target OS is debian or linux mint

  • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net
    592·
    5 months ago

    Pro apt:

    • storage efficient
    • may be optimized for stuff like x86_64 v3 or v4
    • runs as many users and easily from terminal
    • needed for some low level stuff like system packages

    Contra apt:

    • a ton of stuff comes from outside the main Ubuntu repo. Debian doesnt have that difference afaik but still many packages may be more abandoned
    • 3rd party packaging 99% of the time, i.e. “unverified”. I had a lot of strange bugs especially with Ubuntu packages
    • the apps ars not isolated at all

    Pro Flatpak

    • a ton of verified apps, nearly unavailable on other repos (that still doesnt make unverified apps insecure!)
    • all apps have a sandbox that can be graphically hardened to be more secure, if the defaults are too broad
    • by defaults the sandbox is pretty good
    • many many apps that run everywhere

    Contra Flatpak

    • not suited for some apps like terminal apps or system stuff
    • some apps are less maintained and use EOL runtimes etc
    • some more storage space needed
    • need user namespaces, nearly all distros have them enabled
    • a bit slower startup time but okay
    • a bit more RAM usage
    • Spectacle8011@lemmy.comfysnug.space
      9·
      5 months ago

      In general I agree, though had something to add regarding these points:

      by defaults the sandbox is pretty good

      This is a rather major problem with Flatpak; the maintainer decides what permissions they need by default, not the user. The user needs to retroactively roll them back or specify global options and manually override them per-app, but that’s not user-friendly at all. Though many Flatpaks do have good permissions because Flathub maintainers step in and offer suggestions before approving the Flatpak for publication, there are a number of Flatpaks that punch big holes in the sandbox; so much so that they might as well be unsandboxed.

      But Bottles has a great sandbox, for instance, which is just what you’d want when running lots of proprietary Windows applications you maybe don’t trust as much as your Linux-y software.

      It’s better than what we have with traditional packages but it can sometimes get in the way and not all beginners can easily figure out how to fix permissions issues with Flatseal. This will probably improve as we get more portals built.

      some apps are less maintained and use EOL runtimes etc

      Not much is different for distribution-maintained packages, either. See TheEvilSkeleton’s post about how there are over 1200 unmaintained packages in the Debian repositories, and even over 400 in Arch’s much smaller repositories that are outdated (!). At least Flathub applications are usually maintained by upstream, and so are usually as up to date as they can be.

      not suited for some apps like terminal apps or system stuff

      This isn’t really true. It’s only true when terminal applications need privileged access to something. Flathub ships Mesa userpace drivers and NVIDIA’s proprietary userspace drivers just fine. You can package something like yt-dlp in Flatpak just fine with --filesystem=host. Hell, they’ve even got Neovim on Flathub. Sure, it’s a little more cumbersome to type, but you can always create an alias.

      Flatpak is not suitable for all graphical applications, either. Wireshark’s full feature-set cannot be supported, for example.

      I would add that:

      • You can easily rollback Flatpaks to a previous version (even from a long time ago) with flatpak update --commit. Much harder with traditional package systems, and you’ll probably need to downgrade shared libraries too.
      • You get a consistent build environment with Flatpak manifests. If you want to build a newer version of a stable package you’re using straight from master or with a few patches, all you really need to do is clone it from flathub/whatever, change a few lines, and it has a very high chance of building properly. No need to figure out dependencies, toolchains, or sane build options. And it’s all controlled from an easy-to-read and modify file.
      • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net
        2·
        5 months ago

        defaults

        The default is completely sandboxed. Developers need to allowlist exactly what they want. So it is transparent.

        Compare that to a random app where you need to monitor its syscalls to see what it does.

        KDE Plasma now includes a GUI settings page that allows to change these.

        I think GNOME needs to integrate that into their settings, I mean just include damn Flatseal as a settings page…

        specify global options

        This is supercool and I started doing that. All apps get the env vars to force Wayland now even though they may not use it. I have my overrides and uploaded them to my dotfiles.

        But Bottles has a great sandbox

        Echo that

        over 1200 unmaintained packages in the Debian repositories, and even over 400 in Arch’s much smaller repositories

        This is crazy, same on Fedora. Distros really need to start using separate repos, and automatically filter out everything that didnt get a “I maintain this” for a while.

        There are packagers maintaining a shitload of apps at once.

