For context: I habe a PC with an 8gb SSD and I somehow need to get an app on there that only has a flatpak release

  • x00z@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1393·
    6 days ago

    Flatpak seems to be the best choice for consistency and to have it working straight out of the box. I think Linux currently needs this because we’re getting a lot less tech-savvy Linux users nowadays. Don’t get me wrong; package managers should still be used, but how are we going to get people to change if they run into package conflicts or accidentally uninstall a wrong package?

      • cley_faye@lemmy.world
        7·
        6 days ago

        Until it doesn’t work. There’s a lot of subtlety, and at some point you’ll have to match what the OS provide. Even containers are not “run absolutely anywhere” but “run mostly anywhere”.

        That doesn’t change the point, of course; software that are dependent on the actual kernel/low level library to provide something will be hard to get working in unexpected situations anyway, but the “silver bullet” argument irks me.

        • ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world
          41·
          6 days ago

          Everything is flawed, there is no silver bullet. But again, it’s still a massive improvement over what we had previously.

        • ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world
          19·
          6 days ago

          Well, that’s the neat part. We don’t need to do that because what Flatpak does, doesn’t matter for them. People can just install Flatpak in their system and they have access to everything. I realise for system components it’s a different story, but that’s not the use case, it’s for applications.

          Edit: typo.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
      51·
      6 days ago

      It’s useful, but it isn’t the best option for everyone, so other options should be available.

      • lastweakness@lemm.ee
        1·
        5 days ago

        Why would you want the app devs to make that? The whole problem with distro-specific packages is having to package for multiple formats and it’s a painstaking process that really isn’t worth any amount of time investment at all. If you’re an app developer, you’d much rather just make a universal package and hope that some distro package maintainer packages your app for their distro. That’s just basic common sense…

    • tazeycrazy@feddit.ukEnglish
      2·
      6 days ago

      I just what to install an app. I don’t want to spend an evening figgering out how to get a PWA to install. I don’t want to consult a form or your git repository to install some package I will use once and will be patched out in the next version.

  • gamer@lemm.ee
    433·
    5 days ago

    Flatpaks implement deduping, so they actually don’t take that much space when installed.

    I habe a PC with an 8gb SSD

    I think I found your real problem.

    • NekuSoul@lemmy.nekusoul.de
      111·
      6 days ago

      Yup. Those 64 GB SSDs many retailers put into cheap laptops already come dangerously close to violating the Geneva Convention. 8GB is just stupid, even for a Linux system.

    • Aux@feddit.ukEnglish
      10·
      6 days ago

      Even cheap SD cards are larger these days. The smallest SSD you can buy in the UK right now is 250GB.

      • udon@lemmy.world
        31·
        5 days ago

        Reading through the comments here, the Linux community slowly seems move away from “runs on about every piece of hardware you can think of” to “if you don’t have at least the Nimbus 2000 that’s on you, sucker!”

  • pastaq@lemmy.world
    12735·
    6 days ago

    You hate people who spend hundreds of ours of their free time developing software, who then release that software for free, under no obligation to you or anyone else, and your reasoning is because they provide it in a packaging solution you don’t find ideal?

    Maybe fuck off and write your own software.

    • cley_faye@lemmy.world
      1113·
      6 days ago

      No, they hate flatpak, one of the many option to distribute software, which is not the only one even if you consider the “must run on many distro” restriction (which isn’t 100% true, kinda like the Java write once run anywhere). There are other options, some more involved, some simpler, to do so.

      They didn’t say they hate devs, that’s on you, grabbing a febble occasion to tell someone that voiced his opinion to “fuck off”.

      • pastaq@lemmy.world
        51·
        5 days ago

        Then they should say they hate flatpak, or they are frustrated/disappointed when something they are interested in is only on flatpak.

        Instead of doing that, they said they hate people who only use flatpak. Words matter, and that kind of entitlement needs to be shut down. The devs don’t owe them anything and they certainly don’t deserve hatred for their packaging solution. There are many constructive ways OP could resolve the issue. Open a feature request issue on the bug tracker, build it locally, send an email, offer to maintain another packaging method, etc.

