Flatpak WON! | The Race for Universal Packaging on the Linux Desktop
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ธ.ค. 2023
- In this week's video, I explore the three main universal packaging standards and how Flatpak has seemed (at least to me) to dominate the desktop Linux space over the alternatives AppImages and Snap packages.
Links:
Affiliate link to Hostinger hosting: www.hostg.xyz/SH6zz
Donate here...thanks: bit.ly/MOO4KG
Watch on Odysee/LBRY.tv: odysee.com/@infinitelygalactic:b
Sign up to Dropbox: db.tt/Qg1VIS9T
Facebook: / ingalactic
Blog: infinitelygalactic.blogspot.com/
Twitter: #!/ingalactic - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[FULL EP.13] เซียนหรั่ง พา ไททศมิตร ลงเรือฝึกสกิลหว่านแห | เฮ็ดอย่างเซียนหรั่ง | One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EWFuf2Av0K0/mqdefault.jpg)
The momentum towards Flatpak definetly seems to have gotten strong enough, that it's gonna be hard to reverse.
I also feel much more comfortable with Flatpak because I could just host my own repository, if Flathub disagrees to host apps, because of copyright issues or mature content.
@@AquaFyrrewhat the fuck?
You must be a hacker keen on hosting your own flatpak and .exe repositories.
Why don't you start now?
I agree with you. I’ve seen flatpak embraced on more distros as well. The implementation does feel more effortless and integrated.
Not the number of distros counts, but the number of users and Ubuntu has 34% of the Linux market and many users are only using deb or rpm files.
I wanted to like Snap and I’ve tried a lot. Flatpak just integrates and works better and the app launch feels a lot more responsive or at least that is my experience over the years. Flatpak and appimage are the way to go for me
Same. I use exclusively flatpaks. Even some preinstalled software on distros, I uninstall and install flatpak version. If there is no flatpak version, then use AppImage, and if that is not available, then I use native package. I don't even check if there is snap. Right now on my computer I have 64 flatpaks and 2 AppImages.
Flatpak is the place to go for me. If I need to refresh my Linux distro or switch to a different distro, I backup the .var folder that contains all of my app settings.
As long as neither snap nor flatpak has solved the problem with native messaging, none of them can be the winner. They are both simply unusable for far to many use cases. As long as Firefox and Inkscape cannot properly communicate with system applications, they are - for me at least - largely useless.
I even switched to an Arch-based distro, which - thanks to the AUR - still provides proper packages with full capabilities. Now I can do normal things again, like:
- use firefox with keepassxc,
- insert latex equations into inkscape,
- open files on my second ssd with vlc.
I had more problems than that during my flatpak testing, this is only what comes to mind immediately.
Snap does have native messaging. The portal for it hasn't been merged yet so flatpak doesn't have it as of now.
@@that_leaflet Interesting. So, what's stopping keeppassxc from working with the Snap version of Firefox? The developer forums considered missing native messaging the reason.
But it is - of course - not only native messaging, which are responsible for the restricted functionality of so many snap / flatpak apps.
I agree. I'm a noob and dealing with native packages is so messy. I hate when I click on some icon and click Show details and I'm not presented with store page to uninstall it but with some error about some package that's missing for God knows which reason.
Flatpaks are so easy to manage. I'm fine with runtimes take some additional storage.
As you mentioned, the biggest change in recent years has been the ability to not worry so much about which distro I choose to use as long as I can use Flatpak. As you also mentioned, software availability was one of my greatest challenges in the past. It's not a perfect solution since I still need to use software that hasn't (yet?) made its way to Flathub and not every piece of software works well in the constraints of a containerized environment. I use more appimages than you do, partially because that's how the developers choose to package their software but also because they are sometime the more stable option (i.e. like kdenlive as you mentioned). As you can tell from the number of time I used "as you mentioned", we're on the same page. It's nice to have the validation that my experience isn't unique. Thanks for the video!
