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.
Nah, it’s the same as with systemd, docker, immutable distros etc. Some people just don’t appreciate the added complexity for features they don’t need/use and prefer to opt out. Then the advocates come, take not using their favorite software as a personal insult and make up straw-men to ridicule and argue against. Then the less enlightened of those opting out will get defensive and let themselves get dragged into the argument. 90% that’s the way these flame wars get started and not the other way around.
For the record, I use flatpak on all my desktops, it’s great, and all of the other mentioned things in some capacity, but I get why someone might want to not use them. Let’s not make software choice a tribalism thing please. Love thy neighbor as thyself, unless they use Windows, in which case, kill the bastard. /s
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.
If it’s a mostly self-contained app, like a game or a utility, then Flatpak is just fine. If a Flatpak needs to interact with other apps on the host or, worst case, another Flatpak it gets tricky or even impossible. From what I’ve seen though, AppImage and Snap are even worse at this.
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
There have been GUI package managers for decades.
Oh 100% but have you tried to explain how to use one to a computer novice? Like yes, the answer is usually “they should just…” but novice users will never. With flatpak, they get an experience similar to how MacOS works and a bit like how .exes work and it Just Works™️
Edit: like I’ve had trouble showing people how to use the GNOME App Store which could not be any more simple. Anyone who has been convinced to install Linux already feels way out of their element so making everything feel as natural as possible is essential (and I mean, flatpaks are awesome anyway)
Wait how do you install flatpaks? I add the remote (if necessary) and then install it from there. That is nothing like I have ever seen on Windows (though apparently there are package managers).
I think he’s referencing the flathub install button where you can just hit install.
That just displays the command or is there a browser extension that runs it for you too? Most Windows apps certainly don’t run by just clicking a button either.
It’s a flatpak://url that opens the app store on the computer where you do a one click install. So technically it’s two clicks.
Ah, I don’t have an app store. That would explain why I have never seen it.
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.
I prefer Arch Linux’s use of flatpaks, which is none at all ever
iit: nerds unable to comprehend that building a piece of software from source in not something every person can do.
EDIT: or doesn’t want to do
one of my least favorite things about arch and other rolling distros is that yay/pacman will try and recompile shit like electron/chromium from source every few days unless you give it very specific instructions not to - which is annoying as shit bc compiling the entirety of chrome from source takes hours even with decent hardware.
granted, i fucking hate google products too but if you’re doing any web dev it’s necessary sometimes.
idk im definitely willing to admit i might be the idiot here. managing your packages with pacman might just be routine to some people. to me arch is the epitome of classic bad UX in an open source project. it’s like they got too focused on being cmatrix-style terminal nerds and forgot to make their software efficiently useable outside of 5 very specific people’s workflows. it’s not even the terminal usage that is bad about arch. plenty of things are focused on that and… don’t do it shittily? idk…
edit: yes to all the arch fanboy’s points in response to me. i used to be super into arch and am aware of the fact that this isn’t explicit behavior but to act like it doesn’t happen in a typical arch user experience is disingenuous. i also disagree with the take that arch doesn’t endorse this outright with its design philosophy, bc it does. the comparison of the AUR to other, similar things like PPAs doesn’t land for me bc PPAs aren’t integrated into the ecosystem nearly as much as AUR is with arch. you can’t tell people to just grab the binaries or not use AUR whenever it’s convenient to blame the user, when arch explicitly endorses a philosophy amicable to self-compilation and also heavily uses the AUR even in their own arch-wiki tutorials for fairly basic use cases. arch wants to have its cake and eat it too and be a great DIY build it yourself toolkit while also catering to daily driver use and more generalist users. don’t get me wrong, it’s the best attempt at such a thing i’ve seen - but at a certain point you have to ask if the premise makes sense anymore. in the case of arch, it doesn’t and it causes several facets of the ecosystem to flounder from a user perspective. the arch community’s habit of shouting “skill issue” at people when they point out legitimate issues with the design philosophy bugs the fuck out of me. this whole OS is a camel.
Is there no -bin version available for those packages?
sometimes you’re working with particular releases or builds that don’t, but like i said i might be the idiot lol.
i like the concept of arch. i don’t like the way i need to come up with a new solution for how im managing my packages virtually every few days that often requires novel information. shit, half the time you boot up an arch system if you have sufficient # of packages there is 9/10 times a conflict when trying to just update things naively. like i said it’s cool on paper and im sure once you use it as a daily driver for awhile it just becomes routine but it’s more the principle of the user experience and its design philosophy that i think might be poor.
arch is for techies in the middle of the bell curve imo… people on the left and the right, when it comes to something as simple as managing all my packages and versions, want something that just worksTM - unless i specifically want to fuck with the minutiae.
