I’m wondering if a package manager like flatpak comes with any drawback or negatives. Since it just works on basically any distro. Why isn’t this just the default? It seems very convenient.
One of the use cases I would like to have used Flatpak for is Visual Studio Code. Unfortunately, I found the isolation to be too onerous for developer needs. Take the Rust compiler toolchain. There’s no way to access that from VSCode. There are ways to add on tools to the VSCode environment, but that feels like a kludge when I already have everything installed and set up. And if the toolchain isn’t available for Flatpak, tough luck. Other features just simply don’t work. I eventually switched to using the Ubuntu builds from the VSCode developers.
Edit: The Rust compiler toolchain can be added onto Flatpak because there is a packaged version of the toolchain, but it’s not the host environment’s version. Other tools like the fish shell might be entirely unavailable.
I’m a little put off by the inconvenient command line and the mandatory bells and whistles (flathub is nice and all, but must it be baked into the main executable rather than having the package manager as an optional thing on top?).
So far, AppImage just looks superior to me. Works without installing a runtime into my system, no need to become root and integrate an app into a system-wide managed package repository, I can just run it.
What I find most annoying is the extra drive space required. It makes backing up and restoring my computer so much more annoying. The upside of this is that I’ve ended up learning how to install from source so I can avoid them when a deb package is not available!
They dont integrate well into your system like they should, (theming, bookmarks, storage, etc), and to fix that you gotta do some work arounds that should be done automatically
I feel like this should be required reading for a lot of Linux users. That article is a couple years old now, but I think is even more true now than it was when it was written. Having a middleman (package maintainer) between the user and the software developer is a tremendous benefit. Maintainers enforce quality, and if you bypass them, you’re going to end up with Linux as the Google Play Store (doubly so if you try and fool yourself into thinking it won’t happen because “Linux is different”)
Others have mentioned disk usage and desktop integration. There is some truth to them, but shared runtimes keeps disk uasge down (although worse than native apps). Desktop launchers now search /var/lib/flatpak/exports/share/applications by default, but I’m still having issues with themes in one or two niche apps.
Trust is the big one. The benefit of your distro’s packages is that they are maintained by a limited number of maintainers. Flatpaks have a much, much larger number of maintainers, which is where sandboxing comes in. Flathub now marks apps with lax permissions as “potentially unsafe”, which is a huge step in communicating this to the average user.
Most desktop apps can get away with having next to no access, as long as they support the appropriate XDG desktop portals.
Ultimately, your mileage will vary, as there are many classes of application which are ill-suited to being sandboxed. Program launchers, programming languages, IDEs, file managers are a few.
I’ve been in the support channel for yuzu linux, and you would not believe all the issues people have with games freezing, etc that are instantly fixed by using the appimage instead of the flatpak.
Also flatpaks are non-xdg compliant, since it creates the useless ~/.var directory. And they have said over and over that they won’t fix that. So fuck them.
Not to mention all the issues people have with their theming and integration into the system.
Appimages are just simpler and better, the other day I was thinking how many issues would be fixed if Steam shipped as an appimage.
It would allow for shipping a patch glibc with EAC
It would allow for moving all the nonsense that steam puts in the home user dir, since appimages support a portable home.
It would allow for shipping the 32bit libraries instead of having to install them system wide.
And depending on how you go about, appimages will even take less disk space than flatpaks or native packages even though you don’t get shared libraries with those, because they are compressed which reduces their size significantly.
Like for example the LibreWolf appimage is 110MiB while a the native package for librewolf 300MiB. Same with LibreOffice, the appimage is 300MiB while the native package is 600 MiB.
It also makes it easier to downgrade if you run into an issue, like I had to had an older appimage of ferdium because the latest version is affected by an electron bug that broke its zoom functionality.
I mean the native NixOS package of Steam (instead of flatpak), not that the Steam package uses native libs.
I believe Steam on NixOS always uses the Steam runtime, because NixOS isn’t FHS compliant, thus apps wouldn’t find any libs. No, I don’t think there’s steam-native on NixOS.
Add comment