My only concern with Flatpak is that it's moving away from what Unix has been about since its inception: compulsory authentication when you update, install or remove. It would be perfect if authentication were back in its rightful place.
Can you elaborate how that is a negative? I love the fact that I can install flatpaks into my home as a user and don't need to touch the root filesystem anymore, aside from core system updates. This separation is similar to what Android and iOS have.
@@LinuxTorvalds In an immutable environment, this wouldn't be a problem. Except for personal use, i.e. outside a work environment, we'd be sure that no malicious code could alter the system. Flatpak is capable of preloading updates without the user's consent, so if tomorrow there's a flaw that allows us to go even further, we could lose the user part. What's more, since you don't install 50 Flatpaks every day, I don't think it's a problem to authenticate yourself, even as a user. As a disabled person suffering from cognitive disorders, being sure of having initiated the request is a prerequisite for me.
>what Unix has been about since its inception
no... UNIX never had 'package managers' - With UNIX systems you'd load programs from tape archives (tar) and build them with cc. You would do this on a user account. Package managers are a concept that has been around since the early days of Linux - but not all of them required root. Many today do not either - including flatpak.
The reason Flatpak doesn't require a root password is because it is not writing to directories owned by the root of system. instead flatpaks install a sandbox environment under ~/.var/apps (your home folder). This means even if the flatpak application was attacked and by some super hacker zero day magic - could break out of the container - they would only have user level permissions. Flatpak is OBJECTIVELY more secure in pretty much every way. Doing package management as the root of the system is what's obscenely insecure.
@@TheEricDangerous
>Flatpak is capable of preloading updates without the user's consent,
that's true for snaps but not flatpaks - you need to manually update flatpaks with: flatpak update
@@shady4tv But snaps are only updating from the snap store. Installing flatpaks is as secure as installing .exe files.
One of the things that I don't think people mention often enough is that the wide availability of flatpaks makes it a lot more bearable to use "stable" distros and still get up-to-date software. I've transitioned to using debian stable on my laptops now, with flatpaks for browsers and other user-facing apps. It's really a great blend of stability and usability.
Flatpak apps themselves aren't really all that large - around the same size as a normal repository version of the app. It's all the runtimes (which are shared among your Flatpak apps, so don't get downloaded multiple times) you need to create the distro-within-a-distro that Flatpak really is that takes up all the room. The problem is that when you start the download of a Flatpak app, it sometimes shows the download size for all the runtimes it uses, even when it's not actually downloading them.
If I were good at scripting, I'd whip up something that calculates the total size of the dependency chains for both a Flatpak and a repository version of a named app. :)
I am glad hear it. Flatpaks need downloadable installers like .deb packages. Flatpaks have huge advantage because they're like windows installers but better because you get app and all dependencies in one. They can use bit of polishing. They may bring windows users to linux if they can behave like windows apps when it comes to download and installation.
@@raughboy188 you can actually get .flatpak files, so it's rather a flathub UI preference than flatpak capability, but in essence .flatpakref is better since even with those deb files you'll have to get the dependencies -> needs internet connection, which is similar for flatpak runtimes (unless we'll make sure every distro has them by default) so you might as well get all of it that way.
@@raughboy188, I think Flatpak has such files. They are in flatpakref format and although the file is just a link for installation that gets opened in app store application, considering that most users have internet connection, that should be sufficient.
@@raughboy188 You already have installers the flatpakref files, same as deb it does not contain dependencies so you need internet anyways and so does it matter that it does not contain the app itself but download that too?
@@raughboy188 That and backwards compatibility is also nice thing. So i can run old apps that might be abandoned or simply lighter then their up to date versions.
Don't know much about Snap or AppImage but the latter introduced me to Universal Packaging. As I'm a Mint User, it's 100% FlatPak for me. FlatPak comes with Flatseal in which you can configure your Flatpak applications. Hope you will do a video on Flatseal!
