can be pain in the ass sometimes

  • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    If I can choose between flatpack and distro package, distro wins hands down.

    If the choice then is flatpack vs compile your own, I think I’ll generally compile it, but it depends on the circumstances.

      • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Because it’s easier to use the version that’s in the distro, and why do I need an extra set of libraries filling up my disk.

        I see flatpack as a last resort, where I trade disk space for convenience, because you end up with a whole OS worth of flatpack dependencies (10+ GB) on your disk after a few upgrade cycles.

        • F04118F@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Is compiling it yourself with the time and effort that it costs worth more than a few GB of disk space?

          Then your disk is very expensive and your labor very cheap.

          • ReveredOxygen@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            They didn’t say anything about compiling it themselves, just that they prefer native packages to flatpak

            edit: I can’t read

            • Batbro@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              2 comments up they said

              If the choice then is flatpack vs compile your own, I think I’ll generally compile it, but it depends on the circumstances.

        • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I mean it’s 2024. I regularly download archives that are several tens or even over 100 GB and then completely forget they’re sitting on my drive, because I don’t notice it when the drive is 4TB. Last time I cared about 10GB here and there was in the late-2000s.

          • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Great that you have 4tb on your root partition then by all means use flatpack.

            I have 256Gb on my laptop, as I recall I provisioned about 40-50gigs to root.

    • Norgur@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      glibc 2.36 is all you’ll ever need, okay? Go away with those goddamn backports!