• BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    Flatpak is good for diversity. Users don’t need to worry about whether the obscure distro they want to use has the software they want in its repos. If a distro supports flatpak it will work with most popular software out of the box.

      • taladar
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Developers are exceptionally bad at packaging software though.

          • taladar
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Depends, at least with the APT repo there is a chance they used lintian to avoid the worst mistakes.

    • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      Having run PostmarketOS on an old Samsung Galaxy tablet and now Arch on PineTab 2, Flatpak often works better than the native package manager. Especially with Wayland, many packages just work including touchscreen.

    • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      I may be misunderstanding flatpack, though I do understand the draw of all dependencies in one package.

      One of the big things that drew me to linux some years ago was “oh, you don’t have to reinstall every dependency 101 times in a packaged exe so the system stays much smaller?” As well as in-place updates without a restart. It resulted in things being much much less bloated, or maybe that was just placebo.

      Linux seems to be going in the flatpack direction which seems to just be turning it into a windows-like system. That and nix-like systems where everything is containerized and restarting is the only thing that applies updates seems to be negating those two big benefits.