The thing I really like about Linux Mint is when you create a launcher for an AppImage it automatically asks if you'd like a Start Menu entry. Also super convenient that from said Start/Application Menu you can right click the application and choose to uninstall. This will not only delete the launcher but it will also go through and clear the AppImage out of whatever folder you stuck it in. Cinnamon has been one of my favorite DEs since I started using Linux and I only started using Mint in the past year.
In my mind Flatpak won a long time ago. The only reason snaps are still around is canonical. Ubuntu is the only thing keeping it alive at this point. Flatpak and system package formats (.deb .rpm etc) are the only things I'll use.
you are forgetting something important flatpak only works for desktop, snap is mainly designed for servers where it is king
I like Flatpak a lot. I find it very useful and convenient.
I prefer appimages when possible as there is zero integration with my system. I like having standalone packages like the old AmigaOS binaries. If something needs updated, I'll do it myself. I do have a couple of flatpacks though.
Great explanation for a newbie like me to understand 👍
I don't worry about this war, and am only surprised about the lack of authentication when installing Flatpaks. Otherwise Seasons Greetings to you and yours and best wishes for a healthy and happy New Year.
Thanks for using flatpaks I already use them in Linux Mint XFCE On My HP Stream 11 Laptop
In Arch based distros, I only use native apps or AUR apps. But for any non-rolling release distro, I use flatpaks if I want up-to-date apps. Disk usage for flatpaks is small compared to the disk space that modern video games take up. 👍
Thanks for the video. Very much appreciated. As for me, as a Debian-based distros user, DEB packages will remain my favourite, for as long as they're available. I see no problems with them, (except for dependency, which is usually solved by the package managers) and they're usually take 1/10 of the space required by Snaps, Flatpaks, or what have you.
If i cant find an app in the repos flatpaks are usually my next choice. They are a little heavier and slower to load on older computers, and they are bigger downloads, that's why i still prefer native apps. Other than that they work the same for the most part. The sandboxing can be a problem sometimes with some apps, usually developer tools like vscode.
Luv flatpak’s. Use them for EVERYTHING! Thanks.
I remember the dependency hell back in the day, it was a nightmare and something I don't wish to repeat. Personally I love flatpaks and the ability to tweak the permissions if needed.
I prefer and use flatpaks.
I agree on this, but Appimages have their place for some software. Which software is up to you, but I feel manually and selectively updating software only as needed is best with Appimages. My main complaint with all of these, is that the .folders for config/data needs to be better documented. Flatpak is the best option, but getting 5 ,6, 7 updates per day is a bit much, outside of that Flatpak is the best option.
I couldn't use flatpaks for two reasons, disk space and theming. Theming can be done, but it needs extra work. The AUR is a great source for me personally.
I use what works. For me snap is the most used since i've mostly used ubuntu based distros. I tried to use flatpack and appimage on sbc with linux distros and most of the time they broke. Maybe ill try it again. I prefer to use opensource, but when the clock is running and no time to spare, usually snap works fine enough.
Those numbers definitely used to be there for Snap packages. They’re still there as developer but the way (for your own packages).
There is no doubt about it.
My issue with flatpak is that I can't install or uninstall any, because I have 69 packages installed and that would ruin it
What Desktop UI are you using in this Video, looks great
TOC
0:00 Intro
1:08 Brief channel history
1:52 Emergence of universal packaging formats
2:50 Overview of formats
3:03 AppImage format
5:22 Snap format
9:29 Flatpak format
Awesome wallpaper!
Thanks for the video.
In time: any intel about this amazing wallpaper, please?
the most vulnerable app on any os is the web browser as it goes out to the web and even ads might be a threat. so I switched to flatpaks cause they update faster.
Excellent news! I knew snap had gone rouge when Canonical tried to enforce it in Ubuntu and shun support for flatpak which is so much better than snap.