        Flathub applications are usually maintained by upstream

        Not always but having this at all, and having most big names in there, is incredible. This is like a first time this happens.

        easily rollback Flatpaks

        Ostree is great

        consistent build environment

        And having it declared centrally can help add all the security benefits of the individual ones too. Really nice

        • Spectacle8011@lemmy.comfysnug.space
          2·
          5 months ago

          The default is completely sandboxed. Developers need to allowlist exactly what they want. So it is transparent.

          The default before the developer touches it doesn’t matter; compare this to Android, iOS, or macOS’s permission system. An app needs to ask for permission to use the microphone or access your files. With Flatpak, all a developer needs to do is specify --filesystem=home or --socket=pulseaudio and if the user hasn’t specified global options like --nofilesystem=home, then the developer gets access to it. Having a sandbox that is optional for the developer rather goes against the point of a sandbox, don’t you think?

          I’m not unsympathetic to Flatpak developers, though. The status quo on Linux for decades has been, “you get access to everything.” If Flatpak enforced that sandbox, more than half of the apps on Flathub right now just wouldn’t work because they don’t support the filesystem portal.

          I think GNOME and KDE need to do the work of manually restricting Flatpak apps’ access to sensitive permissions like home by default, maybe in a few years when the idea of the filesystem portal has had time to gestate among developers. Kind of like how Firefox’s HTTPS-only mode (which I think should be the default) prevents you from accessing the website unless you give permission.

          That’s something we can work on, I think. At least we have a way to get there.

          KDE Plasma now includes a GUI settings page that allows to change these.

          I think GNOME needs to integrate that into their settings, I mean just include damn Flatseal as a settings page…

          I recall saying the exact same thing. They have a built-in area for it in the Apps section. They’ll probably get around to it eventually…

          There are packagers maintaining a shitload of apps at once.

          It’s pretty crazy. I think this is probably the craziest example: https://old.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/f3wrez/much_love_to_felix_yan_an_arch_maintainer_from/

          Felix Yan is awesome to be maintaining thousands of packages for Arch. But man, that’s a lot of work. If we could reduce the workload of our package maintainers who rarely receive any gratitude (usually only demands) and let them focus on the really important packages, I think that would also be awesome.

          • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net
            2·
            5 months ago

            Yay my answer was deleted…

            before the developer touches it doesn’t matter

            It matters as the security rating is based on that, apps like KDE Systemsettings or Flatseal show that etc.

            I agree that asking for permissions is better.

            Placing an override in ~/.local/share/flatpak/overrides/global would be an easy workaround.

            Desktops could implement dialogs that use the currently preset permissions.

            Having a sandbox that is optional for the developer rather goes against the point of a sandbox, don’t you think?

            No, these are defined, enumerated holes in a sandbox. Without a sandbox you need to monitor the behaviour yourself or other things.

            This is the only good working GUI sandbox I know.

            half of the apps on Flathub right now just wouldn’t work because they don’t support the filesystem portal.

            Important point here:

            • the portal should allow static permissions too
            • apps that dont support portals would also not support asking for permissions, natively. A workaround could be done, using dbus, and asking for everything when the app is launched first time, BUT
            • Linux has a tiny marketshare
            • flatpaks are not the only ones
            • people dont care about security that much (look at my survey, I will post an evaluation soon)
            • permissions on Linux are more complex than on the actively restricted Android. External media, devices, filesystems etc

            HTTPS-only mode (which I think should be the default)

            I should open a bug about this. It cant be that this is not default, it works well and I agree on the style of implementation.

            But this would also need apps to have that mechanism. A Libreoffice will just say “file doesnt exist” currently.

            let them focus on the really important packages

            Thats why I like Fedora Atomic. The core is as small as possible, the apps are just base stuff or upstream stuff like the Desktop. Everything else is a Flatpak.

            It is so much more secure.

            RHEL / CentOS has different repos for core and extras. More distros will do that

            • Spectacle8011@lemmy.comfysnug.space
              1·
              5 months ago

              It matters as the security rating is based on that, apps like KDE Systemsettings or Flatseal show that etc.

              That’s a good point.

              Linux has a tiny marketshare people dont care about security that much permissions on Linux are more complex than on the actively restricted Android. External media, devices, filesystems etc

              That’s true.

