this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
6 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

48090 readers
743 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
6
Anyone else starting to favor Flatpak over native packages? (lemmy.one)
submitted 1 year ago by DidacticDumbass@lemmy.one to c/linux@lemmy.ml
20 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I am currently using Linux Mint (after a long stint of using MX Linux) after learning it handles Nvidia graphics cards flawlessly, which I am grateful for. Whatever grief I have given Ubuntu in the past, I take it back because when they make something work, it is solid.

Anyways, like most distros these days, Flatpaks show up alongside native packages in the package manager / app store. I used to have a bias towards getting the natively packed version, but these days, I am choosing Flatpaks, precisely because I know they will be the latest version.

This includes Blender, Cura, Prusaslicer, and just now QBittorrent. I know this is probably dumb, but I choose the version based on which has the nicer icon.

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] deong@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I accept that I'm in the minority on these things, but I value simplicity really highly, and I mean "simple" as a very specific concept that's different from "easy". It can be harder to resolve library dependencies on a system where everything is installed using the native package manager and common file systems, but nothing is as "simple" as ELF binaries linking to .so files. Nested directories branching off of / is "simpler" than containers.

Do I have any practical reason for preferring things this way? Not really. There are some ancillary benefits that come from the fact that I'm old and I already know how to do more or less anything I need to do on a Unix system, and if you tell me I need to use flatseal or whatever, I'd rather just use users and groups and tools that have been fine for me for 25 years. But that's not really why I like things this way. I have no issue with embracing change when it otherwise appeals to me --I happily try new languages and tools and technology stacks all the time. What it really is is that it appeals to the part of my brain that just wants to have a nice orderly universe that fits into a smaller set of conceptual boxes. I have a conceptual box for how my OS runs software, and filling that box with lots of other smaller little different boxes for flatpack and pyenv and whatever feels worse to me.

If they solved practical problems that I needed help solving, that would be fine. I have no problem adopting something new that improves my life and then complaining about all the ways I wish they'd done it better. But this just isn't really a problem I have ever really needed much help with. I've used many Unix systems and Linux distributions as my full-time daily use systems since about 1998, and I've never really had to spend much effort on dependency resolution. I've never been hacked because I gave some software permissions it wouldn't have had in a sandbox. I don't think those problems aren't real, and if solving them for other people is a positive, then go nuts. I'm just saying that for me, they're not upsides I really want to pay anything for, and the complexity costs are higher than whatever that threshold is for me.

[–] DidacticDumbass@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

Your knowledge of Unix systems is incredibly powerful, and I highly respect that. You are in control of your system, which is the ultimate goal of personal computing. It is even more powerful that your mental models are reflected in your system. That is super cool, I hope to get their some day.

I am also very happy you enjoy trying out new technologies, and don't have the grumpy jadedness of just using what you always use.

For me I thoroughly enjoy learning new skills that unlocks the power of all my many computers, and put them to use. Computing should be fun and empowering, and too often people deprive themselves of fun.

[–] Kerb@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

i avoided flatpacks before.
but now that i tried out silverblue and had to rely heavily on them,
i have to admit that flatpacks are not nearly as bad as i thought.

the only issues i encountered are with steam (might not start propperly on first launch)
and with ides(terminal starts inside the sandbox)

other than that it works great.

[–] BaalInvoker@lemmy.eco.br 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I use Flatpaks for everything I can. I like how Flatpak keeps apps in a container isolated from my system. Also, Flatpaks contains every lib in every version I need for my installed apps, which means It does not rely on my system libs, and I like It, cause my system libs is to make my system works only.

Flatpaks are just the future of packaging

[–] DidacticDumbass@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great explanation and rationale for using Flatpaks! I hope others with questions see this.

I understand how people may be annoyed by the redundancy of every app packaging their own lib, but I swear those are measured in kilobytes, and people tend to be so obsessively minimalist it is a non-issue. Then again, minimalist are probably compiling their software.

[–] pglpm@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I disagree. The other day I wanted to install some audio app that came in flatpak install format (I'll check and add the name later). The app was less than 30MB in size, but the installation included 300MB of a previous version of org.freedesktop!

