in your opinion, what is the biggest downside of Flatpaks?

jackpot@lemmy.mlbanned from sitebanned from site to Asklemmy@lemmy.ml – 31 points –
39

You are viewing a single comment
  • needless sandobxing (by default flatpaks can access your filesystem but not mounted folders, how is that secure and not jist inconvenient?)
  • yet another application manager not even well integrated into operating systems (linux mint doesn't update flatpaks by default)
  • applications are usually not updated very often, not sure if that's a systemic problem or just laziness
  • application X that is 50MB stabdalone requires 2GB to install and takes 3GB of space because it requires the entirety of gnome libraries. Application Y also requires 3GB because they use KDE or another version of gnome

Application Z requires another 3GB because it needs Gnome runtime version X+1, not version X. Although I do believe Flatpak does some kind of reduplication so actual used space is somewhat less.

It's also less of a problem if you flatpak all the apps vs having just a handful. The more apps the better chance they're actually sharing runtimes.

Flatpak updates are handled very smoothly by KDE Discover, I always assumed Gnome Software did the same, so no additional package manager required.

Despite the few downsides Flatpak is still wonderful. As a Kubuntu user it's nice to say Farewell random PPAs whenever there's a need for an actual newish version of an application

On a space limited , non upgradeable device (128GB ssd, half of that considering a dual boot) I find it literally unusable. At least with PPAs and AppImage i save 90% of redundant space

wjays a mountded folder

That was a interesting set of typos

theyre not typos, that wad jnyneitjonal

If you mount an external partition on a directory (under /mnt for example) by default Flatpaks cannot access it because they are sandboxed