              I think my issue with the Flatpak sandbox is I understand how it works and what its limitations are (and I’m mostly fine with them), but the average user doesn’t. I was reluctant to try Flatpak before understanding how it worked, but now that I know how it works, I think it’s fantastic! But it’s also a work-in-progress. What we have now is good, but I think it could be better. Not entirely sure how it gets better though.

              Thats why I like Fedora Atomic. The core is as small as possible, the apps are just base stuff or upstream stuff like the Desktop. Everything else is a Flatpak.

              I’m still not really sure where I stand on Fedora Atomic. Lack of H.264 decoding by default is a damaging choice. They should just include openH264 in the base image, reproducibility be damned. Give it 5 more years and maybe this will be revisited…

              Nova + Zink + NVK will solve some of the problem with NVIDIA (maybe even very soon), but not hardware decoding currently, which is a big one.

              Gamescope doesn’t work great in a Toolbox. It works fine in Flatpak, but Bottles doesn’t let me use Gamescope options. I think Lutris does, but I haven’t tried it out yet.

              And how am I supposed to install fonts without layering them on?? I’ve been copying them to ~/.local/share/fonts manually.

              I think the idea is cool. But I think a few more parts of the ecosystem need to be in place first. I’ll keep using it for now.

              • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net
                1·
                5 months ago

                What we have now is good, but I think it could be better.

                I maintain a list of recommended Flatpak apps.

                I had a damn Librewolf crash some time ago, the RPM is broken, switched back to Firefox… so I lost about 3 hours of overhaul of that list as it is currently very messy.

                But if it is fixed, feel free to submit apps to be included, to have a “goodness enumerating” list of apps, rather than a huge mess of random apps.

                Lack of H.264 decoding by default

                They dont include that? I thought they would…

                I use Fedora kinoite-main from uBlue which is very close to upstream but fixes many issues for me.

                UBlue focussing on their very opinionated variants is a bit annoying, because it is now pretty hard to find a guide how to install kinoite-main. I just have a bookmark of their archived website.

                Give it 5 more years

                If this is actually an issue I would like to tackle that. I am currently doing a Change Proposal to make the default rpm-ostree permissions reasonably secure.

                So this is an issue with reproducability? I dont think so? Cisco builds the binaries for Fedora and it gets installed. The packages are not from their repos, but the typical sync issues would not occur on Atomic.

                but not hardware decoding currently, which is a big one

                Yeah for sure, I think for Intel and AMD too, hardware h264 for example. AV1 in OBS will be awesome though.

                But thats why I use uBlues base images, it is Fedora and I say I use Fedora and participate in their community, but their base images have a ton of stuff I dont agree with (toolbox, missing random packages, too simplistic installer…)

                • Spectacle8011@lemmy.comfysnug.space
                  1·
                  5 months ago

                  I maintain a list of recommended Flatpak apps.

                  I’m very familiar with you, haha. You keep popping up wherever I go these days. You’re everywhere. Maybe not quite as omnipresent as Neal Gompa.

                  I can think of a few Flatpaks that could fit on that list.

                  They dont include that? I thought they would…

                  It’s the same old story with codecs. Fedora would love to support as many codecs as possible, but H.264 is patent-encumbered so they can’t. They had hardware decoding support through Mesa a few years ago but then they…changed it.

                  Fedora Atomic wants to include the OpenH264 enablement package for Firefox inside the Fedora Flatpak eventually which will solve most of the problem as that is where people are playing H.264 most often.

                  So this is an issue with reproducability? I dont think so? Cisco builds the binaries for Fedora and it gets installed. The packages are not from their repos, but the typical sync issues would not occur on Atomic.

                  My understanding is OpenH264 is provided in binary-only format to Fedora because otherwise the royalty-free license cannot apply (i.e. Fedora can’t build it from source). Fedora only ships free software. OpenH264 is free software. But it’s binary-only. So they need to trust Cisco has built the binary correctly. I assume the reason they don’t include it by default is because the only way to trust it’s built from the same sources is to reproduce the build. Otherwise, I really don’t see the issue.

                  OpenH264 is not a part of the base system so you need to layer it on. OpenH264 doesn’t have support for High 10 Profile video which is fairly common off the web and is generally inferior to x264, I’ve found, but at least it’s something.

                  And the reason I mention “5 years” is because by then, most of the patents on H.264 will have expired. With the exception of the new ones from just a few years ago that no one really uses. Maybe Fedora can enable x264 in their ffmpeg build then and we can stop talking about it. I am so sick of talking about H.264.