I'm a new Linux Mint user, so if a program isn't already contained in the 'Software Manager' I can't install it. For example, I want to install Gimp 2.8 (an older version) and I've downloaded the flatpak for it to my downloads folder, but I've got no idea how to install it.
How do we install flatpaks that we've already downloaded?
Flatpak is as fast as deb or rpm package and snap takes lot of time to open thats only deciding factor for me
And choosing between native vs flatpak is latest package.
Indeed
Yes I think on the Consumer Desktop it has won the hearts of non Ubuntu based distros. People don't like how Canonical have handled the whole thing and they feel that Flatpak embraces the ideals of Free Software more than Snaps.
Having said that, the Ubuntu user base is significant and I'm sure all of them use Snaps. Excluding Enterprise, the question is, are there more users on Ubuntu than on all the other distros combined?
If yes, then Snaps is technically winning, but if not I'd guess that Flatpak is winning.
Is Red Hat using Flatpak in the Enterprise? If so, that might also give Flatpak the win.
Flatpaks are awesome and you mint desktop looks awesome
to me disk space is a small price to pay for having robust software working as intended, with the software having all of is s*** together. i member back not to long ago cursing that shared libraries mismatched and i'd waste time looking up specific library.so in one of those shady looking websites that look like the were build in 90's.
It's all the bubble wrap and Styrofoam chips that's the problem.
I have a couple laptops that for whatever reason, Snaps end up failing on after a while. Won't run at all. Flatpak has never given me a problem, but I do tend to stay with system versions as much as possible because of the storage bloating.
Snaps are getting better. I use Ubuntu 23.10 on a 2007 iMac and kept the flatpak usage to a minimum since last time I de-snapped Ubuntu, the system fell apart (I guess I did something wrong). The experience has improved specially on first launch, background delta updates work great IMO, even if sometimes I have to close the running app in order for it to update.
That being said, I use Fedora for everything else (Ubuntu works better on old Apple hardware) and Flatpaks are, by far, my favorite universal app format. Then again, if Canonical manage to get to BlackMagic Design and convince them to turn DaVinci Resolve into a Snap, I will us Snaps on Fedora.
I still prefer just using apt whenever possible (I mostly use Ubuntu/Debian based distros), but Flatpak has become significantly more robust in the last year or so and I find myself perfectly happy to use it over apt out of convenience. Snaps are a good idea, but don't seem to live up to it in practical usage. The loading performance hit is no bueno -- especially on older machines where I'm specifically using light and fast distros to maximize performance from subpar hardware.
I'm trying to use flatpak more, but having an odd issue with Blender.
UI is all messed up when I start it from the launcher, but if I launch the flatpak from the terminal it starts fine?
Issues like this kind of put me off universal packages.
Did you report this?
Have you inspected the contents of the launcher? Maybe you have some environment variables set in your terminal that correct the UI?
Sorry for the late reply, I don't think it's anything in the launcher.
Strangely if i put the launcher on my desktop, it starts fine but if i add it to my panel it doesn't.
@@bobsonuk sounds like a problem with the panel then
@@razzeeee I thought that too, maybe it's Cinnamon issue, yet inkscape(flatpak) starts fine from the launcher.
Linux mint keeps bugging me to do a OS upgrade, who knows maybe that will fix it. 🤞
In terms of performance and ease of use I believe they have just because they've kept the best face. Canonical as a company isn't very widely trusted from what I can tell and so just because flatpak is so well integrated into most distros and that it's all open source helps a lot in making it popular, even if the apps are bigger than native apps.
8:15 Not only that, but Mozilla also asked Ubuntu to use the snap by default.
And well, imo distros should try to follow what the developers are doing if they don't have a good technical reason to not do it (e.g. patching some warning out by default because it's "annoying" is NOT a good reason).
me in 2023 and 2024 trying not to use either snap or flatpak
Only ever used flatpak. I can't speak on the other two. That said, I love flatpak.
