2 wk. ago • 88%

What do yall think of linux flatpacks?

Lemmy does not have a vote features so you can type your opinions in the comments

28 comments

I prefer distro packages that are tied into the rest of the distribution and maintained in that context. That gives me a more smooth experience and some security because I know who prepares the updates and has a second pair of eyes on things. I like the sandboxing though. I think that should be implemented as standard for Linux desktop applications.

20
- It's very hard for a project to maintain packages for all native packaging formats, though, especially for smaller projects. A universal packaging format is sorely needed and flatpak is the best we have right now.
  
  8
  
  It makes it easier to package and install stuff once and for everyone. And harder to keep your system patched because some software might include older versions of libraries. And you can't just install the patched version from your system repo, because that doesn't apply per design. We also have some minor woes like theming, filesize, integration into the desktop... I think it isn't the best we have right now. I think that is system packages. But that depends on the specific use-case. Yeah. But we need both. At least as of now. Maybe we'll one day get a more unified package format. Or sandboxing for almost everything like on Apple computers. There are some limitations. We can't have everything at the same time. But there is lots of room for improvement. Linux is awesome, though.
  
  3
  
  i think when your compiling a browser from source its quite easy making rpm,deb,etc or corporations just choose deb then arch users create scripts to convert it to tar.zst then install it
  
  2
  
  One of the arguments for Snaps used to be that they are available on the sever as well. So one format supports server and desktop apps. Is that true for Flat packs? I honestly don't know.
  
  1
- yk what i agree with this i dont rlly like flatpacks bcs they are missing some minor features specifically kde plasma intergration and flatpack browser also you have to change permissons to allow stuff
  
  2
I like them. It gives developers an easy way to distribute their software and as a user I have a little bit more security due to the sandbox.

14
- honestly fair if the app does not need native messaging or changing perms
  
  3
As a total beginner, they work, they work well, the moment you need them to touch anything other then themselves it's hell.

I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck can I feed Flatpack OBS any VTS audio filter.

12
- So they are only good for masturbation? Checks out.
  
  3
- Flatseal doesn't help ? Ive never used ibs but flatseal Always helps with permission
  
  2
  
  That's what one would think but... nope, only giving a false sense of hope.
  
  Of course the issue is between the keyboard and the chair, but it's not immediate or intuitive either way.
  
  1
Less evil than the snap.

It helps provide a better desktop experience across multiple distros.

But, but, it has inefficient space use.

6
- But, but, it has inefficient space use.
  
  SOO TRUE, yeah i remember i would use a linux livecd for discord 🗿
  
  2
They work pretty well most of the time. No complaints from me

5
In terms of containerized solutions for apps/programs?

Better than the alternatives.

In general?

I feel like they're exes for Linux, and would greatly prefer to not have multiple different installations of the same or slightly different versions of dependencies wasting space.

4
they are pretty decent for atomic distros and fully automated updates. I served my time in arch and gentoo and don't want to update all the time but still want the updates. That said there are a lot of things that have also bothered me at some point that may or may not still be a problem. being out of date sometimes, stupid notifications for the application running in the background when you minimize it, jankiness when launching via clicking a file or god forbid programs launching each other. probably other stuff.

3
I think realistically any software you'd want to install as a flatpak would otherwise only be available as a package for a specific version of Ubuntu. Flatpak gives devs a way to package proprietary or cutting edge software in a distro-agnostic way, which is a good selling point for them. It's also nicer than managing apt repos and ppas.

The extra space usage is annoying, but it's not that big a deal. My mint install with a few flatpaks is still smaller than my Windows install.

3
I use it whenever possible, for its easy sandboxing. I've also been bui lding my own sandboxing solution based on Bubblewrap, for things not on Flathub. Maybe I should learn how to build flatpaks locally, instead...

2
They work pretty well. I use them on all my desktop systems and a phone. Great so far. Of course I use which ever has the newer version.

2
They are great, specially if you are in an immutable distro

2
- specially if you are in an immutable distro
  
  they are best used in immutable distros
  
  2
Overall works well. Sizing is a bit large but can be worth it for the universal distribution.

Allows for more software to get out there.

1
I have not had a need to seriously use flatpaks so far. The software i use is either available as a system package, or is a selfcontained binary i can manage myself.

1
When I've needed permissions closer to a native package (i.e. fewer security safeguards) Flatpak was the only one between that, Snaps, and AppImage to let me do what I needed to do.

1

You've viewed 28 comments.