                  I use Fedora kinoite-main from uBlue which is very close to upstream but fixes many issues for me.

                  Call it a personal challenge or whatever but I’m sticking to Fedora Silverblue for the foreseeable future. uBlue is almost certainly a better experience for most people.

                  Yeah for sure, I think for Intel and AMD too, hardware h264 for example.

                  That’s not true if you’re using Flathub packages. Flathub ships userspace Mesa drivers which enable hardware decoding for Intel and AMD GPUs even with H.264 and H.265.

                  but their base images have a ton of stuff I dont agree with (toolbox, missing random packages, too simplistic installer…)

                  uBlue does solve the two big issues with Fedora, which is codecs and proprietary NVIDIA drivers. Any other issues are tiny in comparison. I will say I prefer Toolbox to Distrobox, despite using Distrobox first. I certainly understand that’s an unpopular opinion and not one a lot of people share. It’s probably the same reason you use KDE and I use GNOME (most of the time).

                  I’ve always hated the Fedora installer. Does uBlue do something different?

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
      64·
      5 months ago

      I like flatpak as it helps me keep bloat down. I always find that native packages eventually pollute the system. Flatpaks do somewhat as well but I can manually delete the app storage if necessary

      • Samueru@lemmy.ml
        8·
        5 months ago

        I like flatpak as it helps me keep bloat down

        Impossible. Like flatpak itself with 5 applications was using more storage than my entire distro with the same apps as appimages on top.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
          3·
          5 months ago

          I can’t say I have the same experience. Flatpaks keep everything tidy and most GUI stores offer the option to delete app data on uninstall

          • Samueru@lemmy.ml
            1·
            5 months ago

            How big is your distro right now?

            I am at 4.2 GIB with my distro (artix) + 30 appimages + home. Though stuff like ~/.local/steam is on a different partition.

            • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
              1·
              5 months ago

              I’ll have to look but I have 6-7 VMs so 4.2Gb is child’s play. My SSD is 256Gb so I have plenty of room

              • Samueru@lemmy.ml
                1·
                5 months ago

                I know storage doesn’t matter these days, but another different thing is suggesting flatpak “because it keeps bloat down”.

                • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
                  3·
                  5 months ago

                  Storage isn’t everything. Having separate isolated storage locations keeps the cluster down and prevents conflicts. Plus if I need to change something it is easy to find.

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    224·
    5 months ago

    Things installed by apt almost always work as expected and are easily run from the cli.

    Flatpaks are sometimes more up to date.

  • rien333@lemmy.ml
    15·
    5 months ago

    One thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet is interopability, that is, flatpak interacting with the rest of your system.

    I’m not that familair with flatpak, but in my brief experience with the steam flatpak, I had trouble getting it to recognize my controllers. Steam installed through pacman (Arch’s package manager) had no such issues, on the other hand. My hunch is that this has to with flatpaks being more isolated from the rest of your system.

    Im pretty sure that’s just some kind of permission issue, but it can be nice to not have to troubleshoot acces rights and the like. But this is obviously a double edged sword: more isolation may also mean more security, just at the cost of ease of interaction with other components.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      2·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, both have pros and cons. I have Steam installed through pacman and flatpak also. For me I have the Flatpak version because it contains its own version of glibc. This mostly doesn’t matter, except I play Squad and it’s doing something with it’s anti-cheat that isn’t supported in the most recent versions of glibc, so I use the Flatpak version for Squad only.

      Flatpak is essentially a more controlled environment. It will contain everything it needs to work, which is good for ensuring it works but bad because you’ll have duplicates. It mostly doesn’t matter which you use, but occasionally it does.

      • angrymouse@lemmy.world
        2·
        5 months ago

        This issue with glibc should have been sorted out. But yeah, if you use arch you may have some issues from time to time cause some projects broke their ABIs sometimes, but I prefer to use the one with pacman cause I only have to update my entire system with one command, also theming is an issue with flatpak that I know there is solutions out there but AFAIK are always adhoc solutions for each app.

        Also, IIRC steam folder is always in a weird place using flatpak.

  • Blaster M@lemmy.worldEnglish
    173·
    5 months ago

    flatpaks are designed for gui apps, and due to packaging dependencies, they are extra heavy in disk space. flatpaks are also most often installed on the user, not systemwide, so no root permissions needed to install.

    apt installs systemwide exclusively, but can have a much smaller download size if the dependencies are already installed. Apps sharing dependencies means much less disk space. cli is supported.