Snap is awful. The idea isn't inherently bad, but the implementation is. Snaps constantly bug you to restart an app because it's been updated behind your back, they're quite slow (although this has greatly improved over the years) and some other glaring issues.
AppImages have to be very carefully crafted and tested or their multi-distro compatibility will be bad. There are ways to make them integrate into your system but devs very rarely have the know-how or dedication to do so.
app images are the best imo.
they are the fastest also
Snap distribution platform is proprietary and tightly controlled by a single commercial entity. Whatewher are its technical features or advantages, this alone is enough to ignore it completely.
i use a combination of flatpak and nix packages
I only want flatpak to be more intuitive with what permissions apps need to work properly.
Other than that 10 out 10
Each one have there own use case. I think
Getting flatpak apps to communicate with native printer, scanner, and other peripheral drivers - THAT is the single big issue with flatpaks that remains for me. I can't seem to find documentation on flatpak or other sites. Maybe I'm the dumb guy in class, who knows?
If that's an usb device, you need devices=all and a restart I think. It also needs to be started before you start the app?
Can Flatpak software updates be turned off? Thanks.
I'm a fairly new desktop Linux user and flatpak seemed like a great idea to me. On my first distro that I was using to dip my toes into switching to Linux, I went almost all-in on Flatpaks for all the GUI software I installed.
I've made two observations since then:
1. I've had issues with getting things to work as they would with native packages. These were things like missing permissions that I had to manually fine-tune, mismatched GUI theme (light vs dark theme), different directories for dotfiles and a general lack of help I could find online for some problems.
2. Flatpaks are very, very slow.
I've since switched to an Arch based distro and don't have a single flatpak installed anymore. Almost everything starts up instantly whereas I've oftentimes had to wait for application launch with flatpaks. The user experience is so much better, that for now I can't see myself going back to flatpak anytime soon.
./configure --prefix=/usr && make && make install has never let me down.
Which distros use Flatpaks by default?
Fedora, pop os, bluefin, vanilla os, zorin. But all to a different degree.
deepin's lingling is not even mentioned in universal packages competition 😂
appimage is still better for some things, for example some developers will insist on primarily supporting a portable installation with their own updater to tightly control the version of the software, and they might have good reasons or bad reasons for doing it but it doesn't matter they have the freedom to do that if they choose and appimage is there to provide a package format. one example is the Slippi mod for Super Smash Bros Melee which is a fully open source mod but the project hosts a 3rd party game server with rules and competitive play so to help the players always have the correct competition legal release of the mod and not worry, it is provided through a self updating appimage
Whence Distrobox?
As someone who administers Linux servers, I prefer native packages over snaps, I think the only reason some server admins ever use snaps is because it's recommended by the packager and they don't really know better, or because it's the only option without compiling the software from a tar'd source snapshot.
What you have to realise is that many Linux server admins try to administer Linux servers like they administer Windows because they don't understand the Linux ecosystem, nor do they often use Linux outside of servers they have often inherited from a previous employee.
Of course there are some exceptions, but most of the time 'Linux Administrators' rely on vendors to tell them how to use Linux and often the vendors don't know either. The amount of times I have seen vendors violate the pre-existing standards (FHS anyone?) is ridiculous tbh.
Now moving to the topic at hand, I prefer Flatpak on the desktop myself, only use appimage if I have no other option, and snaps are dead last on my preference list
flatpaks don't suffer more from storage space than the other formats. flatpak runtimes are shared between other flatpaks, each snap must bundle all its dependencies no matter if they're already in another snap and appimages can just use your system's libraries but then the whole portability, universal, not depenending on the recency of your base packages falls down
The reason for me to use Flatpak is that I can keep my GUI apps up-to-date with the latest stable version. That's the only reason. Otherwise I wouldn't care for it.
