Anyone else starting to favor Flatpak over native packages?

DidacticDumbass@lemmy.one to Linux@lemmy.ml – 205 points –

I am currently using Linux Mint (after a long stint of using MX Linux) after learning it handles Nvidia graphics cards flawlessly, which I am grateful for. Whatever grief I have given Ubuntu in the past, I take it back because when they make something work, it is solid.

Anyways, like most distros these days, Flatpaks show up alongside native packages in the package manager / app store. I used to have a bias towards getting the natively packed version, but these days, I am choosing Flatpaks, precisely because I know they will be the latest version.

This includes Blender, Cura, Prusaslicer, and just now QBittorrent. I know this is probably dumb, but I choose the version based on which has the nicer icon.

263

You are viewing a single comment

I have a ton of flatpaks which means packages are shared between them, so no it’s not lazy or a copy of the whole system. It makes a ton of sense for stability.

Updates are diff’s so downloading and updating is fast. Not entire packages.

Making every package work with only a certain version of a dependency and hoping it is stable doesn’t make a lot of sense.

You've just moved the packaging problem from distributions to app developers.

The reason you have issues is historically app developers weren't interested in packaging their application so distributions would figure it out.

If app developers want to package deb, rpm, etc.. packages it would also solve the problem.

Sure. Except you gain universal compatibility for all distros that have flatpak and aren’t building all the different package formats. Makes it much more attractive for actual developers to package since it’s only done once.

There’s no right answer here, but there are definite benefits.

I’ve had many little issues since I moved to Linux years ago, most of which would never have been an issue if flatpaks were there at the time. My experience has been better with them.

Makes it much more attractive for actual developers to package since it’s only done once.

I maintain a few apps that are included into some distributions with no participation from my side apart from tagging what I consider releases in my git repo. How is doing something only once is more attractive as not doing it at all?

Because you can make sure it was done right. You don't have to worry about bugs or other issues being the result of faulty packaging if you're the one doing the packaging. Plus It makes reproducing bugs easier when everyone's using the same package, and declaring the flatpak as the official package makes it much more likely that people will use the flatpak.

You know you can have many versions of a library on your system at once, right?

As long as they don’t cause conflicts. You know dependency hell is a thing right? The reason flatpaks were thought up in the first place? Right?

Nice out of date dependencies with those lovely security vulnerabilities!

Touché

Developers shouldn’t be out of date, but yes.

Besides that it's only partially true (unless we speak Nix systems) That's also not the point of it. It's more about having runtime environment that an app was built against and tested with.