    • d_k_bo@feddit.de
      51·
      5 months ago

      they are extra heavy in disk space

      While they use more disk space than most native packages, this point is often exaggerated. Flatpak uses deduplication and shared runtimes if multiple apps use the same runtime.

      • Samueru@lemmy.ml
        31·
        5 months ago

        While they use more disk space than most native packages, this point is often exaggerated. Flatpak uses deduplication and shared runtimes if multiple apps use the same runtime.

        mmmmm

        4.79 GiB with deduplication.

        Worth mentioning that my entire distro with those applications included, and about 30 appimages is 4.2 GIB total, and that includes the home btw.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          5 months ago

          Appimages don’t use any deduplication at all and usually package everything in the app.

          Sometimes they don’t do that though and expect your system to have certain packages, but that can and does cause reliability and portability issues.

          E: portability not probability lol

          • Samueru@lemmy.ml
            1·
            5 months ago

            but that can and does cause reliability and probability issues.

            Flatpak and snaps have been the most broken on this. Just recently I was talking about issues that I had with yuzu on that. And more recently steam as I wanted to test something…

            Also I remember you, you were the guy that didn’t reply when you gave a number that I found very odd (Basically impossible lol):

            https://lemmy.ml/post/16669819/11551689

            Were you guy that downvoted the comment btw?

            Appimages don’t use any deduplication at all and usually package everything in the app.

            Yes, doesn’t mean anything if flatpak uses way more storage…

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              5 months ago

              I don’t reply to most comments. You should see my inbox, I have hundreds of undealt with notifications. I only even spotted this reply because I was correcting an autocorrect mistake on my previous one.

              My numbers were correct and I explained why.

              And your experience is pretty far from mine, I had to give up on appimages because they are problematic by design.

              And like I said, Flatpak hasn’t been bad on storage for me. It uses deduplication and unlike you I didn’t go out of my way to cherrypick a small handful of applications that just so happened to use three different runtimes in order to bash it.

              Use appimages if that’s what you want, but they’re not really an answer to Flatpaks, due to the huge systematic problems they have.

              • Samueru@lemmy.ml
                1·
                5 months ago

                My numbers were correct and I explained why.

                Do you mind telling me the application list so I can check that myself?

                because they are problematic by design. I didn’t go out of my way to cherrypick a small handful of applications that just so happened to use three different runtimes

                Kinda odd, I didn’t even know it was using 3 different runtimes until very recently, I just installed the biggest applications that I had as appimages to make the comparison, and yuzu because I use that one very often lol.

                EDIT: Don’t you think that on itself isn’t problematic by design?

                in order to bash it.

                How should I have phrased my comment so that I wasn’t bashing flatpak?

                due to the huge systematic problems they have.

                Such as?

  • DaTingGoBrrr@lemmy.ml
    142·
    5 months ago

    What’s up with all the negativity around flatpaks? I use Arch (btw) and I try to install as much as I can using flatpak. I think they are great. They are compatible, usually up to date, easy to install, easy to remove and it won’t break your system. The sandbox can be edited to include more paths etc.

    • pathief@lemmy.world
      2·
      5 months ago

      If I developed a Linux app I would absolutely package it as a flatpak. If a package is in pacman, however, I see no reason to use the flatpak version instead.

  • Presi300@lemmy.worldEnglish
    111·
    5 months ago

    Lots, LOTS, TL;DR - flatpaks are sandboxed and work on every* distro out there, while apt packages are not and only work on debian and it’s derivatives. I’d say on mint or debian, prefer using flatpaks over apt packages as you’re usually gonna get newer versions of software.

  • callcc@lemmy.world
    9·
    5 months ago

    Flatpaks won’t get their libs updated all at once by just updating a library. This can be very bad in cases like bugs in openssl. Instead of just updating one library and all other software benefiting from the fix, with flatpaks, you need to deal with updating everything manually and waiting for the vendor to actually create an update package.

    I’m not 100% sure about this. Flatpak has some mechanisms that would allow to manage dependencies in a common fashion.