Flatpaks are good, especially compared to snap.
The future is atomic OS’s like silverblue, which will make heavy use of things like flatpak.
Atomic distros are cool, and I’m sure they will only get more popular, but I don’t buy the idea that they’re “The” future. They have their place, but they can’t really completely replace traditional distros. Not every new thing needs to kill everything that came before it.
Having nails driven into my testicles is better than snap. It’s not a high bar.
Haven’t had much opportunity to use snap, what’s the problem with them?
Haven’t had much opportunity to have nails driven into my testicles.
Wanna meet? /s
What everyone else has already said, plus sudden updates that nuke active applications.
> plus sudden updates that nuke active applications.This is not what’s supposed to happen. If an app installed through flatpak is active while it’s receiving an update, then the update is not supposed to affect the running application until it’s closed/restarted.Edit: Somehow I didn’t realize the concern was raised against Snap and not Flatpak.
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.
https://gitlab.com/fedora/sigs/flatpak/fedora-flatpaks/-/issues/39#note_2344970813
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”?
Flatpaks are great for situations where installing software is unnecessary complex or complicated.
That’s my main use for flatpaks too. Add to that any and all closed source software, because you can’t trust that without a sandbox around it.
Recently I’ve moved from using flatpak for electron apps and instead have a single flatpak ungoogled chromium instance I use for PWAs.
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.
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: https://flathub.org/apps/org.gimp.GIMP
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.
It’s not the 80s, and I can save a few megabytes to keep my system running smoothly and well-managed.
And then it turns out that you have 18 libssl libraries in diffirent fpatpacks, and half of them contain a critical vulnerability that any website on the Internet can use to hack your PC. How much do you trust the limitations of flatpack apps? are you sure that a random hacker won’t hack your OBS web plugin and encrypt your entire fpatpack partition (which some “very smart” distributions even stuff office into, and your work files will be hidden there). People have come up with external dependencies for a reason.
Fair criticism!
However, the extent of the damage is limited by flatpak and whatever permissions you have set, and, if I understand it correctly, you cannot attack one flatpak through the other unless they share access to some files.
Also, I haven’t seen this kind of attack in the wild (maybe I’m not informed enough?) as opposed to rogue maintainers injecting malware into packages.
On an unrelated note: apparently, there is finally some Russian Lemmy instance? That’s a welcome change.
I’ve been working on Linux for 15 years now and I perfectly remember the origin of many concepts. If you look at it through time, what would it be like:
- We can build applications with external dependencies or a single binary, what should we choose?
- The community is abandoning a single binary due to the increased weight of applications and memory consumption and libraries problems
- Dependency hell is coming …
- Snap, flatpack, appimage and other strange solutions are inventing something, which are essentially a single binary, but with an overlay (if the developer has hands from the right place, which is often not the case)
- Someone on lemmy says that he literally doesn’t care if the application is built in a single binary, consumes extra memory and have libraries problems. Just close all permissions for that application…
Well, all I can say about this is just assemble a single binary for all applications, stop doing nonsense with a flatpack/snap/etc.
UPD: or if you really want to break all the conventions, just use nixos. You don’t need snap/flatpack/etc.
Flatpak is not single binary, Flatpaks have shared runtime (For example Freedesktop, GNOME, KDE runtimes)
Provided that flatpack has a common parent container, which is not always the case. More precisely, it almost never does. Because someone updates flatpack to new versions of the parent containers, and someone else does not.
More precisely, it almost never does.
I don’t know any flatpak in my system that don’t use runtime (I have around 50 flatpak apps installed), or am I misunderstanding your point
I don’t mind other solutions, as long as they have the key features Flatpak offers, namely:
- Being open-source
- Having app permission system
- Having bundled dependencies
- Integrating decently with the system
Times are changing, and memory constraints for most programs are generally not relevant anymore.
Times are changing, and memory constraints for most programs are generally not relevant anymore.
But there are gaps in the libraries that, unlike distributions with dependencies, can no longer be managed. And all the security of your system depends on a small flatpack access control, which 99% of users do not understand at all and, with any problems simply opens access to the entire home directory.
