• ngwoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      18 days ago

      There’s a big chunk of the Linux community that will always want to gatekeep it and push out anything that makes it easier for the layman to use

    • 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      18 days ago

      Wastes RAM and disk space (compared to package-manager installed applications) by storing more libraries on disk and loading them into RAM rather than just using the libraries already installed on the distro. It’s probably better than Snap and Appimage though.

      • henfredemars
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        That is definitely a sacrifice being made here I agree with you. It gives developers more control over exactly how their app runs, but it does mean less storage efficiency.

      • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        18 days ago

        Is it even a problem for a desktop in 2024? Never had an issue with RAM or diskspace. And even for those that have, they can just not use flatpak until they upgrade, no reason to kill it.

        • 31337@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 days ago

          I assume the “kill it” comment was a little tongue-in-cheek. On small SBCs, like a Pi, or old hardware, it could be a problem. I’ve seen people with flatpaks taking up 30GB of space, which is significant. I’m not sure how much RAM it wastes. I assume running 6 different applications that have loaded 6 different versions of Qt libraries would also use significantly more RAM than just loading the system’s shared Qt libraries once.

          • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            17 days ago

            I don’t see a problem with Flatpak in this. It does what it’s supposed to do. You find not using it better? That’s great, that option is the default in all of the distributives.

            • 31337@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              17 days ago

              Yeah, I agree. I do use Flatpaks, Snaps, and Appimages sometimes if I can’t find a suitable deb repo/package. Flatpak is the best out of the three because they do try to avoid too much duplication through runtimes. I also use Docker quite a bit, which has similar issues (and benefits).

      • henfredemars
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        Different goals and different designs. Why are there so many Linux distro?

        Snap is proprietary. Appimage does not include distribution and updates. It also doesn’t attempt sandboxing of any kind.

        On the other hand, I find appimage very convenient to use.