    • Spectacle8011@lemmy.comfysnug.space
      7·
      5 months ago

      Most Flatpaks depend on the Freedesktop Platform runtime, or GNOME/KDE runtimes, which are derived from it. This contains several hundred common dependencies and librarires programs need, like gcc and python. When you update the runtime (change it from 22.08 to 23.08 in the manifest), all the dependencies are updated too. Many simple applications don’t depend on many more dependencies than are available in the runtime. Some…have more complicated dependency trees.

      But counterpoint: the developer will update the dependencies when they are known to work properly with the application. Upgrading GTK3 to GTK4 in the GIMP flatpak will just break the application. Same thing with Krita and the dozens of patches to libraries it depends on. If you upgrade the application in the name of security before it’s compatible, all you end up with is a broken application. Which I guess is more secure, but that’s not helpful to anyone.

      • callcc@lemmy.world
        2·
        5 months ago

        Thanks for the interesting point! I learned something today. I guess it all depends on your use-case, whether flatpaks make sense or not.

      • nyan@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        5 months ago

        Which means that if you have a flatpak with an uncommon library and the dev stops issuing updated flatpaks because they get hit by a bus, you could be SOL with respect to that library. Distro libs are less likely to have this happen because very few distros have a bus factor of 1—there’s usually someone who can take over.

        • Spectacle8011@lemmy.comfysnug.space
          1·
          5 months ago

          if you have a flatpak with an uncommon library

          In this case, you’re responsible for packaging it yourself. This usually means specifying the git URL and build options in the manifest. You can see Krita doing this in their manifest because they don’t depend on the KDE Platform, as they need much older dependencies. So they’re responsible for over 1000 lines worth of dependencies.

          The Freedesktop Platform is essentially a distribution unto itself, and I don’t think there’s ever been a case of dependencies in that distribution not being kept up-to-date.

          Distro libs are less likely to have this happen because very few distros have a bus factor of 1—there’s usually someone who can take over.

          Well…debatable. There were over 1200 orphaned packages in Debian last year, many of which had not been maintained in over 3 years.

      • pmk@lemmy.sdf.org
        1·
        5 months ago

        I wonder how much work would be needed to make a “FreeDesktop Linux” complete OS, with the runtime + whatever it needs beyond that. Then when you install a flatpak, it’s just like installing, uh, I didn’t think this through tbh.

        • Spectacle8011@lemmy.comfysnug.space
          3·
          5 months ago

          Well, if you think about it, the Freedesktop Platform is essentially a distribution. And Flatpak used to be called “xdg-app”. If you’ve got all your graphical applications installed via Flatpak, with GNOME, Systemd, glibc, GRUB and all the core dependencies only packaged for the base system (essentially Arch’s core repository), that’s pretty much a Freedesktop OS.

          Hey, maybe we could use Snaps for the base system and Flatpaks for the userland? Or are these the kinds of ideas that get people stoned?

    • d_k_bo@feddit.de
      3·
      5 months ago

      Common libraries like OpenSSL are usually bundled in runtimes. So if my application uses e.g. org.gnome.Platform, I don’t have to update my application if there is a fix in a library of that runtime, I just need to update the runtime.

      The runtime is also shared by all applications that use this runtime.

  • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
    9·
    5 months ago

    In addition to other people’s comments, flatpaks are usually more up to date than their apt counterpart (expecially those from the debian stable repositories).
    I run debian and I deliberately installed some software from flatpak (eg. Ardour and Guitarix) because the deb package is a whole version behind.

  • bionicjoey
    71·
    5 months ago

    Flatpak’s benefits mostly exist for the developer. Apt is more tightly integrated with the distro, which is generally advantageous, but also means more work for packaging. Flatpak’s benefit is that it’s a compatibility layer for lots of different distros. In a perfect world, every distro would have a large library of packages in the official repo, but that’s a lot of work for devs, and flatpak lets them avoid that sprawling support.

        • Spectacle8011@lemmy.comfysnug.space
          3·
          5 months ago

          You don’t have many Flatpaks installed, but you happened to install applications that depend on three different runtimes (Freedesktop, GNOME, KDE), which is where a lot of the weight is coming from. Install 20 more Flatpaks and see what happens.

          • Samueru@lemmy.ml
            1·
            5 months ago

            Will still be using 4.79 GiB?

            I will do this later anyway, but I reallly really doubt it is going to get any better, like it is already once again using more storage than an entire distro with 30 appimages + home.

            • Spectacle8011@lemmy.comfysnug.space
              2·
              5 months ago

              Will still be using 4.79 GiB?

