Fan of Flatpaks ...or Not?

https://lemmy.zip/post/43359574

?? I manage flatpaks exclusively in the terminal
i had a hard time getting used to them but now i love them in mint i can switch between the package version and flatpak version and usually the fp one is more updated
On the other hand each flatpak uses >1Gb of disk where deb packages rarely require more than 100Mb
See, I only use flatpaks sparingly for this reason, but in some cases they’re indispensable when you don’t want an application to access certain parts of your system. The sandboxing is what makes them useful, in my opinion. For everything else, there’s the deb packages.

I love installing things from the CLI and prefer to only do it that way but Linux needs a single click install method for applications if it’s ever going to become a mainstream OS. The average person just wants to Google a program, hit download and install. If not that then they want to use a mobile-like App Store.

Flatpak is kind of perfect at achieving both those things

OpenSUSE has OneClick install for RPMs. en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:One_Click_Install

Edit: and if you happen to download an rpm, you just double click it in the filemanager (or single click if that is your setting) and it launces the install GUI.

Its similar to how MSI file install looks…just next next finish kind of thing

openSUSE:One Click Install - openSUSE Wiki

For sure and I agree that should be enough but the average person is not good with computers and they don’t want to learn. They won’t understand the nuances of different distributions of Linux. Like try explaining the difference between a .deb, a .tar.gz, and a .rpm to a person who’s already hésitent about using Linux. Flatpak solves that by just having one download that any Linux install can use
Those mystical average people would probably stay on Windows, if they don’t care or cannot learn basics of other systems. Its really not hard to explain and understand, even for “average person” that there is an universal source for applications and there are packages designed and managed by your operating system. I think its important for people to learn basics and we should teach them, not dumb them down like on Windows. Soon people won’t be able to eat themselves anymore…
They always seem to have some critical limitation. Handbrake is too slow via flatpak to work. Flatpak Zoom had no camera access. Flatpak-only Zen browser can’t use passkeys. Zen browser asks to be my default browser every time I open it, even though it is and I always say yes; is this a flatpak limitation? I don’t know, and I’d prefer not to have to figure it out just for some theoretical benefits and more overhead.

Flatpak Zoom had no camera access.

I used Flatpak Zoom for all my job interviews recently. Camera and mic worked flawlessly.

Flatpak Zen Browser is never asking me to be the default. Maybe it did in the beginning but I don’t remember.
Flatpak Firefox does that for me

Flatpak have their own set of issues. One thing is, that Flatpak applications do not integrate that easily and perfect like a native package. Either rights are to given, you need to know what rights are needed and how to set it up. Theming can be an issue, because it uses its own libraries in the Flatpak eco system instead your current distributions theme and desktop environment.

But on the other hand, they have actually a permission system and are a little bit sandbox compared to normal applications. Packages often are distributed quickly and are up to date directly from the developers, and usually are not installed with root rights.

I’m pretty much a CLI guy as well and prefer native packages (Arch based, plus the AUR). But I also use Flatpaks for various reasons, alongside with AppImages.

I’d take a well-maintained native package for my distro over a Flatpak, but sometimes, a Flatpak is just the the easiest way to get the latest version of an application working on Debian without too much tinkering - not always no tinkering, but better than nothing.

This is especially true of GIMP - Flatpak GIMP + Resynthesizer feels like the easiest way to experience GIMP these days. Same with OBS - although I have to weather the Flatpak directory structure, plugins otherwise feel easier to get working than the native package. The bundled runtimes are somewhat annoying, but I’m also not exactly hurting for storage at the moment - I could probaby do to put more of my 2 TB main SSD to use.

I usually just manage Flatpaks from the terminal, though I often have to refresh myself on application URLs. I somewhat wish one could set nicknames so they need not remember the full name.

I prefer Arch Linux’s use of flatpaks, which is none at all ever
Joke’s on you, I use Flatpaks on Arch
Why, it’s totally unnecessary.
i have a couple on arch also, mostly because of dependency issues breaking the program and it being a pain in the ass to fix
Which ones? Everything in the arch main repos are compiled for your system, and most things in the AUR can either be built from source, or have -bin installs.
Mostly because of detailed and easy permissions, and also because I have other distibutions on my other computers and want my programs to be consistent everywhere - same programs, same version.
My favorite part of the linux experience is the FREEDOM, but also being talked down to for not using my freedom correctly, I should only do things a specific way or I might as well just use windows.

It’s extremely context-dependent.

If we’re talking about enterprise-grade, five-nines reliability: I want the absolute simplest, bare-bones, stripped down, optimized infra I can get my hands on.

If we’re talking about my homelab or whatever else non-critical system: I’m gonna fuck around and play with whatever I feel like.

Flatpaks are pretty great for getting the latest software without having to have a cutting edge rolling release distro or installing special repos and making sure stuff doesn’t break down the line.

I use Flatpaks for my software that I need the latest and greatest version of, and my distros native package for CLI apps and older software that I don’t care about being super up to date.

My updater script handles all of it in one action anyways, so no biggie on that either.

