• trevor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I can say with great certainty that the only package format that we don’t need is Snap. AppImages and Flatpaks both have their place, but Snap is just a great way to find yourself wasting time because their shitty fucking sandbox system doesn’t work properly (and also doesn’t sandbox at all if you’re not running AppArmor 🤡).

  • Alk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The answer is “yes”. Especially for noobs, they are a life saver. My distro’s repository is missing a lot of things that I can easily get with flatpak.

    • FizzyOrange@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 day ago

      I don’t think there were any standards for this sort of thing when Flatpak and Snaps first came out, and they arrived at the same time and have pretty big differences. So this doesn’t apply.

  • patlefort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s also useful for big server applications like Nextcloud. I use snap for Nextcloud since it was broken on Fedora when I tried it.

  • Artyom@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 day ago

    No, you don’t. Containers are the endgame of a bunch of dumb people saying “I don’t like apt, so I’m going to make my own and it’ll be better in my own distro”, and now we have a hundred incompatible alternatives that are worse than apt, and no one knows how to deploy for all of them, so they give up and make a container.

    • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Even if everyone agreed on Apt as the standard package format, wouldn’t you still need to create multiple packages for the various different versions of libraries each distro will still have depending on their release cycle? As far as I know, it can be done theoretically, but since libraries can often break ABI, it’s safer to bundle all dependencies, but then you’re not far off from an appimage in practice.

      Also, what are your thoughts on Richard Brown’s (of opensuse) talk on Flatpak, who was a prominent hater of containerized apps.

      • sip@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        if it’s not in my distro or I can’t compile it withing my distro’s packages, I’m not installing it. I don’t want the same library in ten versions.

        • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Flatpak shares libraries, so there are no duplicates of the same version, though there may be duplicates of other versions, as that would ensure compatibility with the specific app.

          App image does not share libraries between apps, so it would potentially have more duplicates.