Flatpak can look daunting...
Flatpak can look daunting...
Disclaimer
Flatpak uses OSTree, like Fedora Atomic Desktops (Silverblue, Kinoite etc) and similar to BTRFS snapshots.
So many files are deduplicated and linked, not actually there
https://gitlab.com/TheEvilSkeleton/flatpak-dedup-checker
50GB without
31GB with deduplication
21,4GB with BTRFS compression
A lot of that data doesn't actually exist, ostree hardlinks data blobs internally, so the actual size on disk is much smaller than most disk usage tools will show.
43Thanks! The same goes for ostree system versions and BTRFS snapshots probably.
I have a similar problem with virt-manager and I think that doesnt create dynamically allocated qcow2 containers?
14What does "ostree hardlinks data blobs internally" mean?
7Flatpak uses OSTree - a git-like system for storing and transferring binary data (commonly referred to as 'blobs'), and that system works by addressing such blobs by hashes of their content, using Linux hardlinks (multiple inodes all referring to the same disk blocks) to refer to the same data everywhere it's used.
So basically, whenever Flatpak tells OSTree to download something, it will only ever store only copy of that same object (.so-file, binary, font, etc), regardless of how many times it's used by applications across the install.
Note that this only happens internally in the OSTree repo - i.e./var/lib/flatpakor~/.local/share/flatpak, so if you have multiple separate Flatpak installations on your system then they can't automagically de-duplicate data between each other.17
https://gitlab.com/TheEvilSkeleton/flatpak-dedup-checker
here a script to compare the size without or with deduplication
28Thanks!
50GB without 31GB with deduplication 21,4GB with BTRFS compressionAnd I have to say I have many apps. Not as many anymore, and no EOL runtimes apart Onionshare anymore.
15
I think at one point I had like 2.5 tb of stuff stored on my 2 tb drive in my laptop, deduplication and btrfs compression is fun
18Permanently Deleted
17What distros are you talking about? Even if install all available DEs, any distro will take ~10 GiB or a bit more. Default installation is much smaller.
5I remember at the past my allready running distros were always 20-24gb. With allready most apps installed. Like Mint and Workstation. Maybe my memory is not that good and I am wrong.. I actually can not say how much is my current Silverblue now, somewhere around 20gb.
What I wanted to say, Flatpaks sure pull dependencies, but with lots of Flatpaks your next app will be small, like 2gb or maybe 800kb. With atomic distros Flatpaks make even more sense.
0
Flatlack is weird. Sometimes it's really good, but then other times depending on what you install it really bloons up.
7Those are unmaintained apps and you probably shouldnt use them. Poorly this is not as obvious and cant be enforced.
2One gotcha is installing both as user and root, getting two sets of dependencies. I only found out after a year or so of consciously using flatpak.
I'm now taking care to make sure I only use flatpak as root. Maybe not the most secure.
1
Removing /repo is not considered safe, but I just removed its contents anyways and then just ran a repair.
That actually resulted in more available disk space than after running the garbage collection.
And my flatpak apps still work 🤷♀️
6Why use flatpak?
5Because its a modern package system that is free, focused on making every app run, has isolation, sandboxing and a permission system
26And brings the most recent version of something to any system. I'm astounded sometimes by how much a native package can lag behind
18
Convenient libraries/frameworks are fat. Because they are fat, they need frequent updates/security fixes, breaking codebase more often. With flatpack, developers can freeze lib versions at a convenient point, without caring for system dependencies.
4Because has many advantages
1
That's why I think AppImage is the best. Despite needing to pack everything it needs it's always far more lightweight than flatpak. I'd rather download a 50mb appimage than several gigabytes of an entire OS libraries and then the updates requiring roughly the same size. That and I have a shitty internet
2TBH I dislike Appimage purely because I can't be bothered to go and check them all individually for new versions all the time, it feels like being on Windows again. I don't mind a little bloat for the sake of convenience. But that's just personal preference of course.
13There was an app that dealt with this but it's since been abandoned.
4
I dont think that is true at all. Appimages are slowest and have many disadvantages like
- no repo (= virus danger)
- no app desktop entry
- no updates
- no deduplication of libraries
8I always use the app image if they are available. As for being slow I never noticed.
No app desktop entry is one on the reasons I like them. If its one I use a lot I make a hotkey to open it. But there are ways to add them. There is even a tool that makes its easy to do.
No updates. I'm not sure how exactly, but everyone I use auto updates when I open them. I originally had a issue of it breaking my hotkey cause the file name would change because of the version number going up. Which I fixed by using a *.
5There was an app that dealt with desktop entry and auto-update but it hasn't bee updated since a few years already.
no repo (= virus danger)
Can be remedied with an official store/ being distrubuted by the devs themselves instead of random people. Appimage isn't getting a tenth of the support flatpak is getting.
no deduplication of libraries
Might worth it if you have dozens of very heavy apps but it's totally not the case if you only need a few simple programs.
2
I have all apps I use daily in the appimage format. Yesterday I decided to try btrfs for my root partition and did my annual Linux reinstall. All my apps were already there and ready for work from the start.
I also have a usb flashdrive always on me with the same appimages. Just in case I'd wipe a hard drive by accident and wouldn't have an internet connection or something like that (in case of emergencies). You can't do this with flatpaks or snaps.7In my experience updates aren't that big. The flatpak cli ux is just confusing to read how much data actually has to be downloaded because of deduplication.
2I have like 4 gigs of flatpak updates I keep unchecking because at my horrible internet speed it would take the entire day if not more to download. Honestly, if you're right then this is a horrendous design flaw.
1
I fell for the lie of flatpak not being bloated, I just nuked flatpak from my PC since I just run arch anyways. Im not sure if repo is safe to remove. You might be able to run
rmlint -gand see how much data can be deduplicated on an FS level, I never checked myself since I run f2fs, but if you run an FS with dedupe capabilities it may work for you.0Flatpak uses ostree just as my system. So probably lots of the files are already deduplicated and it is not as dramatic as it seems.
4I am aware of that, but even with it there's still a decent amount of waste.
2