Linux

I click install, app launches and I don't need to deal with dependency hell for it. (I like them)

https://lemmy.world/post/12069769

I like them sonce they're easy to install and you can update all Flatpaks at once. But I don't likke the paths and run commands. Very unintuitive.

They are awesome but personally I don't use them. I have an obsession with memory management. Flatpak apps don't share libraries so they get chunky at times. This shouldn't be a problem for most people. It's a personal problem.

I love them. They make the immutable distributions possible.

We need to stop with the idea of shared libraries, it's nice on the paper but in practice you only save a bit of disk space and it's a pain for developers to package for different distributions.

Distribution packages are great for core components of the system, or utilities everyone needs, but for end users applications something like flatpak makes more sense. This way it can be packaged by the upstream developer for all distributions, and sandboxing adds a layer of security. You wouldn't install an app that have all permissions on mobile, why do it on desktop?

Ambivalent. I like the consistency between distros and the idea of sandboxing, in practice sandboxing is a pain in the ass and Flatpaks use up an inordinate amount of space for different library versions. However, if I have to use a proprietary application I do appreciate the sandboxing and Flatpak is my preferred install method.

Everything I've gotten as a flatpak has been borked in one way or another. I only use it if there is literally no other option available.

good enough, still prefer the system package manager for most things though

They have their uses. In particular they're useful for easily getting applications your system repositories don't have or getting more up to date version of applications. Downsides are certainly the space all the redundant dependencies take up and the sandboxing can be a PITA especially if you have an application that needs to run another application. Overall I think they're the best "third party" package system available but they're not great.

very cool and awesome

Get Job done but remember don't use it for Browser and Text Editor. It will make you suffer.

It is awesome

I really like them. They give us a reliable application that doesn't depend the distro building a version for specific platform. For example if the newest versions are compiled for Ubuntu 24.04 but you're on 22.04 it might take a while to get the update.

It does come at a cost though, it'll have to package all the dependencies for 24.04 in a layer of the package so it'll take a long time to start up and take a lot more memory than necessary.

This is mitigated by flatpaks using same base for their application (like Ubuntu with Electron) but it still isn't the same as just starting up a proper apt program.

I really like it since we can have a modern version of a program for small distros and in general the barrier to entry so much lower so companies can't just say "oh we can't support all Linux distros, not feasible".

Aur you compile yourself for your own distro instead of it being done already by apt and the like.

Nix is a super cool since you can just setup and configure pretty much everything so that you just press "install" and you'll have your Gimp, VPN and whatever apps all done for you. You'll have to do some heavy configuration so programming knowledge is not necessary but really helps.

Mostly positive. My encoding utility Aviator can be shipped with a custom community-backed SVT-AV1 fork in the background without anyone noticing any issues like they would if I linked to system SVT-AV1. Flatpak makes this kind of thing easy, and users don't have to think about it.

I usually prefer not to use them, but they flatpak for Prism Launcher comes with all versions of Java preinstalled which is convenient because I play verious versions of Minecraf, other than that I try to use xbps as much as possible