As far as I’m concerned Flatpak has won the “universal Linux package manager” war.
Snap is a non-starter because of its proprietary back end, appimage has no distribution or automation built in. Flatpak has its faults (why does it put things in /var of all places?) but it’s the best I’ve seen.
I’d like to add: I think it’s won not by being the best, but being the least worst. I would like to invite whoever came up with that com.flatpak.FlatPak bullshit to consider a career more suited to their skill set than computer programming, such as vagrancy.
I really like flatpak! But it has its limitations. Thats okay!
There is just a space for containerized images of desktop apps that are distro independent. Linus talks about this at a QA, but having a maintrainer for every app and every distro under the sun is just a waste (he used his diving app as an example). Flat park is a good solution for packaging up apps, and it makes sense for stand alone apps that have a lot of moving parts and don’t need to integrate with the rest your intro. Their are basically 5 apps that I use everyday that install through flatpak. Stuff like discord and Joplin.
At the same time, if something is supported through the distro package manager directly, I would rather install through that. Especially for core system components, but also for apps that aren’t really daily drivers for me. I definitely feel like I have to actively maintain flatpak installations, so if I can install without a flatpak, I would rather not. For small apps, especially simple command line apps, their probably isn’t that much maintenance work to get them on the distro anyway.
I don’t really consider myself a power user, so I’ll use flatpak if it’s easy to use and doesn’t block certain features. Otherwise I’ll just look for an appimage or debian package because I already know how to use those.
The biggest issue I see is big labels like “potentially unsafe” and “proprietary” on flathub that scare people away from popular, well trusted non-FOSS software like Discord. At the same time, FOSS-friendlyness is one of the selling points for many people. How can it appease both camps?
Plus, casual users aren’t going to flathub to download programs, they’re downloading from the software site. Since most of the most popular flattpak images are not officially verified by the software owners, nothing is linking to them to increase their popularity.
Yeah, I agree, I don’t like that aspect of flatpak development either. The idea that the containerization is supposed to provide some kind of resistant form of a sandbox that prevents malicious programs from breaking into your system; I don’t buy it.
Look, you need to trust your application sources, there is no way around that. The idea that this is supposed to be a “safer” way to install software than any other package manager is silly.
I still like that flatpak apps are separated from your system and locked to their own dependencies because it makes these apps more portable to different distros. But not for security reasons.
It’s as close to a “universal packaging system” as can get now.
There was a lot of talk back in time, when Ubuntu decided to forcefully shove snaps onto users. The thing is, Ubuntu could have embraced flatpaks like many other distros but it chose snaps which is not ideal for people who like an OS whose primary goals revolve around freedom and privacy. You see, it is the proprietary nature of snaps that gets them this hate.
Appimage and other packaging methods don’t get this hate because they are open source and users have a “choice”. What we are seeing against snaps is the result of forcing people to a choice, ofcourse the people in question are linux users - people who are famous about taking freedom of choice seriously. Yes, you can get ride of snaps on Ubuntu but you can get rid of lot of ads and stuff on windows with a lot of tinkering too - I think you see the point.
Many people tend to have a preference for flatpaks because they do basically what snaps do but better and ofcourse flatpaks fit into the “freedom and privacy” spirit of linux.
We hate it, you must build your own binaries! Sacrifice all convenience for maximum compatibility and security! Don’t know enough to ensure stability or security? Too bad, go use Windows pleb. /s
How does the fediverse feel about flatpak?
As far as I’m concerned Flatpak has won the “universal Linux package manager” war.
Snap is a non-starter because of its proprietary back end, appimage has no distribution or automation built in. Flatpak has its faults (why does it put things in /var of all places?) but it’s the best I’ve seen.
I’d like to add: I think it’s won not by being the best, but being the least worst. I would like to invite whoever came up with that com.flatpak.FlatPak bullshit to consider a career more suited to their skill set than computer programming, such as vagrancy.
I thought the com.flatpak.Appname came from Android, so I guess google is to blame?
/var is really annoying, especially when partitioning, previously I could just have a /var partition, but now I need to do /var/log specifically
I mean doesn’t that come from Java naming conventions? Which then makes sense that it continued on Android… but Why did it end up on FlatPack!?
I will speculate to say that maybe someone looked at the java/android way and thought let’s just copy that.
It’s the most plausible answer I can think of, without doing any research whatsoever
It’s a nice way to get around naming collisions.
Well yeah that’s true
Removed by mod
I really like flatpak! But it has its limitations. Thats okay!
There is just a space for containerized images of desktop apps that are distro independent. Linus talks about this at a QA, but having a maintrainer for every app and every distro under the sun is just a waste (he used his diving app as an example). Flat park is a good solution for packaging up apps, and it makes sense for stand alone apps that have a lot of moving parts and don’t need to integrate with the rest your intro. Their are basically 5 apps that I use everyday that install through flatpak. Stuff like discord and Joplin.
At the same time, if something is supported through the distro package manager directly, I would rather install through that. Especially for core system components, but also for apps that aren’t really daily drivers for me. I definitely feel like I have to actively maintain flatpak installations, so if I can install without a flatpak, I would rather not. For small apps, especially simple command line apps, their probably isn’t that much maintenance work to get them on the distro anyway.
I don’t really consider myself a power user, so I’ll use flatpak if it’s easy to use and doesn’t block certain features. Otherwise I’ll just look for an appimage or debian package because I already know how to use those.
The biggest issue I see is big labels like “potentially unsafe” and “proprietary” on flathub that scare people away from popular, well trusted non-FOSS software like Discord. At the same time, FOSS-friendlyness is one of the selling points for many people. How can it appease both camps?
Plus, casual users aren’t going to flathub to download programs, they’re downloading from the software site. Since most of the most popular flattpak images are not officially verified by the software owners, nothing is linking to them to increase their popularity.
Yeah, I agree, I don’t like that aspect of flatpak development either. The idea that the containerization is supposed to provide some kind of resistant form of a sandbox that prevents malicious programs from breaking into your system; I don’t buy it.
Look, you need to trust your application sources, there is no way around that. The idea that this is supposed to be a “safer” way to install software than any other package manager is silly.
I still like that flatpak apps are separated from your system and locked to their own dependencies because it makes these apps more portable to different distros. But not for security reasons.
It’s as close to a “universal packaging system” as can get now.
There was a lot of talk back in time, when Ubuntu decided to forcefully shove snaps onto users. The thing is, Ubuntu could have embraced flatpaks like many other distros but it chose snaps which is not ideal for people who like an OS whose primary goals revolve around freedom and privacy. You see, it is the proprietary nature of snaps that gets them this hate.
Appimage and other packaging methods don’t get this hate because they are open source and users have a “choice”. What we are seeing against snaps is the result of forcing people to a choice, ofcourse the people in question are linux users - people who are famous about taking freedom of choice seriously. Yes, you can get ride of snaps on Ubuntu but you can get rid of lot of ads and stuff on windows with a lot of tinkering too - I think you see the point.
Many people tend to have a preference for flatpaks because they do basically what snaps do but better and ofcourse flatpaks fit into the “freedom and privacy” spirit of linux.
Solid choice
We hate it, you must build your own binaries! Sacrifice all convenience for maximum compatibility and security! Don’t know enough to ensure stability or security? Too bad, go use Windows pleb. /s
I see why it exists but avoid it (and all other universal package formats) like the plague. Never had a good experience with it.
Fixes every issue with Snap and has a big company behind it to keep it developing.
I like Flatpak. It does what it needs to and I rarely, if ever, have issues with Flatpak apps. It’s night and day compared to Snap.