>>101228565
It's good for things your distro don't pack or only packs LTS versions. So for things like Steam, Firefox, LibreWolf, Ungoogled Chromium and etc.
For everything else, it's overkill

>>101228624
What are flatpaks? Like, what's the difference between these and a normal package install

>>101228565
https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/issues/1188#issuecomment-523259837

File: tumblr_nsw7q8VY721s16nm7o(...).jpg (168 KB, 777x900)

168 KB JPG

>>101228565
What do you guys see in this image?
A) a box with the top open
B) a box with the top half painted
C) an hexagon with a weird figure in the middle
D) a box with 2 doors

>>101228719
OP's image I mean

>>101228624
steam updates itself
>>101228639
software that is unrelated to the underlying OS and thus can update while the os updates and also if a package breaks on the os the flatpaks still work

>>101228756
>steam updates itself
Yup, but it depends on system libs, that's why Arch has two versions of Steam. Also Steam is not available much less supported by default in most distros.

In Linux packages should only contains the bare minimum that constitutes a program, all libs and even documentation are often separated so it can be managed separately. Flatpak "packages" everything together so they become distro agnostic and can theoretically run on everything Linux

>>101228719
A, it's an open box because you can see the insides.

>>101228565
its aight if you have a couple gigs to spare

>>101228565
Emulators are its only usecase.

When you emulate gayms with wine, you would need a gorillion different wine prefixes and even old as fuck 23bit libraries.
With flatpak, they can be in their own retard-box and you don't have to worry about it.

For everything else, it is stupid, insecure and takes more space.
i.e. a bug in a library might be patched by the distribution it its specific package, it only updates that one library, and you are fine.
Meanwhile in flatpak, every single package has to update by itself and be packed again. And the person doing it is some random tranny on github who might be MIA at the time.

>>101228565
its usable

>>101229009
>For everything else, it is stupid, insecure
Ah, yes it's definitely more secure to have all software have complete access to your whole system.

>>101229385
Having all your software installed as your user in your user directory is in fact insecure.
Back in the day, we used to have strict policies disallowing binaries in user directories. Having everything under one single user is Windows <=98 tier.
>have all software have complete access to your whole system
is not the case with ordinary system packages

>>101228565
It's only needed because unix trannies can't into static linking

>>101229925
You have not a single .dll file in your windows?

>>101228624
I never understood why some people use overkill as if its a bad thing, wouldn't it be better that something goes above and beyond?

>>101228719
A. It's a hollow box.

>>101229913
Just have it so you need to enter a password every 30 minutes or so if you are worried about someone stealing your laptop.

>>101229931
NONONONONO!
What he means is that every software installs its own dynamic-link-libraries that it links to dynamically!

You have to understand that windows pajeets are stupid.
They pick up a buzzword and then repeat it for years. Someone ones told them that shipping an application in one .exe installer is "dynamic linking" and they repeat it ever since.

>>101229931
.dll's on windows are mostly reserved for system32 where they remain unchanged with stable backward compatible ABIs for literally decades.
For user space libraries, the single biggest most crucial difference is that .dll's are loaded in a different priority order from .so files on Linux.
When launching an .exe on windows, the current directory of the executable is checked for matching .dlls before it checks the PATH and the system locations.
This allows programs to bundle all the dependencies that they need directly alongside the .exe file in a single directory.
This doesn't work on Linux. The current binary directory is not searched for matching symbols unless the RPATH of the binary is modified, or LD_LIBRARY_PATH has been set.

Flatpak (and snap, and appimage, and even docker) literally only exist because they need to artificially emulate what Windows does natively with .dll symbol resolution.

>>101230003
Oh, but also. The vast vast majority of programs compiled for windows just statically link all their dependencies. Thats why you get fully self contained .exe files that work perfectly fine on their own.

>>101229935
The silliness of wanting to install everything Flatpak becomes evident when you open up Flatseal. It should be used for special cases, or stuff you really need separated from your base system.

