When should I install flatpaks over standard applications?

[JeansenVaars]

Hi all,

I am curious about, as of this writing, when to decide to install a flatpak over a normal application.

I understand the advantage of flatpak is that it is self contained application, not using system dependencies. Nonetheless what are the disadvantages? By what I've seen so far, flatpak directory on my system weights a lot, and for some applications, the flathub version is completely broken (e.g. Remmina GUI is completely messed up).. is there any other reason not to a always use them?


Thanks,
JV

[smurphos]

Advantages -

generally a newer if not the newest version of whatever the package is than the repo version.
can have flatpak version and repo version installed side by side

Disadvantages -

1) automatic silent updates - could introduce regressions / bugs to the application itself. Could be an issue if you are on metered bandwidth.
2) take a lot of disk space
3) no support currently for applying system theme if visual consistency is important for you.

[Hoser Rob]

The point of things like flatpaks is to get around a nasty Linux problem. There are just too many package management systems, library versions, DEs, APIs, and, yes, distros. It's a nightmare trying to write software for all those different systems. SO flatpaks etc basically have the needed libraries bundled in the package itself.

Having each flatpak bringing essentially a Linux runtime environment with it isn't the most efficient way top go, and this is why your flatpak folders are a bit large. For those users who want Linux to have a low footprint this isn't so good though. They may also be buggy, like any software, and as mentioned they aren't likely to integrate nicely with your theming.

I haven't used any yet but I used an avidemux appimage (same idea really) when I ran 17.3 on my laptop. The repo version wouldn't edit h264 video, and these things, I think, are still better than a ppa that may cause issues or (ugh) tarballs.

But I wouldn't use one unless it's something I really needed. And having the newest version of software is often a lot lless important than you'd think.

[JeansenVaars]

Thank you both, this wraps up my understanding. It makes a lot of sense. I'll leave Flatpaks to problematic applications or the ones I really need the latest version. Slack chat application is one of them for example, Steam is my bet another one.

JV

[lmuserx4849]

The point of things like flatpaks is to get around a nasty Linux problem. There are just too many package management systems, library versions, DEs, APIs, and, yes, distros. It's a nightmare trying to write software for all those different systems. SO flatpaks etc basically have the needed libraries bundled in the package itself.

Having each flatpak bringing essentially a Linux runtime environment with it isn't the most efficient way top go, and this is why your flatpak folders are a bit large. For those users who want Linux to have a low footprint this isn't so good though. They may also be buggy, like any software, and as mentioned they aren't likely to integrate nicely with your theming.

I haven't used any yet but I used an avidemux appimage (same idea really) when I ran 17.3 on my laptop. The repo version wouldn't edit h264 video, and these things, I think, are still better than a ppa that may cause issues or (ugh) tarballs.

But I wouldn't use one unless it's something I really needed. And having the newest version of software is often a lot lless important than you'd think.

I agree with everything except the last paragraph I'm 50% System Software sure. I have the same hardware. But not Application Software on a project that is Active. From a user's perspective: Why fight bugs that have already been fixed. Why prolong the pain of a missing feature. Desktops are competing with online apps, and I want desktop apps to win. I still think Linux does it better than the other OS's.

xkcd has some funny thoughts on the number of package management tools.

There are 3 new competing Application package managers. I prerfer Appimage, and wish flatpak was an optional install on LM.

I'd install a flatpak if all other resources were exhausted that I was capable of implementing. If you are committed to the Linux Mint distribution, use what they have to offer.

[Royi]

Disadvantages -

1) automatic silent updates - could introduce regressions / bugs to the application itself. Could be an issue if you are on metered bandwidth.

Is there a way to control the updates manually?

[Sir Charles]

Is there a way to control the updates manually?

You could disable "Apply Flatpak Updates" in "Application Autostart" and then update manually the one you want by running:

Code: Select all

flatpak update APPLICATION

[Royi]

Is there a way to control the updates manually?

You could disable "Apply Flatpak Updates" in "Application Autostart" and then update manually the one you want by running:

Code: Select all

flatpak update APPLICATION

Where can I find Application Autostart?
Is there a mode which just ask for confirmation before updating?

[Sir Charles]

Settings --> Session and Startup --> Application Autostart
If there is mode that can be toggled to get confirmation, I am afraid I am not aware of.

[Hoser Rob]

... From a user's perspective: Why fight bugs that have already been fixed.

Because every release that contains bug fixes also contains new bugs, quite possibly more than before.

Why prolong the pain of a missing feature.

Because new features that are worth the bother are rare.