Opinion: Fatpack is too fat!...

[rene]

these were added by flatpak so that your flatpak apps would have built in theme that is mint like or it will be just white theme

Or to put it more directly: anything supplied as flatpaks is used by other flatpaks only: there are no dependencies from your system-as-such and you can remove those e.g. themes without any impact on said system as such.

Flatpak runtimes are mini-distributions -- also see e.g. viewtopic.php?p=2306442#p2306442 -- and flatpak apps using them (can) use said mini-distribution's e.g. theming in the same manner your native apps (can) use your native distributions' e.g. theming; the supply of them as flatpak is (indeed) a mere matter of allowing for a more into the native distribution integrated look of the other (mini-) distribution's apps, the flatpak apps.

And that's in any case then to say that you can just do flatpak uninstall --all without any impact on your system if you don't / wouldn't use flatpak apps.

[Kurt3162]

Flatpak runtimes are mini-distributions

That I know. But it's a fallacy, since they are not actually entirely self-contained (like a VM): I'm slowly discovering that they do have dependencies, lots of them, and worse of all, all their dependencies have also Fatpak girth...

So we exchange a system of small programs + small dependencies for a supposedly better system of excessively huge programs + huge dependencies... Sorry, but I fail to see the point -- from a user's point of view. I'm sure there are several advantages from a developer's point of view, else Flatpaks (Snaps, Appimages, you name it) wouldn't had taken the Linux world by storm.

if you don't / wouldn't use flatpak apps.

I've been using Mint for many a happy year, always amazed how streamlined, efficient and user-friendly the apt system (and its GUI front-ends Software Manager/Update Manager) was, especially compared to Windows. As close to perfection as you can get.

So, as a user I see no need to use any kind of meta package, except, exclusively, when it's the only option to get some program I need/want.
Flatpaks aren't a choice, they're (from a user's point of view) just an "offer you can't refuse".

[rene]

In any case you did not know that those themes you repeatedly pointed to as supposedly some kind of argument for something were not in fact used by your native distribution. You're here to complain, and while I don't necessarily mind that generally, here we have...

You do not have to convince me of Flatpak not being a great solution to anything: it's why I as said above don't use them -- but you do and are as far as I'm concerned going to have take one and only one option from among "use them" and "complain about them". The stuff about "needing" flatpak is certainly at the moment simply nonsense; through distribution repositories plus perhaps a few PPAs you can very much run a system with anything you actually need.

It's the insistence on newer/other applications of the very type that you are demonstrating that drives a "stable" distribution such as Linux Mint that can't provide things natively to give you the option of Flatpak. Yes, potential future situations always good to keep tabs on, but for any of this current rant to be taken seriously I'd really advise you start eating your own dog food, i.e., stop using Flatpak and/or maybe go sit on some unstable/rolling distribution with more current repositories.

Right now you are merely objecting to you yourself having taken advantage of an option you were given: there's a really easy way to fix that. Flatpak is a way to have your cake and eat it too. If you don't like Flatpak, stop eating that cake.

[Kurt3162]

In any case you did not know that those themes you repeatedly pointed to as supposedly some kind of argument for something were not in fact used by your native distribution.

Indeed, and I did learn a lot of stuff since I've started this thread. My (only) point is that Flatpaks are too huge to be practical for anybody who isn't on a spotless fiber connection. And that they (and all the other meta packages) are getting more and more common.

Of course you can (and do) say if you don't like them don't use them, but I don't agree with this "my way or the highway" attitude. I'm sure the system is still far from perfect and there are still major improvements possible. Why say it here? Well, as the title might suggest, I'm fishing for opinions of other users. I'm not convinced I'm in possession of the Universal Truth (especially concerning Linux!), which means I need to survey other people to see if in this case I'm totally misguided or at least partially right.

You're here to complain

No, not just to complain. See below:

for any of this current rant to be taken seriously I'd really advise you [...] stop using Flatpak

Well, I for one wouldn't trust the rant of somebody about something he doesn't actually use. That's definitely gratuitous and pointless.

I do rant because I have to use them, and I can't, because the local telecom infrastructure hasn't yet lived up to the unlimited bandwidth craze. Thus my rant: Too heavy, too many/too big updates, not optimized for limited bandwidths.
Once again: I don't mind Flatpak as such, I mind the fact I can't possibly use it out here.