[–] DidacticDumbass@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

I think that is one time download of a library so the app can run. Also, any other app that needs it.

It seems to me that the biggest complaint people have with flatpaks are the space it takes.

I wonder if the blow up in GBs was an early buggy behavior?

[–] 0x2d@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, because I don't have a very powerful computer

Even if I did, I would still prefer to have native applications because it would be more permissive

[–] DidacticDumbass@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am totally ignorant, do flatpaks use a lot more processing?

[–] yozul@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They can take longer to start up, which can suck on older hardware. It's not as bad as it used to be though. Once they're running there shouldn't really be any difference. The main drawback is actually that Flatpaks use more storage space.

[–] DidacticDumbass@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am glad that the startup times have improved, that bodes well for future startup times. Using up more storage really is what makes it suck for everyone. I thought that it was more efficient, since I see a lot of .platform, and I assumed those are libraries shared across flatpak apps that use those dependencies.

I am almost sure AppImage has the same problem? I don't know, people do rated that better though.

[–] yozul@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago

Storage space mostly isn't as bad as it is with AppImages. Each AppImage stores all the libraries it needs, even if they are shared with another one. They can't even know if they have shared libraries. A single AppImage will probably actually use less storage than a single Flatpak if you only have one, just because the AppImage only uses exactly the libraries it needs, while Flatpaks use shared sets of them. That being said, Flatpaks generally get less bad the more of them you use, because of the shared libraries. They're still a whole extra set of libraries on top of your system ones though, plus they put out a new set every year. Apps that are still under active development generally get updated to the latest version, but older apps that are basically finished often require older libraries, so that's more space used. Overall for a one off program when you're not using universal packaging systems regularly AppImages are mostly better, but if you're going to be using them regularly Flatpak quickly becomes far better. It still uses more storage space than just using native apps though.

Another difference between Flatpak and AppImage is that it can be kind of a pain to theme Flatpaks to match the rest of your system, and I don't know of any good way to do it with qt6 apps yet, but it's just straight up impossible to theme AppImages. They can technically have themes built into them, but unless you're using Adwaita, or maybe Breeze if you're lucky, they just don't, and having to rebuild your own custom AppImage completely defeats the main benefit of using AppImages.

[–] yozul@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago

On my main PC I use for gaming I run Arch and prefer native packages whenever I can use them. I'm quite happy to have this one computer by a hobby project, and native applications just make more sense on something as up to date as Arch when they're available. I have started to prefer Flatpak over AUR packages though. The AUR is pretty overrated, in my opinion.

On my laptop and anything else I install Linux on I usually just use LMDE, and I'll often prefer the Flatpak, just because it's way more up to date. There are some apps that Mint keeps up to date native versions of, and there are some apps that come preinstalled that I just don't care about having the latest version of, but for everything else I usually just download the Flatpak.

[–] db2@lemmy.one -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't like flatpak or snap or any of them. System libraries exist for good reason, just because your computer is stupid fast and you have enough disk for the library of Congress a couple times over doesn't mean you should run a veritable copy of your whole operating system for each program. IMO it's lazy.

Sandboxing is a different thing though, if that's the purpose then it's doing it right.

[–] ebits21@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I have a ton of flatpaks which means packages are shared between them, so no it’s not lazy or a copy of the whole system. It makes a ton of sense for stability.

Updates are diff’s so downloading and updating is fast. Not entire packages.

Making every package work with only a certain version of a dependency and hoping it is stable doesn’t make a lot of sense.

[–] stevecrox@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You've just moved the packaging problem from distributions to app developers.

The reason you have issues is historically app developers weren't interested in packaging their application so distributions would figure it out.

If app developers want to package deb, rpm, etc.. packages it would also solve the problem.

[–] ebits21@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Sure. Except you gain universal compatibility for all distros that have flatpak and aren’t building all the different package formats. Makes it much more attractive for actual developers to package since it’s only done once.

There’s no right answer here, but there are definite benefits.

I’ve had many little issues since I moved to Linux years ago, most of which would never have been an issue if flatpaks were there at the time. My experience has been better with them.

load more comments
view more: next ›