target OS is debian or linux mint

  • DaTingGoBrrr@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    What’s up with all the negativity around flatpaks? I use Arch (btw) and I try to install as much as I can using flatpak. I think they are great. They are compatible, usually up to date, easy to install, easy to remove and it won’t break your system. The sandbox can be edited to include more paths etc.

    • pathief@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      If I developed a Linux app I would absolutely package it as a flatpak. If a package is in pacman, however, I see no reason to use the flatpak version instead.

  • callcc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Flatpaks won’t get their libs updated all at once by just updating a library. This can be very bad in cases like bugs in openssl. Instead of just updating one library and all other software benefiting from the fix, with flatpaks, you need to deal with updating everything manually and waiting for the vendor to actually create an update package.

    I’m not 100% sure about this. Flatpak has some mechanisms that would allow to manage dependencies in a common fashion.

  • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    In addition to other people’s comments, flatpaks are usually more up to date than their apt counterpart (expecially those from the debian stable repositories).
    I run debian and I deliberately installed some software from flatpak (eg. Ardour and Guitarix) because the deb package is a whole version behind.

  • rien333@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    One thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet is interopability, that is, flatpak interacting with the rest of your system.

    I’m not that familair with flatpak, but in my brief experience with the steam flatpak, I had trouble getting it to recognize my controllers. Steam installed through pacman (Arch’s package manager) had no such issues, on the other hand. My hunch is that this has to with flatpaks being more isolated from the rest of your system.

    Im pretty sure that’s just some kind of permission issue, but it can be nice to not have to troubleshoot acces rights and the like. But this is obviously a double edged sword: more isolation may also mean more security, just at the cost of ease of interaction with other components.

  • Blaster M@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    flatpaks are designed for gui apps, and due to packaging dependencies, they are extra heavy in disk space. flatpaks are also most often installed on the user, not systemwide, so no root permissions needed to install.

    apt installs systemwide exclusively, but can have a much smaller download size if the dependencies are already installed. Apps sharing dependencies means much less disk space. cli is supported.

  • Magister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m using MX, debian based, apt package, I have 0 flatpak/snap. They are up to date on about everything, like the latest Firefox I got this morning in a simple .deb that nala (apt frontend) installed without problems.

    I never ever installed a snap/flat in my Linux years.

  • Presi300@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Lots, LOTS, TL;DR - flatpaks are sandboxed and work on every* distro out there, while apt packages are not and only work on debian and it’s derivatives. I’d say on mint or debian, prefer using flatpaks over apt packages as you’re usually gonna get newer versions of software.