Nah, old-school apt and rpm for me. Real chads like to risk breaking their whole install every time they upgrade a dependency. Containerized apps and immutable distros are for the weak! If I had it my way we'd go back to compiling from source and moving the binaries one by one into our bin dirs.
How to install new Linux OS without losing all installed flatpack?
You can just move your /home and reinstall all flatpaks all settings etc will be preserved
@@razzeeee thank you
Flatpak is good but snaps right now is all I need.
Wallpaper?
Side not for servers:
90%+ of applications will run in Docker/OCI containers and not as Snap packages. So whatever advantages Snap has on the server, it should be irrelevant.
In USA more people use flatpaks but there are some countries like India where probably the opposite is true. Possibly there are some countries in Europe where the rate is almost 50-50. (I don't have proper data, just making some assumptions based on circumstantial evidence but I think what I say is true).
It is kind of weird though.. The central argument against snaps has always been the central, canonical-hosted repo. While, in theory, everybody could create another flathub, this simply doesn't happen. Everybody uses the flathub repository.
I guess the point is that there is a possibility of creating another flathub. Meanwhile, snaps are closed for that entirely.
i still dont like it... as there slow on first boot and if it can not get fixed im still gone not use them (but its only for the first boot blabblabla) i shut down my system so its every day...
I don't understand why people don't use NIX? I think NIX is better than flatpaks and you have a library as large as the AUR
up
The biggest reason I can think of is that it doesn't have an accepted graphical installer. Installing software on NixOS usually comes down to searching it on the website or browsing with the repl, and then running a command in the terminal to install it. Nothing like double clicking an icon in a graphical store.
The thing that honestly shocks me about these "universal package managers" is that none of them seem to have heard of deduplication. Nix will actively hardlink identical files together to reduce disk space, but all these alternatives just seem to think "nah, disk space is cheap. We can afford to waste a few dozen gigs duplicating files" (meanwhile my links store literally saves more space than is actually being used by it).
No matter how much they improve Snaps they still open slower than anything else on the desktop. Flatpaks are definitly the better one out of the 3, but why do the packages seem to be getting bigger and slower on opening?
The distro's native packages are still the best.
One step down 99 to go
Flatpak is just better
Still sucks compared to native solutions like Nix.
I use Flatpak for some things, but it takes fucking ages to update anything, installs tons of runtimes and many apps just don't work correctly, (even those made by the app devs) due to Flatpak's required "sandboxing"
Many Flatpaks completely circumvent the sandbox, requiring access to your entire $HOME, which gives the worst of both worlds (both worse compatibility and performance and zero real security).
Flatpaks also have essentially zero support for CLI apps, which I will never understand. Tons of Linux users are developers or powerusers, both of which heavily rely on the CLI. Is a packaging format truly universal if it has improper support for one of the largest application interfaces?
IMO, AppImage is the best idea, but unfortunately doesn't really work because of how fragmented Linux is. Maybe if LSB worked out and AppImages had a solid OS target (like macOS apps do) they would be the ideal format. Yes I know you can just package *everything* into an AppImage, but that isn't at all practical for large apps and packaging things like GTK 10+ times for different apps is an enormous waste of space.
One criticism I have of flatpak is that it's kind of unpleasant for certain kinds of tools.
When I install PyCharm community edition, I want to be able to use anything I have installed locally inside it. Mercurial, whatever debugger is distributed by my distribution, that sort of thing. But, /usr/bin is strictly controlled to be consistent, and so this doesn't work so well.
Development tools in particular are affected by this fundamental design issue.
People have to stop downloading software from websites, and use software on the software center for a safer and automatically updated experience. That's why, appimages is already out. Snaps are centralized and dependent on Canonical, a single company. That's why it should not be the standard. Flatpak just does it right across the board and should be the gold standard for software. It must improve on some technical issues, but as a concept it has already won and by far.
Appimages shouldn't even be considered. They have their niche uses but otherwise they're terrible.