  • InternetCitizen2@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1123·
    6 days ago

    Personally I do like the ideas behind Snap/Flatpak. I think the sandboxing is a huge deal and will improve security going forward.

    • Captain Janeway@lemmy.worldEnglish
      901·
      6 days ago

      In a world where space is usually the cheapest and most available hardware on a PC, I tend to agree. That being said, it’s the kind of solution that comes from engineers who put the onus on the hardware to make up for their shitty software. Engineers like me.

      • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
        17·
        6 days ago

        Yeah. Someone has to put in the work for packaging an application if you want it as a .deb/.rpm etc. package and deal with any bugs that might come up, and it’s not going to be me (speaking as a user, not a developer).

        That said, I also painted myself into a corner when it comes to harddrive space. LUKS can be complicated, man …

      • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
        8·
        6 days ago

        In a world where space is usually the cheapest and most available hardware on a PC

        I read this in the movie trailer guy’s voice

  • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
    432·
    6 days ago

    Yeah flatpak won’t work on my Nokia 3310 either, what a shit software…

    Edit: if you upvoted this comment, your kneecaps pop when you pick up things from the ground

    • Smee@poeng.link
      2·
      6 days ago

      I’m too old to pick up stuff from the ground, I use one of them claws on a stick. Also, the 3210 was a nice phone while the 3310 was for the hip kids.

  • krull_krull@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    203·
    5 days ago

    “maybe a software being excessively bloated isn’t a good thing”

    “just buy more storage bro”

    B*tch. i live in a third world country, with limited internet and data plan, and also is still a student. If i can just buy more storage and better hardware i will.

    • Ricaz@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      1·
      5 days ago

      This excuse is so dumb for many reasons. Provide me the source and I will make my own package if needed.

      The same excuse is used to make terribly performing video games… Just buy a better graphics card if you want to run <any modern game> at over 60fps!

  • serenissi@lemmy.world
    354·
    6 days ago

    Cut the crap. Flatpak uses hardlink from repo where file names are jash of the file itself. The chance of duplication is exactly same as that of duplicate files of same name in same directory.

    Flatpak repo grows because we trade uncertainty over abi stability with installing all needed versions of libraries. For abi incompatible builds you could already do that in many distros (versioned soname) but to a lesser extent.

    Also I usually do not install nvidia GL with flatpaks that I won’t run on nvidia on hybrid gpu laptops anyway for energy reasons.

    • porl@lemmy.worldEnglish
      19·
      6 days ago

      Yeah, I’m not a fan of flatpak for my usage, but this isn’t a great argument against it.

      I’d rather someone “only” release on flatpak if that’s the simplest way they can support Linux compared to no support at all.

    • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
      8·
      6 days ago

      It’s also, of course, completely closed source so who knows what it’s doing when it’s running.

      Ah, yes. The Pinnacle of security

    • Luffy@lemmy.mlOP
      42·
      5 days ago

      Yes, I personally use flatpak because I want a reliable way to update packages that are not in the native repositories. Still, I would love if it would be like snaps in the sense that I can use the native libraries and only install the app as flatpak.

      Its just really frustrating to have to install the whole fricking gnome desktop again just so some flatpak can use it

  • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.comEnglish
    112·
    5 days ago

    So maybe use Debian and compile the app yourself instead? The Dev made something free with their time, use your time to make it work for you.

  • macniel@feddit.org
    521·
    6 days ago

    did you see those little < in front of the download sizes? org.kde.KStyle.Adwaita, org.kdePlatform.Locale, org.kde.Platform and com.ktechpit.torrhunt won’t be fully downloaded as those are possibly already installed and can be reused, so in the best case you only download org.freedesktop.Platform.GL.nvidia-570-86-16 fully.

    • lastweakness@lemm.ee
      1·
      5 days ago

      There’s also deduplication across the different files. So you could even end up with less overall size over time if you use Flatpaks for everything.

  • Gerowen@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    5 days ago

    Alternatively though, if an app has KDE library dependencies for example, it’s kinda nice to not have to install a whole other desktop system wide.