              It will use more, but not exponentially more if de-duplication works as well as is claimed. The problem with AppImages is that they don’t include all of the dependencies, making them less reliable. At the expense of storage space, Flatpak bundles everything for reliability.

              De-duplication works better the more Flatpak applications you have installed. e.g. de-duplication saves TheEvilSkeleton over 50GB of storage space here: https://tesk.page/2023/06/04/response-to-developers-are-lazy-thus-flatpak/#but-flatpaks-are-easier-for-end-users

              • Samueru@lemmy.ml
                11·
                5 months ago

                At the expense of storage space

                What storage expense? appimage are actually the smallest thanks to their compression.

                Compare the librewolf appimage vs a native pacakge, it is 100 vs 300 MiB iirc.

                Same with libreoffice, it is 300 vs 600 MiB.

                And these native packages seem to share very few libraries, because when I remove them from my system the removed size is that, 300, 600 MiB, etc.

                My distro would not be 4.2 GIB if I dropped my appimages for native packages.

                de-duplication saves TheEvilSkeleton over 50GB of storage space here: https://tesk.page/2023/06/04/response-to-developers-are-lazy-thus-flatpak/#but-flatpaks-are-easier-for-end-users

                The total size 27 GIB for 173 apps works out at an average of 155 MiB per application.

                The average appimage is also that size. Like besides very big applications like libreoffice which is 300 MiB and kdenlive which is 200 MiB. The rest of apps are usually 150 MiB or less.

                And most appimages are “lazy” appimages made with linuxdeploy, if you do finer control on the build you can get the size of the appimage way way down.

                One example is qbittorrent, the official appimage is 100 MiB, while there is a fork called qbittorrent-enhanced edition, and they got the size of the appimage down to 26 MiB

                making them less reliable

                Hard disagree that they are less reliable, that might be less reliable on weird distros or very minimal installations, but usually the issue is that you are missing a lib and not that the app itself is less reliable, but stability wise, they have been the most reliable, case in point was yuzu, the flatpak was such as nightware that even the devs would talk againts it due to issues with mesa.

                And the support channel of yuzu in their discord was full of people having issues with the flatpak that were magically fixed the moment they tried the appimage, due to that issue with mesa being outdated in the flatpak.

                But anyway, I will install my applications as flatpak and compare the storage used.

                • Spectacle8011@lemmy.comfysnug.space
                  1·
                  5 months ago

                  What storage expense? appimage are actually the smallest thanks to their compression.

                  I’m saying that Flatpaks use more storage for reliability, and that AppImages are less reliable because they rely on system dependencies in some circumstances.

                  but usually the issue is that you are missing a lib and not that the app itself is less reliable

                  This is why AppImages are less reliable. Flatpaks either work for everybody, or they don’t work at all. AppImages might not work if you’re on a “weird distro” or forgot to install something on your system.

                  And the support channel of yuzu in their discord was full of people having issues with the flatpak that were magically fixed the moment they tried the appimage, due to that issue with mesa being outdated in the flatpak.

                  Packaging your software with Flatpak does not mean you won’t have issues. But when you do have issues, you know they’ll be an issue for everybody. So when you fix it, you also fix it for everybody.

                  For example, the RetroArch package was using an old version of the Freedesktop Platform, which comes with an old version of Mesa. When they bumped the version (just changing it from 22.08 to 23.08), the problem was fixed: https://discourse.flathub.org/t/problems-with-mesa-drivers/5574/3

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
      3·
      5 months ago

      It isn’t bad if you have a bunch of flatapaks as they share dependencies. For install the first install might be huge but the second app that also uses the same framework will be much smaller

  • Magister@lemmy.world
    52·
    5 months ago

    I’m using MX, debian based, apt package, I have 0 flatpak/snap. They are up to date on about everything, like the latest Firefox I got this morning in a simple .deb that nala (apt frontend) installed without problems.

    I never ever installed a snap/flat in my Linux years.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
      2·
      5 months ago

      Honestly you should (flatpak that is)

      Flatpaks are nice and provide isolation so installed apps do not add bloat to the core system.

  • Hammerheart@programming.dev
    1·
    5 months ago

    I thought id give flatpak firefox a shot and the profiles are broken. I might be able to fix it by making some symlinks but it left a bad taste in my mouth. I was unable to get it to recognize my userChrome.css