How does it stack up against traditional package management and others like AUR and Nix?

  • Destide@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Best of the three major agnostic package formats. If it brings more focus to Linux development, I don’t see how it can be a bad thing. A bit more space needed but for most setups this is a non-issue

    • jollyrogue@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Plus, being able to sandbox user space applications, which previously had free reign, is nice.

      Sandboxing isn’t 100% there yet, but it’s come along way.

    • sibloure@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      As a semi-technical user: I also fucking love it. It gets out of the way so I can focus my time on my work and not OS maintenance.

  • Vincent@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s fantastic, for two reasons:

    • There’s so much great software available through it, and I can always get the latest version regardless of my distro - or an older version if it hasn’t kept up with its dependencies.
    • It’s part of the tooling that allows me to update my operating system without risk of it breaking (i.e. I can use an atomic distro because of it).
      • Hapbt@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        @kingmongoose7877 until someone tells me another way to run 2 python apps one which requires python 2 and one which requires python 3, on the same system, which is EASIER than installing a flatpak, im gonna maintain that they have a use case, even if they aren’t idealized package management as we dreamed of

        • kingmongoose7877@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          Easy, tiger. I think you misinterpreted my original reply.

          I meant the whining about the two (systemd and flatpak) isn’t strictly OR but may be AND. Have a nice day.

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          I think pyenv would be the appropriate tool for doing a native install. And of course when it comes to CLI, Flatpak isn’t really for that.

          • Hapbt@mastodon.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            @pingveno i think that two things get conflated. 1. flatpaks and appimages, snaps, have some niche uses for obsolete software and maybe some other edge cases 2. because the two major standards are backed by dumbass corporate entities, they have been promoted as the universal solution to everything that will revolutionize linux 3. the real thing everyone hates, is these stupid companies trying to get rid of a beautiful package management architechture so they can enshittify linux like windows

            • pingveno@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              I think their uses extend beyond obsolete software. In particular, trying to get updates out to a wide variety of Linux distros has generally meant a tradeoff between “move fast, break things” and “move slow, never change”. Flatpak gives you a stable set of libraries to work with and the ability to run multiple versions of those libraries at once. Linux package managers have a place, but their sheer proliferation means that for most applications to reach all desktop Linux users, they have to go through something like Flatpak for distribution.

  • D_Air1@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I use them for some things and I think they are fine. Mostly apps that are kinda messy and I want to keep them and their atrocious dependency tree away from my base system. I also like to use them for proprietary apps or apps where I actually want to use the sandbox. Other than that I prefer native packages 99% of the time.

    Flatpak is slower to update than pacman, the cli interface just doesn’t feel good to use. There is the weird naming, no real way to get a dependency tree, can’t hide those annoying eol messages even for apps that I specifically don’t want to update. Another thing is that not every app was made to run in a sandbox or it is just more difficult to use sometimes. A lot of people tend to cite ide’s, but in my case I was having issues with the steam flatpak. Running games with steam was fine, but anytime I wanted to hook up something third party eg: mods, cheat engine, etc. Doing so in the flatpak either required some tinkering around the sandbox or straight up didn’t work.

    I feel like that last sentence sums up the whole experience. If you just need to point and click and have it work. Flatpak does that amazingly. If you need any kind of integration with other things, expect problems.

    Edit: just wanted to add that, the whole point and click and work is fine for 99% of people which is why I and many others choose to use it.

  • Shimitar@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 months ago

    Its a solution to one of the typical Linux issues. Its a step toward overcaming the fragmentation of Linux package managers.

    I don’t personally like it too much, I prefer the distro package stuff, but I understand the app developers cannot manage a plethora of different package formats.

    Distro maintainters should, but its clearly more and more a massive task for different distros to keep up with the amount of apps out there.

    Also, npm, pip and the various “packaging” ways existing add to the chaos.

    I see distro package managers converge toward providing basic packages for the general system and some other solution like flatpack to provide additional stuff.

    I think it would be wrong for flatpack/containers to replace package managers as well, it’s not their scope.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I see distro package managers converge toward providing basic packages for the general system and some other solution like flatpack to provide additional stuff.

      IMHO doing this would be suicide for most distros.

      There are only so many ways you can make a basic system and the distro scene is already saturated by various interpretations of “basic”.

      A distro needs to offer more than the basic system and a huge part of that added value lies in its packages (and by extension package manager).

  • mudle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I personally prefer to use Flatpaks over traditional packages because of the added security, sandboxing, and overall convenience of not having to deal with dependency hell. It’s especially nice being able to have proprietary applications sandboxed from the rest of my system without worrying that Steam is snooping on my ‘super-important-tax-documents’.

    Flatpaks are also very useful for having up-to-date packages on distros like Debian, and it’s derivatives. People can still use their preferred distro without having to worry about not getting a certain update, feature, bug fix, etc, for their applications.

    Being able to restrict what applications have access to is a game-changer for me. A lot of times Flatpaks, by default, have very lenient permissions, and with the use of Flatseal I can restrict it to my liking. Worried about Audacity’s telemetry?? Turn network permissions off. Now, not all applications will work well (or at all) without internet connectivity, but for applications like Audacity, it works great!! Flatpaks can also be very useful for developers.

    That’s not to say that Flatpaks are without their fair share of issues. Are they bloated?? Yeah, and although it’s not an issue for me, it may be for some people. Desktop integration is, meh. Themes, and fonts don’t always integrate the best. (A while back there were issues with Flatpak’s sandbox, but I won’t touch on that because I need to refresh my mind on it, and it was actively being developed to fix those issues so it possibly isn’t even an issue anymore.)

    Overall I think Flatpaks are absolutely wonderful.

  • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 months ago

    As a guix/nix user

    Please, no more copies of the same dependencies 10 times over. My hard drive is tired.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    People need to realize that before Flatpak, distributing a small-time Linux app was a nightmare. Appimages were your best option if you wanted to avoid distro specific builds, PPAs and AUR, etc. Ever since packaging 2009scape on Flathub I haven’t looked back. It auto updates. People can find it from software centers. It works on all distros. It connects straight to upstream’s CICD. It even forced us to adopt XDG compliance so we could sandbox it better.

    Yes, Flatpak has downsides like the download size (on disk it doesn’t matter because it gets compressed and the runtimes are shared, same as literally any other package manager). But overall, I hugely welcome it over the options we had before. Much love to the Flatpak and Flathub devs!

  • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    As a generalist I have to learn many concepts and dont have time to delve into any one that deep. Flatpak works and isnt proprietary like snap so I enjoy that. My recent debian+kde installation works well with if. Open discover and install flatpaks as much as you wish.

  • kby@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Better than snaps and AppImages. Do I want every package on my system to be replaced by a Flatpak? No. Am I glad that I can ex. install Zotero as a Flatpak instead of having to build it myself? Yes.

  • SavvyWolf@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think it’s a good way for people to release software for Linux without having to deal with specific distro stuff (which historically has pretty much been “just provide a .deb for Ubuntu and a .tar.gz for other people to figure out”).

    I’m hoping that it pushes for more people porting stuff to Linux because it’s a single target that gives you access to Steam Decks, Chromebooks and desktops.

    I don’t think it makes sense for things that aren’t desktop applications such as servers or libraries, just because those tend to be open source, don’t need to be that up to date and benefit from tighter system integration. I see it as something that sits on top of other package managers rather than replacing them.

    For Flathub? Eh, if they turn out to be bad we can just all move to another server, we’re not snap. :P I’m willing to bet that someone has already made a flatpak repo for Citra and Yuzu.