I’m not saying Flatpak is perfect, but it appears to be the best we have.
I absolutely agree more needs to be done to explain permissions and have sane defaults. Flatseal in particular could introduce more warnings, and this is where non-technical users set their permissions.
In my experience, most Flatpaks do not request full home folder access by default, and making Flatpak access everything everywhere typically requires user intervention.
Native apps, meanwhile, just run with full system-wide access; I get it that they’re more vetted and more properly updated, but this is an unhealthy and insecure arrangement.
this is a system for work tasks. Of course, I understand what the developers are going for. that is Android. And it’s really nice to read the Internet on android. But try to do something more complicated than that and you’ll realize that it’s hell. However, I don’t mind if such distributions appear. Why not? I just don’t understand people who voluntarily limit their abilities. And why you don’t just install Android 64?
The flatpack approach automatically remove everything low-level from the equation. Do you want to write directly to the graphics card buffer? Read the input? Do I set the fan rotation parameters directly in the /proc? All these applications will never work in flat pack.
On the other hand, flatpack is superfluous and for convenience. You can simply build an executable file without dependencies and configure firejail for it yourself… That’s all. Or run the file from another user. That is so popular exactly bacause RedHat pushed them. Literaly like Canonical pushed snap.
All these applications will never work in flat pack.
They don’t have to! Flatpak doesn’t remove all other ways to install software. But for 95% of use cases, it will do just fine.
Firejail is good, but it only solves sandboxing part of the equation, and there’s so much more to Flatpaks than that. Also, it’s more painful to configure and is more sysadmin-oriented.
They don’t have to! Flat pack doesn’t remove all other ways to install software. But for 95% of use cases, it will do just fine.
Tell this to canonical, they even firefox put in the snap. You know that when choosing “quickly compile something for a flatpack” and “support 10+ distributions”, the developers will choose a flatpack. Which in general looks fine, until you realize that everything is just scored on the mainline of libraries and molded on anything. The most striking example of this is Linphone. just try to compile it…
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.
Perhaps ironically, this is mocking a strawman. Flatpacks can be installed and managed using the terminal! Not only that but Linux-Distros have had graphical package managers for decades.
The primary reason that distros have embraced flatpack / snap / appimage is that they promise to lower the burden of managing software repositories. The primary reason that some users are mad is that these often don’t provide a good experience:
- they are often slower to install/start/run
- they have trouble integrating with the rest of the system (ignoring gtk/qt themes for example)
- they take a lot more space and bandwidth
Theoretically they are also more secure… But reality of that has also been questioned. Fine grained permissions are nice, but bundling libraries makes it hard to know what outdated libraries are running on the systems.
I spent my time fighting AppImages until Canonical started to force Snap on me. I hated Snap so bad it forced me to switch distros. Now I appreciate Flatpak as a result and I don’t find AppImages all that bad, either. Also, I haven’t found myself in dependency-hell nor have I crashed my distro from unofficial Repos in well over a decade.
-It’s a long way of saying It works for me and it’s not Snap.
Appimages are ok, bloated but ok. Unless a library inside is old and won’t work.
Flatpak is annoying and I don’t like it at all, so I don’t use it. Easy solution.
Fuck snap though.
About the image: The joke’s on you, I install my flatpaks via the terminal.
I’ve started using flatpaks more after starting using Bazzite and I liked them more than I expected. As a dev, I still need my work tools to be native, but most of my other needs are well covered by flatpaks.
Tip: Flatseal is a great config manager for flatpaks’ permissions.
I installed flatseal but I never understand what is essential and what is not.
It is mostly trial and error. I use it mostly to set envvars.
As an example, I add the ~/.themes folder and the GTK_THEME to allow some apps to get the themes I downloaded.
Oh, so flatpaks cannot automatically get system themes?
If it is trial and error, is it really useful for a normal user?
System themes, probably most of them work. But most of them don’t bother watching the user themes or icons folder.
I don’t think Flatseal is that useful for the majority of users, no. But it is a good tool to have in mind when the need arises.
Why do you think it is not useful?
I replaced Firefox system package with Flatpak because I think browser is the most used and vulnerable thing in my system. And the size seemed reasonable.
I did not replace Thunderbird because its size is almost 10 times.
The person you’re replying to is talking about the permissions manager flatseal, not flatpaks
Oops. I got confused
My guess was the point is that it’s difficult to install CLI tools using Flatpak