[rene]

I do rant because I have to use them

So you say, again, but you have not convinced anyone of that. And I personally in fact called it flat-out nonsense.

[denonom]

I do rant because I have to use them

Haven't we already sorted out that there are alternative installation methods for all programs that you allegedly have to use?

I mean, I know that I am getting old, but fortunately I can still remember what I replied to a couple of days ago

Since we already cut the list short once, how about saying specifically what you still need and only think you can get as Flatpak?

[rene]

With denonom taking up the "needed" part, let me then comment on...

I'm sure the system is still far from perfect and there are still major improvements possible.

... by saying that that's not really true. Flatpak eventually exists first and foremost to overcome nearly ridiculous level of fragmentation in "Linux" -- and said level is ridiculous enough that you're basically not going to do that by any other means than how flatpak/snap do, i.e., by basically (conceptually, via runtimes) bundling an application with the specific standardized freedesktop/ubuntu-core distribution it's going to be running under.

AppImage allows for less sharing and/but therefore in the end solves that part only very partially at best -- and in the second most sense of providing an easy target for third-party developers fails outright.

I'll refrain from talking about the third most sense of "security" since that's basically all bullpoop anyway at least on desktop Linux but should one care for the concept, serious isolation and therefore serious dependence on the runtime alone, therefore serious runtime, is again a given.

I.e., a system that sets out to solve the things flatpak/snap set out to solve by and large automatically is flatpak/snap -- how ever much that may suck.

[Kurt3162]

overcome nearly ridiculous level of fragmentation in "Linux"

Sure, and I fully agree with that, but you've all simply decided to ignore my actual grievance, which was bandwidth requirements (the title is a hint! ). I'm not saying Flatpak is stupid or Flatpak is useless, I'm saying day-to-day Flatpak management requires unearthly amounts of bandwidth, that's all.

All right, you all defend Flatpak, I can understand that, but admit at least that throwing huge files around (which a couple years ago would had filled a whole drive) isn't what one could call a perfect solution.
Now ignoring the issue, calling it "nonsense" or telling me "simply don't use them" doesn't make the problem go away: No matter the benefits of Flatpak, its use implies a huge waste of bandwidth (compared to the old system). Which for some might not be a problem, but you can call me stupid, call me a Luddite, for me it is a problem, since as I said, I'm on a metered, utterly crappy DSL.

[Moem]

No matter the benefits of Flatpak, its use implies a huge waste of bandwidth (compared to the old system). Which for some might not be a problem, but you can call me stupid, call me a Luddite, for me it is a problem, since as I said, I'm on a metered, utterly crappy DSL.

This post surprised me and it may surprise you, too. Especially the last sentence is worth noting.

flatpak uses delta updates and deduplication. That is, only new and changed files are downloaded and if the same file is in multiple flatpaks it is stored on disk only once. For the download size of updates flatpak basically gives a "worst case", not knowing beforehand how large the delta is precisely or how much can be deduplicated. Update Manager shows the size as reported by flatpak which in practice is too large and the downloads are usually much smaller. The Linux Mint developers are aware this causes some confusion among users and the wording in Update Manager will get some changes.

If you manually run flatpak update you can see the actual download size as the updates are downloaded. I did just that; of the estimated download size less than 8% actually needed to be downloaded.

[rene]

Sure, and I fully agree with that, but you've all simply decided to ignore my actual grievance, which was bandwidth requirements

Certainly specifically I did not: quoting myself from page 1...

In any case, you shouldn't be using flatpaks if you for whatever reason don't like them. I don't -- and I don't. Specifically if you're on crappy internet you just may need to conclude that whatever "necessity" you feel to have for flatpak applications isn't in fact all that necessary, or perhaps that you want to go sit on a rolling distribution with newer applications available out of the box rather than on (super) non-rolling Linux Mint.

while noting that the "needed" bit is just not true (today) and then as per my last above reply adding that the problems (aimed to be) solved by flatpak/snap require basically flatpak/snap. That that's just how it is, however unfortunate one may feel it to be: do not use flatpaks or suffer them.