Flatpaks are the best all-in-one solution when compared to Appimages or Snaps imo.

Certainly a fan, and I don’t understand the hate towards it.

Flatpaks are my preferred way of installing Linux apps, unless it is a system package, or something that genuinely requires extensive permissions like a VPN client, or something many other apps depend on like Wine.

The commonly cited issues with Flatpaks are:

  • Performance. Honestly, do you even care if your Pomodoro timer app takes up 1 more megabyte of RAM? Do you actually notice?
  • Bloat. Oh, yes, an app now takes 20 MB instead of 10 MB. Again, does anybody care?
  • Slower and larger updates. Could be an issue for someone on a metered traffic, or with very little time to do updates. Flatpaks update in the background, though, and you typically won’t notice the difference unless you need something newest now (in which case you’ll have to wait an extra minute)
  • Having to check permissions. This is a feature, not a bug. For common proponents of privacy and security, Linuxheads grew insanely comfortable granting literally every maintainer full access to their system. Flatpaks intentionally limit apps functionality to what is allowed, and if in some case defaults aren’t good for your use case - just toggle a switch in Flatseal, c’mon, you don’t need any expertise to change it.

What you gain for it? Everything.

  • Full control over app’s permissions. Your mail client doesn’t need full system permissions, and neither do your messengers. Hell, even your backup client only needs to access what it backs up.
  • All dependencies built in. You’ll never have to face dependency hell, ever, no matter what. And you can be absolutely sure the app is fully featured and you won’t have to look for missing nonessential dependencies.
  • Fully distro-agnostic. If something works on my EndeavourOS, it will work on my OpenSUSE Slowroll, and on my Debian 12. And it will be exactly the same thing, same version, same features. It’s beautiful.
  • Stability. Flatpaks are sandboxed, so they don’t affect your system and cannot harm it in any way. This is why immutable distros feature Flatpaks as the main application source. Using them with mutable distributions will also greatly enhance stability.

Alternatives?

AppImages don’t need an installation, so they are nice to see what the program is about. But for other uses, they are garbage-tier. Somehow they manage both not to integrate with the system and not be sandboxed, you need manual intervention or additional tools to at least update them/add to application menu, and ultimately, they depend on one file somewhere. This is extremely unreliable and one should likely never use AppImages for anything but “use and delete”.

Snaps…aside from all the controversy about Snap Store being proprietary and Ubuntu shoving snaps down people’s throats, they were just never originally developed with desktop applications in mind. As a result, Snaps are commonly so much slower and bulkier that it actually starts getting very noticeable. Permissions are also way less detailed, meaning you can’t set apps up with minimum permissions for your use case.

This all leaves us with one King:

And it is Flatpak.

Flatpaks, appimages, snaps, etc: why download dependencies once when you can download them every time and bloat your system? Also, heaving to list installed flatpaks and run them is dumb too, why aren’t they proper executables? “flatpak run com.thisIsDumb.fuckinEh” instead of just ./fuckinEh

No thanks. I’ll stick to repos and manually compiling software before I seek out a flatpak or the like.

This shit is why hobbies and things should be gatekept. Just look at how shit PC design is these days. Now they’re coming after the OS.

As I said, dependencies typically don’t take that much space. We’re not in the '80s, I can spare some megabytes to ensure my system runs smoothly and is managed well.

As per naming, I agree, but barely anyone uses command line to install Flatpaks, as they are primarily meant for desktop use. In GUI, Flatpaks are shown as any other package, and all it takes is to push “Install” button.

If you want to enjoy your chad geeky Linux, you still can. Go for CachyOS, or anything more obscure, never to use Flatpaks again. At the same time, let others use what is good and convenient to them.

Do all laptops users have this option? Also you keep saying megabytes when it’s never just a few megabytes. It downloads atleast a few gbs worth of data just for one gui app.

Please clarify, what option do you mean? Flatpaks are supported on any Linux system, it doesn’t matter what distro or hardware. Or if you mean sparing some megabytes - typically yes as well. The smallest amount of memory I’ve seen on a laptop is 32gb, and typically it’s no less than 250gb.

If it’s not present in you distributions’ app store, you can either enable it somewhere or download another app manager like Discover, GNOME Software, or pamac if you’re on Arch.

If installation of some app incurs a few gbs of downloads, it is likely that your system updates packages alongside installing your app. Typical Flatpak app takes 10-150 megabytes.

Every gb matters on a 250gb laptop lol
Gigabyte - sure, but it’s not typical for a flatpak to bring so many heavy dependencies.

The few things I don’t like about flatpaks (which become a problem on atomic distros that use almost all flatpak by design):

  • Some types of embedded development is essentially impossible with flatpaks. Try getting the J-link software connected with nrftools and then everything linked to VScodium/codeoss

  • Digital signing simply doesn’t work, won’t work for the foreseeable future, and is not planned to get working,

  • Flatpaks sometimes have bugs for no reasons when their package-manager counterparts don’t (e.g. in KiCAD 8.0, the upper 20% or so of dialog boxes were unclickable with the mouse, but I could select and modify them with the keyboard, only the flatpak version)

  • The status on whether it is still being actively developed or not (at least I hear a fair amount of drama surrounding it)

But besides those small things, it seem great to me.

