• Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 小时前

    Could things like this go in linuxmemes? Memes are fun but it would be nice to keep this a place for actual information. And no, this is not a comment on what it’s saying, I’m just tired of so many memes.

  • MystValkyrie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 小时前

    There was a few years where I pretty much only used Flatpaks because I was scared of the terminal. But now that I’ve learned how to use the terminal, it’s so much more convenient because I can quickly update all my applications all in one place without having to open a separate app. Plus, some Flatpaks can fall really behind on software updates.

    There might be a Linux userbase someday where no one over than developers actually knows how to use the terminal, because users can run everything they want without a command line, but maybe that’s actually a good thing because it’ll drive up how many people use a Linux distro.

    With Windows and Mac, there’s a shareholder incentive to enshittify. With Linux, if a distro goes bad and gets commercialized, there’s always another distro people can move to, not to mention there’s no financial incentive. The more people get on Linux, the less power these tech companies have. Personally, that and privacy are what drew me to Linux much more so than being able to tinker or fine-tune my experience.

    • otacon239@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 小时前

      There might be a Linux userbase someday where no one other than developers actually knows how to use the terminal, because users can run everything they want without a command line

      Ideally, all the essential terminal commands could be replicated in a user-friendly GUI-applicable manner. Don’t ever have to remove the terminal for those that enjoy it, but if we could have a magic world where even the failure states could be navigated with little to no prior knowledge required and it gets everyone away from Windows and Mac for good, I’m all for it.

    • 17lifers@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 小时前

      sandboxed application bundle installed from a flathub-compatible store or a local source (github etc)

  • MaysaMayako@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 小时前

    Personally I am okay with them actually. I use several on my system and having each app allowed to have different permissions is super useful.

    But also I like things that are directly installed cause they seem just a tad faster performance wise.

  • AndrewZabar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 小时前

    I don’t really care about all these different things, as long as none of them become a crazy confusing mess, like Windows DLLs.

  • Limonene@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 小时前

    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.

    • Obin@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 小时前

      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

    • buttnugget@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 小时前

      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?

      • Aimeeloulm@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 小时前

        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 🙂

  • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 小时前

    I’m not a huge fan of Flatpaks, they’re a lot harder to distribute offline versus something like AppImage. Seriously, you have to like create an offline repository, then create a bundle, and it’s like 6 or 7 steps, it’s honestly kind of ridiculous lol but other than that they seem fine, and they’re easy enough to update (but so are apt packages)

    I know some people may say “oh why do you need that”, but Linux has taught me that my computer is my own, and I should be able to use it the way I want to. I shouldn’t have to fight with my package manager to get it to do what I want. So I guess you could say, no I’m not really a fan of Flatpaks.

    Personally, I didn’t mind Snaps, but I’m getting kind of really fed up with especially for-profit companies etc so I don’t like Snap that much now either.

    Apt packages are nice, but the more of them you have installed, especially if you’re using Ubuntu-based distros and have lots of PPAs, the more annoying upgrading your distro version can be because of all the dependencies and cross-dependencies.

    AppImage tends to just work for me, as long as it’s not compiled with a newer libc-bin version than the distro I’m currently using has, and I really enjoy that it’s just one file I can copy and run pretty much anywhere.

    • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 小时前

      I seem to have constant issues with AppImages. Every single one I have currently won’t open. I get an error message relating to either qT or GTK. Tried searching for the error and get a bunch of old forum threads talking about either not being compatible with Wayland at all, or comments stating that the one specific AppImage in question must have been “packaged badly”. Thankfully, nothing ‘mission critical’ for me is an AppImage currently, but it is quite upsetting that I have the most problems with the supposed “just works” app packaging/distribution option.

  • machinya [it/its, fae/faer]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 小时前

    i mostly use them for proprietary stuff or for software that is incredible painful to package (mostly electron apps). i will probably never use them for anything that actually matters but i also use rolling release distros everywhere so latest release is never too far. for testing latest version of any software i prefer appimages since they are simpler and don’t need a messy setup as flatpak, but i also won’t use them pass the testing phase and i prefer packaging the software if possible.

    snaps, on the other hand, will never go near any of my systems. not even by accident

  • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    8 小时前

    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.

    • db2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 小时前

      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.

  • 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 小时前

    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.

    • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 小时前

      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).

      • 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        46 分钟前

        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

        • thingsiplay@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          35 分钟前

          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”?

    • Obin@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 小时前

      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.

    • dropped_packet@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 小时前

      This is the main benefit. However, i’m finding the software I use requires less dependencies and libraries these days.

      I barely even use flatpaks anymore. Almost everything is in official repos. I couldn’t tell you the last time I had a dependency conflict.

  • Bluewing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 小时前

    I have used rpms, AppImages, Flatpaks, and source. I have even used a snap or two when I had no other choice.

    If you can’t work with them all, can you even say you Linux Bro?

  • The_Walkening [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    7 小时前

    I like the idea of them because I don’t like dealing with dependencies changing and breaking stuff and I don’t really care too much about disk space in the context of non-game desktop apps, as I don’t tend to install lots of them.

    That being said I absolutely hate that permissions are all over the place and flatpak doesn’t ship a GUI to manage them by default, nor do you get any indication as to what permissions a program has until you try some functionality (like filesystem or camera access) only to find out it doesn’t work out of the box.