Imperfect world and all.

[xenopeek]

As follow up for Moem's post above where she quotes another post of mine; I usually update flatpaks once every 2 weeks and it's a couple hundred MB of actual download at a time. That's for the dozen flatpak apps I have installed and the runtimes they use.

I'm not on metered connection at home so don't know what is a problematic size for you. But a couple hundred MB doesn't sound like a lot on the internet these days. Watching 30 minutes of Youtube or other streaming videos adds up to the same download size as my flatpak updates do once every 2 weeks. I guess you hit that also just browsing the internet for a couple of hours, no watching videos.

[Artim]

A lot to be said for PPAs compared to Flatpaks, I think. I know a lot of people warn users to be wary of PPAs, but the alternatives just plain suck.

[rene]

I feel that there's a place for Flatpak -- and said place to near exclusively be /opt. I.e., to be large, independently developed and as far as I care commercial and/or closed-source applications that would (or should, Steam) now find their place there. For the system as such or parts of the system as such Flatpak is full-on madness.

[t42]

Isolation is good per se and flatpak may improve Linux security but I'm unsure on delegating security to the various third parties. Only a little more than half of flatpak applications have tamperproof sandboxes, and beside that defining application policies is open to errors.

[xenopeek]

We're apparently done with answering about update sizes and the confusion about what Update Manager is showing. As the topic is turning into chat, I've moved it there.

I feel that there's a place for Flatpak -- and said place to near exclusively be /opt. […] For the system as such or parts of the system as such Flatpak is full-on madness.

You can set FLATPAK_SYSTEM_DIR=/opt if you don't like the default directory /var/lib/flatpak for the file store. I don't see why you'd care whether it uses /opt or /var/lib/flatpak.

flatpak is intended for GUI apps and the libraries they need ­— either bundled with the app or bundled in a shared runtime. The libraries are needed to make them OS independent. It's not like Snap that is also intended for cloud & IoT deployments.

[rene]

You can set FLATPAK_SYSTEM_DIR=/opt if you don't like the default directory /var/lib/flatpak for the file store. I don't see why you'd care whether it uses /opt or /var/lib/flatpak.

That was obviously not what I was saying. What I am saying is Flatpak to in my view be good for, I quote, "large, independently developed and as far as I care commercial and/or closed-source applications that would (or should, Steam) now find their place" in /opt. Mathematica, MATLAB, as mentioned Steam -- so on and conceptually/by-design all the way on to e.g. Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop -- but not for basics (and generally for open-source software only as a convenience thing, e.g. newest LibreOffice, but whatever).

For anything basic launching a fully separate and of your real distribution independent mini-distribution is madness, space and speed-wise. I.e., Ubuntu's snap-packaging of Chromium is madness and Red Hat's seeming route to eventually flatpak-package any and all is hopping madness. But e.g. Steam doesn't really do much other already anyway, and if the level of control as to distribution is what e.g. Adobe needs to provide their software for Linux then still all for. Great.

I'll personally still probably not use it -- but great.

[Tolayon]

The biggest gripe I have with Flatpaks, compared to the other universal formats (Appimage, Snap) is their uncompresses size on disk, which is usually 10 times larger than the standard .deb-based version of that program.

That being said, there is right now one application that only exists as Flatpak and can be really helpful for running Windows software:
"Bottles", a wrapper for Wine, but unlike PlayOnLinux always up to date. The size, however, when I looked was over 4GB on disk ... So don't install Flatpaks if you only have one rather small disk for your system, files and probably Timeshift backups as well!

[xenopeek]

[…] "Bottles", a wrapper for Wine, but unlike PlayOnLinux always up to date. The size, however, when I looked was over 4GB on disk ...

How do you figure that? flatpak info com.usebottles.bottles shows me 482 MB.

I'm also not seeing "usually 10 times larger than the standard .deb-based version" for the installed size of flatpaks. Some are much larger yes, because they bundle libraries that are not available through a shared runtime. But for the apps I have installed I see mostly that the flatpak is not even twice as large, and at times the flatpak is even smaller than the .deb. For example the gnome-text-editor .deb has an installed size of 1.7 MB while the flatpak org.gnome.TextEditor has an installed size of 1.3 MB.