How does it stack up against traditional package management and others like AUR and Nix?

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I’m a bit “eh” on flatpak. The only benefit I see is that it’s sometimes more up-to-date than what I can get from an LTS package repository. As a heavy CLI user they force me to find and click icons which is irritating (yeah - I know about flatpak run something.I.always.forget but that’s even worse somehow).

    I’ve hit occasional issues with applications being too locked-down. Like with Darktable only being able to see things in $HOME/Pictures. But I keep my photography work in a different location so it can’t see it. I had to jump through some odd hoops to fix that. Not a problem of flatpak itself per se but something you can expect when dealing with package makers.

    I fall back on flatpak if the version available through the standard package manager is too out-of-date for my liking. Other than that I can’t be bothered.

    EDIT: Okay - for people who think they’re being “helpful” by telling me that “aliases are a thing” just stop. I’m not going to workaround a broken system. I’m going to use another one that isn’t broken (or less broken).

    • ZephrC@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      If you’re going to use flatpak from the command line you’re definitely going to need to start aliasing those flatpak run commands. It’s still annoying, but at least that way it’s only annoying once.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        No. I’ll use snaps before I start maintaining a bunch of aliases that I shouldn’t have to. It’s a flaw in flatpak.

        • ZephrC@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Well okay. I agree that it’s a flaw in Flatpak, but if you think adding a single line to your .bashrc is some kind of unbearable burden that you shouldn’t have to endure and you’re willing to make your own experience far worse just to avoid it, then I think you’re being a bit silly. I mean, be as silly as you want. Don’t let me tell you what to do. You are being silly though.

          • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            if you think adding a single line to your .bashrc is some kind of unbearable burden that you shouldn’t have to endure and you’re willing to make your own experience far worse just to avoid it, then I think you’re being a bit silly.

            I’m making my experience much better actually? Stop justifying flatpak’s flaws because you like flatpak. It’s flawed. Deal with it.

            • ZephrC@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              I don’t even like flatpak very much, I’m not currently using it at all, and I already agreed it was flawed right at the very start of the quote you cut off there. I was just trying to be helpful. Sorry. Won’t happen again. If you want to make things hard for yourself and no one else as a weird self-defeating protest then don’t let me stop you. Don’t pretend I didn’t do the thing I just did and you had to edit out of the quote though. That’s a real dick move, frankly.

              • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                If you want to make things hard for yourself

                I’m sorry - but WTF? What part of me “doing something that is easier for me” also “making things hard for myself?” Talk about a “dick move”…

        • Pantherina@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          No snaps are insecure on other distros that Ubuntu, as they are only isolated using apparmor. Also they are nonfree by design, just no.

          • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            They’re not insecure. No more so than when I install a package via apt. No more so than when I download some code and compile it. This is propaganda.

              • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Indeed - if your understanding of “secure” is that simple then that definition works fine.

                In the real world there is no such thing as “secure” and “insecure” - there are tradeoffs and levels of security.

                • TeryVeneno@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Oh yeah for sure I’m just mentioning what it means in this context. Definitely means snap is more insecure off Ubuntu though.

    • Pantherina@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Try this aliasing script I made

      No idea if it still works lol, but should tbh. I think its even pretty well done.

      1. Lists your installed flatpak apps
      2. Searches for already added aliases
      3. Convert the appname to be the last part, remove - _ and make uppercase letters lowercase
      4. Alias to bash, fish, zsh

      Only thing missing is handling duplicate apps I think.