I’m a big fan of the idea of sandboxed apps. Flatpak is not great as it compromises sandboxing for compatibility (both with distros and apps) and also it’s quite stagnant now. But there are no other options anyway, so I use it.
Not a fan for a few reasons. Flathub (as far as I know) works on the app store model where developers offer their own builds to users, which is probably appealing to people coming from the Windows world who view distros as unnecessary middlemen, but in the GNU/Linux world the distro serves an important role as a sort of union of users; they make sure the software works in the distro environment, resolve breakages, and remove any anti-features placed in there by the upstream developers.
The sandboxing is annoying too, but understandable.
Despite this I will resort to a flatpak if I’m too lazy to figure out how to package something myself.
I need OBS on this new computer!
Let’s install the flatpack!
V4l problems
Plugins Problems
Wayland Problems
I’m just going back to the .deb, thanks.
Flatpak being securely sandboxed by default is both its biggest strength and its worst point of contention. The XDG is still scrambling to replicate the permission requests paradigm from Android on the Linux desktop.
Size and gnome/GTK dependencies are main reasons why I don’t use Flatpaks (I have nothing against gnome though, it just pulls in too much and KDE is worse in this regards, which is why I use Sway and River)
Perhaps ironically, this is mocking a strawman. Flatpacks can be installed and managed using the terminal! Not only that but Linux-Distros have had graphical package managers for decades.
The primary reason that distros have embraced flatpack / snap / appimage is that they promise to lower the burden of managing software repositories. The primary reason that some users are mad is that these often don’t provide a good experience:
- they are often slower to install/start/run
- they have trouble integrating with the rest of the system (ignoring gtk/qt themes for example)
- they take a lot more space and bandwidth
Theoretically they are also more secure… But reality of that has also been questioned. Fine grained permissions are nice, but bundling libraries makes it hard to know what outdated libraries are running on the systems.
Not.
While I wouldn’t want flakpak going deep into the OS I think the advantage of using them on the desktop is obvious. Developers can release to multiple dists from a single build and end users get updates and versions immediately rather than waiting for the dist to update its packages. Plus the ability to lock the software down with sandboxes.
The tradeoff is disk consumption but it’s not really that big of a deal. Flatpaks are layered so apps can share dependencies. e.g. if the app is GNOME it can share the GNOME runtime with other apps and doesn’t need to ship with its own.
FTFY: Flatpaks are layered so apps can share dependencies. e.g. if the app is GNOME 4.2.11.3 it can share the GNOME 4.2.11.3 runtime with other apps and doesn’t need to ship with its own, but every app requires a different GNOME version anyway
As long as software is available in the Software Manager to be installed that way… I don’t care what format it’s in.
But don’t make normies go to the terminal. It’s inhumane, and really does not help the masses get away from big tech - which is a worthier goal than keeping your software terminal-only.
flatpaks are fine and useful, i just wish we didn’t move into a scenario where applications that used to be easily available in distro repos start moving away from them and are only available through flatpaks. distro packages are just so much more efficient in every way. flatpaks are easier on maintainers and developers but that comes at a cost to the user. i have about a dozen or less flatpak apps installed and already i have to download at least 2 gigs of updates each week. i run debian
I’m happy to use Flatpaks but the annoyances I’ve had are like when one application says to use you’ll need to point to the binary of another application that it depends on but very understandably doesn’t package together, figuring that out to me can be annoying so I’ll switch to a regular installation and it all just works together no fuss, no flatseal, no thinking about it really. Also some applications where it’s really nice to launch from the terminal especially with arguments or just like the current working directory and with Flatpaks instead of just right off the bat it’s application name and hit enter, Flatpak hope you remember the whole package name
org.wilson.spalding.runner.knife.ApplicationName …
Ya alias but got to remember to do that. So far anything I’d ever want to run from terminal, no Flatpak
It’s a neat concept. The distro-agnostic aspect is definitely a plus for some people but I still prefer distro-specific installation methods. The only time I would seek out the Flatpak version of a particular software is when it’s the only version available.
I’m 2 months into my Linux journey and I don’t use flatpak. I’ve had the odd problem with it. I stick to pacman and yay now.
The issue I have with flatpaks is the size for most applications. It just doesn’t make sense for me. Not that it’s not useful and has it’s purposes.
and has it’s purposes
Unlike that apostrophe.
Fast storage is one of the cheapest components of modern PCs so I’m always surprised when Flatpak file size is brought up. It’s not something I worry about very much.
Flatpaks aim to be a middle ground between dependency hell and “let’s pull in the universe” bloat.
Applications packaged as Flatpaks can reference runtimes to share “bases” with other applications, and then provide their own libraries if they need anything bespoke on top of that.
And they are still, in my experience, slow to load, a cumbersome addition to the update process, and often un-necessary.
