Linux

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

I only used AUR for a few packages (<5 at a time). It's to be avoided and only used if the other options are a massive pain (unless it's an official package).

Then I left Arch and eventually landed on MX. During that time Nix with home-manager has slowly replaced flatpak, and I don't even have it installed anymore. Nix is better in every way, except for ease of use.

Flatpak has great gui integration (for gui tools). You can click through everything, and the updates are unified. It usually works perfectly fine if you just need to install a few programs.

With nix, there's a lot more setup, but there are many benefits. You end up with a list of packages, and that's really useful because you can take a fresh install, install nix and home manager, and then run a single line to reinstall everything. You can rollback updates, pin specific versions, install packages from a repo (if it has a flake.nix with outputs), and also configure them. I'm using the unstable branch, and it's giving me bleeding edge packages on Debian. And there's no risk of outdated system libraries, like with flatpak, because it provides everything.

Does anyone know how they handle spoofed malware? I can never figure out whether I can trust the packages from flathub. I always have to check the official website of the particular software first.

On the one hand I like the basic idea, on the other hand I think that some fundamental problems aren't fully solved yet. There big use case are passkeys and direct password manager integration – neither mesh well with the idea of software that isn't allowed to talk to most of the system.

I'm certain that this will be resolved at some point but for now I don't think Flatpak and its brethren are quite there yet.

I personally think it is trash..

People need to realize that before Flatpak, distributing a small-time Linux app was a nightmare. Appimages were your best option if you wanted to avoid distro specific builds, PPAs and AUR, etc. Ever since packaging 2009scape on Flathub I haven't looked back. It auto updates. People can find it from software centers. It works on all distros. It connects straight to upstream's CICD. It even forced us to adopt XDG compliance so we could sandbox it better.

Yes, Flatpak has downsides like the download size (on disk it doesn't matter because it gets compressed and the runtimes are shared, same as literally any other package manager). But overall, I hugely welcome it over the options we had before. Much love to the Flatpak and Flathub devs!

purely as an end user i hate how much it downloads with each update and how much it uses the disk space although that's much less of an issue. i know it's solving a real problem and relieving a lot of the headaches of developers maintaing packages for each distro's specific package standard, but it's simply not the software distribution solution for people without at least well enough internet.

i wouldn't use any distro with flatpaks as its main way of delivering software and i would in almost all cases always choose alternatives even if it's outdated. i don't necessarily hate flatpak itself but for me i don't want to spend money on extra data cap and wait 30 minutes for a small update for my game launcher to finish.

the appimage of one of the applications i was interested in was 3 times less than the average flatpak update so redownloading the appimage every time would be better. if i installed more packages yeah the math would be better but it's still wasted data per update no matter how small it actually is. i found out after a while of using flatpak that i wouldn't just update and was stuck with outdated software anyway.

My main problem with Flatpak is that it hands temporary /var/run/1000 file links to programs instead of real filenames. That would almost be bearable, if Flatpak also took responsibility for keeping those links from breaking sometime after your next reboot.

If I say "here is a path that an app is allowed to use", flatpak should just allow an open() in there to work. It should not lie about the name of files in there. An app should be able to open a file there, remember that name, and count on being able to access it again in the future.

Other than that, Flatpaks are the bees knees. I love finding something I want to do, finding a solution in the flatpak store, and click-click I'm already doing shit. Finding Windows software is absolute garbage next to this.

Where's that Chris Pratt meme? --

I don't know what that is and at this point I'm afraid to ask

I use it but I hate how much space it uses and I hate when I update flatpaks I have no idea how much is going to download.

Doesn't work properly, apps are bigger and don't always apply GTK themes. I also can't easily edit the desktop file to edit the icons. I therefore only use it as a backup when I can't find an app on the AUR or office repositories, which is very rare.

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).