Thanks for the input! Yes, there are still certain issues with Flatpaks (for me it was aforementioned VPNs which also don’t work through Distrobox, and it would be quite odd anyway). But overall, they manage most apps well, just as you say.
Well a 10mb app could take 20 but what about a 1gb one?

It would take 1,01gb

Dependencies typically take 5-80 megabytes of space.

That’s just not true. I used to use flatpak and it would download nvidia drivers for each one.

Huh?

Either it did something it shouldn’t, or the system updated Nvidia drivers every time for no apparent reason. I have an Nvidia GPU, running proprietary drivers, and haven’t ever witnessed anything of the kind.

Gimp is a gigabyte larger as a flatpak

Wow that’s actually big difference, thanks for bringing it up!

Good news, though, is that you are free to install Gimp as a native package, and use Flatpaks for the rest.

That’s made up, GIMP is like 90MB you can see it listed on the website and confirm it by installing it: flathub.org/apps/org.gimp.GIMP
Install GNU Image Manipulation Program on Linux | Flathub

Create images and edit photographs

Flathub - Apps for Linux
Sunsetting Cursed Terminal Emulation

This is the final part concluding the long journey on how to migrate away from terminal emulation as the main building block for command-lines, text-dominant shells and user interfaces in general. …

Arcan

Flatpaks are great for situations where installing software is unnecessary complex or complicated.

I have Steam installed for some games, and since this is a 32 bits application it would install a metric shit-don of 32 bit dependencies I do not use for anything else except Steam, so I use the Flatpak version.

Or Kdenlive for video editing. Kdenlive is the only KDE software I use but when installing it, it feels like due to dependencies I also get pretty much all of the KDE desktop’s applications I do not need nor use nor want on my machine. So Flatpak it is.

And then there is software like OBS, which is known for being borderline unusable when not using the only officially supported way to use it on Linux outside of Ubuntu – which is Flatpak.

And then there is software like OBS, which is known for being borderline unusable when not using the only officially supported way to use it on Linux outside of Ubuntu – which is Flatpak.

But why is that? I mean just because it is packaged by someone else does not mean its unusable. So its not the package formats issue, but your distribution packaging it wrong. Right? In installed the Flatpak version, because they developers recommended it to me. I’m not sure why the Archlinux package should be unusable (and I don’t want to mess around with it, because I don’t know what part is unusable).

But why is that?

Because the OBS developers say so.

And since I’m not on Ubuntu, I use the Flatpak version to get OBS as intended bey the OBS developers.

So its not the package formats issue, but your distribution packaging it wrong. Right?

Exactly. Most distributions fail hard when it comes to packaging OBS correctly. The OBS devs even threatened to sue Fedora over this.

gitlab.com/fedora/sigs/flatpak/…/39#note_23449708…

Broken OBS Studio Flatpak presented as official package (#39) · Issues · Fedora / Special Interest Groups (SIGs) / Fedora Flatpak SIG / Fedora Flatpaks · GitLab

The unofficial OBS Studio Flatpak on Fedora Flatpaks is, seemingly, poorly packaged and broken, leading to users complaining upstream thinking they are...

GitLab

The quoted image does not say so, they do not say the native packaging from your distribution is borderline unusable. That judgement was added by YOU. The devs just state the package on Archlinux is not officially supported, without making a judgement (at least in the quoted image).

As for the Fedora issue, that is a completely different thing. That is also Flatpak, so its not the package format itself the issue. Fedora did package the application in Flatpak their own way and presented it as the official product. That is a complete different issue! That has nothing to do with Archlinux packaging their own native format. Archlinux never said or presented it as the official package either and it does not look like the official Flatpak version.

So where does the developers say that anything that is not their official Flatpak package is “borderline unusable”?

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.

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.

Can someone explain why flatpak isn’t necessary for distros that have proper OS dependency management like Arch-based distros or Nix?

Seems like flatpak is solving a problem for OS’s that don’t have proper dependency management.

You answered your own question. Arch and Nix solve the same problem Flatpak solves, but by using better dependency management. Flatpak’s main proposition is built-in sandboxing and convenience, but if you’re on an “expert” oriented distro like Arch (btw), you probably don’t care as much about those “freebies.”
In that case flatpak is basically a hack for OS’s with broken or improper dependency manangement systems. Either those OS’s should fix their broken systems, or ppl should move to OS’s that do it properly, as that’s one of the most important functions of your OS anyway.
What’s a flatpak? Is that like a worse NixOS package? I prefer NixOS, BTW.
Could things like this go in linuxmemes? Memes are fun but it would be nice to keep this a place for actual information. And no, this is not a comment on what it’s saying, I’m just tired of so many memes.
I use SystemD binary Gentoo with Flatpaks. Sue me.
Watch out we’ve got a flatass over here
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.

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.