Don’t get me wrong, if you’re in a tight spot and can’t make two significant software packages work in a distribution due to conflicting library version requirements… some kind of lightweight container solution is attractive, expedient, and better than just not supporting one of the packages. But, my impression is that a lot of stuff has been moved into flatpak / snap / etc. just because they can. I don’t think it’s the best, or even preferred, way to maintain software - for the desktop environment.
(Returns to checking on his Docker containers full of server apps on the R-Pi farm…)
I’m running an immutable distro at the moment (GNOME OS), and I felt no loss of performance due to Flatpaks. Snaps, on the other hand, do have a perceivably longer launch time.
Given that it’s an immutable distro, everything I need needs to be either a Flatpak, a Snap, an Appimage or an extracted tarball, otherwise it runs in a container. The advantage of this system is stability and making the host incorruptible, as well as the ability to very easily roll back updates or failed systemd-sysext layers.
Not everything can run in a Flatpak at the moment, but we’re hoping the evolution in Flatpak, XDG portals as well as encouraging developers to use the available XDG portals can make this a possibility someday. Namely, IDEs don’t run that well in a Flatpak, but GNOME Builder has proven that it’s 100% possible with the currently available XDG portals as well as connecting your IDE or editor to a container.
Not mocking: can you share any good guides to practical immutable systems?
What I observed of Ubuntu Core made a strong “not ready for prime time, and even if it was I don’t want it” impression on me.
Ubuntu Core, based on Snaps, is very much not ready for prime time IMO. It’s kind of a mess outside of server use.
Look instead at Fedora Silverblue, Vanilla OS, and for the bleeding edge of immutable systems, GNOME OS.
KDE is about to launch their analogue to GNOME OS relatively shortly, named “Project Banana”. These two are not exactly distros as they do not distribute the kernel, they are simply platforms that layer a bunch of images together to create a stable, reproducible system. There’s also OpenSuSE Aeon, but I don’t like its style of immutability as it’s immutable by rootfs lock-out rather than immutable by image.
As for advice, learn how to use Distrobox / Toolbx containers. If you’re a developer, this is where you will be working.
Immutable Linux is still young, and a lot of software isn’t written with it in mind, so expect some growing pains.
I’m on silverblue, well, bluefin, specifically.
So far so happy 🤷♂️
Thanks. In the past I have worked in Slackware, and even had Gentoo on my home system for a couple of years, but otherwise I’ve been fully saturated in Debian and its children - so that’s my “comfort zone.” I used to like KDE, but drifted away from it when I got a 4K screen notebook and KDE hadn’t figured out resolution scaling yet, while Ubuntu/Unity had. I never quite warmed up to GNOME, but definitely have done my time with it. XFCE has matured enough for me to daily drive it without too much pain now, and I love the ways it can be de-featured (don’t want a launcher bar? Don’t run it, nothing else breaks.)
Server-side, I have been filling my Raspberry Pis with Docker containers for a while now… it’s not completely alien, but I do kind of tend to “set it and forget it” when it comes to container deployments.
I’ve never heard anyone say that Flatpaks could result in losing access to the terminal.
My only problem with Flatpaks are the lack of digital signature, neither from the repository nor the uploader. Other major package managers do use digital signatures, and Flatpaks should too.
Nah, it’s the same as with systemd, docker, immutable distros etc. Some people just don’t appreciate the added complexity for features they don’t need/use and prefer to opt out. Then the advocates come, take not using their favorite software as a personal insult and make up straw-men to ridicule and argue against. Then the less enlightened of those opting out will get defensive and let themselves get dragged into the argument. 90% that’s the way these flame wars get started and not the other way around.
For the record, I use flatpak on all my desktops, it’s great, and all of the other mentioned things in some capacity, but I get why someone might want to not use them. Let’s not make software choice a tribalism thing please. Love thy neighbor as thyself, unless they use Windows, in which case, kill the bastard. /s
I was just wondering the connection between flatpaks and the terminal because I’ve never heard of flatpaks before and Wikipedia says they’re a sandboxed package management system or something?
As someone who uses Flatpak you can still use the terminal to install, uninstall and do maintenance, not sure why people believe terminal is useless with Flatpak 😞
Flatpaks are containers, same as Snaps, I personally prefer Flatpaks over Snaps, but just my personal choice. I use Flatsweep and Flatseal apps to help administrate Flatpak apps, but use terminal as well 🙂
I’ve no real preference so long as my PC starts stuff. The reason I avoid flatpaks is because I have at some point acquired the habit of anything I install that’s not an appimage I pretty much launch from the terminal and I remember trying flatpaks and them having names like package.package.nameofapp-somethingelse and I can’t keep that in my head.
I’ve actually been discussing the idea of Flatpaks offering “terminal aliases”, similar to what Snaps do, with some people involved in Flatpak. It’s something that could happen in the future, but for now, you can totally create an alias to run a Flatpak from a single word, it’s just a PITA.
Furniture? Integrated circuit packaging?