"Disk space is affordable these days"
**shudders in AAA gaming**
Steam Deck helped
fat fat, ooops, flat fat.
i am happy with deb.
topgrade should work
I hate those, who is doing the security? and How? at least with my deb I know where i stand.
None of them. On KDE Neon I use Thunderbird and Firefox tarballs.
Unfortunately, flatpaks size is too big
well... if there will be no wide-spread adoption of the packaging format from actual useful application (looking at you blackmagic!) format war is nothing but yet another prick-waveing competition on opensource world.
I prefer flatpaks, but I don't think desktop is the main Linux market. Server market is where the money is at and just matters more. So I'm not sure my personal preference has any significant impact on the packaging format wars.
installing a flatpak app can lead to installing a huge size package (sometimes more than 3.5 gb) which is more like installing a whole operating system than an app
exactly
@@dreaper5813 you CAN expect apps to stay small if you use DEBS!
@dreaper5813Space is cheap, but transportation is not. The speed of light is slow, and ferrying data from the servers to your computer is not cheap, nor is ferrying data from a hard disk to RAM, nor even is ferrying data from RAM to the CPU's cache.
Also, the more people think space is cheap, the less cheap it becomes.
@@angeldude101 exactly
Flatpak all day long.
Flatpak failed me. My first time use of it was... not that great. Of course system package apps such as deb, rpm are go to. When it comes to universal packaging, I prefer snap. No need to every time check updates, it do it by itself. For me, flatpak apps tend to break easily than snap app.
My second go-to is AppImage because it's easy to see where they are. Sorry but flatpak comes last for me. Maybe in some future I'll change my opinion on it. Until then...
Flatpak leaves the management to your desktop so updates are not forced upon you.
Also appimages have almost non-existent updates and they don't even deduplicate, I wonder about the contrast in your opinion.
For me, Flatpak portals are much better than snaps, and for instance plasma even implemented built-in support for permissions.
For the breakage part, my only issue was Nvidia driver mismatch but that's manageable, snap and appimages don't come near when it comes to "universality" though.
Flatpak works on non-systemd and non-glibc systems unlike snap and appimages and most non-ubuntu distros set it up by default nowadays.
Thank you for reaction, @@Beryesa.. My point was that AppImages are only one single file to manage. They are able to auto-update themselves. In fact, I use them for Joplin, Heroic Games Launcher...
I use all those system packages (RPM, Flatpak, Snap, AppImage) on my OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. By default, it comes with Flatpak all set up. I'm using it for Discord now, and it's not bad, but it's not great either. It tends to break so often at my first use, and I also have to update more packages than the needed one for updates. That is why I decided to install Snap in the first place.
Personally I find kinda irritatingly ironic that when you stop and think, each of those formats slots perfectly into a usecase.
snaps shouldn't target the desktop whatsoever, make them for the server space, market them for the server space, if you want to daily drive them go ahead, but you're on your own.
Appimages I actually think make for a perfect beta builds of applications. Since they're probably easier to build and are very portable.
And then flatpak can deal with publishing finished products
is this guy using deepin
This is Linux Mint, the latest edition, Cinnamon De
Steam is COMPLETLY borked using SNAP packages, games run like crap, or not at all but run amazingly well using flatpaks, i didnt think it would be so dramatic but for some reason flatpaks run fames 50% faster.
I think there is no clear winner yet, Flatpak sometimes take gigabytes of storage for installing a simple software (I know why, but it's downgrade)
Everything is ok with flatpak but >500mb calculator is no go for me. Downloding runtime for every app is very bad side of flatpaks.
You mean 1.4mb, that's the size of the flatpaked calculator.
Also runtimes are obviously downloaded once.
@@razzeeee what is the size of runtime?
@@chaoticpanda6272 it depends, but that's not downloaded if you already have it
flatpack is a little too fat for my liking, in byte size i mean, they're kinda heavy