>>101230003
>dll's on windows are mostly reserved for system32 where they remain unchanged with stable backward compatible ABIs for literally decades
Weird, my MS Office comes with lots of .dll files.
My firefox in the programs folder has tons of .dll files.
Even my 7zip comes with dll files.
How is that possible, if it is all static linking?
>loads librarbies from current folder
But that is still dynamic linking
>linux can't do that
Of course it can. I have one executable here that shipped as a tarball with the libraries inside. It's exactly the same thing that windows does.
>stable ABI
Windows ABI changes a lot.
Thats why you need all those weird "compatibility modes" that nobody knows what exactly they do and that never actually work right.

>>101230034
>The vast vast majority of programs compiled for windows just statically link all their dependencies
Absolutely wrong.
>Thats why you get fully self contained .exe files
The exe installers are nothing more than self-extracting archives.
Once they installed what they need, you will see all your nice DLL files (DYNAMIC-link libraries) in your programs folder.

Windows pajeets are so utterly stupid that they don't even know how their own OS works.

>>101230034
"static linking" is just a buzzword you picked up from some youtuber and you repeat it ever since, without even knowing what it means.

There is barely a single windows application that is statically linked. Even the "portable apps" usually come with dlls.

>>101229913
A tiling WM will stop 99% of nigthiefs from doing anything

>>101230115
>>101230094
>>101230078
You guys have never developed a single piece of software and it shows.

>>101230137
Fuck off, ranjeet.
If your application is statically linked, it DOES NOT need to dynamically load a DLL file, with the DLL standing for Dynamic-Link Library.

File: 1707909353187.png (122 KB, 1546x553)

122 KB PNG

>>101230003
>This allows programs to bundle all the dependencies that they need directly alongside the .exe file in a single directory.
>This doesn't work on Linux.
retard

>>101230221
I know that, but are you aware that a .dll itself can be statically linked?
.dlls on windows typically have far far fewer transitive dependencies than on Linux.
>>101230236
I literally mentioned RPATH in my post.

>>101230260
>but the dll itself can be staticall linked
The dll itself can also be linked to absolutely nothing
But if your binary dynamically loads the dll, then your binary is using dynamic linking.

>>101230260
you said
>unless RPATH of the binary is modified
This is an argument for the linker. Not the runtime one, the one producing the binary. This is not something that the user or distributor has to hack somewhere.
If the binary wants to load libraries that are in the same folder as itself, it can do so, no user interaction needed, it just works.

You either do not understand what you are talking about, or you are deliberately dishonest.

Wndows has to do dynamic linking even from a legal perspective. The library for the codec you pay fees for might not want to be statically linked. If you statically link a library that has GPL code inside... guess what will happen?
Statically linking of anything that is under any different license than what you make is a pretty bad idea.
On Linux however, when you work under the GPL anyway and everything around you is GPL compatible, nothing is stopping you from using that -Bstatic.

But the question is:
Why would you? What would be the benefit?
All benefits of it are made up bullshit that pajeets spread on /g/ to people who never compiled anything ever in their life.

>>101228565
be careful with flatpaks, appimages, snaps, bottles, etc

some dont integrate properly depending on maintainer and your host. for example, vscode microsharters refuse to add fcitx support to their snap.

so make sure to just check compatibility of what you are going to be installing with whatever containerization/abstraction/static binary delivery you are using. desu I end up with native pkgs, appimages, flatpaks, and snaps all on the same fucking system sometimes because different projects will have better versions maintained in different systems

>But the question is: Why would you? What would be the benefit?
NTA, but the benefit is being able to just distribute a single file to people and have it JustWork™ when they run it.

>>101230691
NTA isn't even a reddit thing you fucking imbecile

>>101230691
most brain-damaged post, and don't use meme images you don't understand

File: mass_replier.png (39 KB, 882x624)

39 KB PNG

>>101230691

The post is already deleted retards, stop freaking out.

File: coomer-2.png (17 KB, 250x208)

17 KB PNG

>>101228719
Ass, tits and feet

>>101228719
Built for BBC

Yes, it's fine if you follow:
>Don't install things (such as browsers) that use their own sandboxing
Flatpaks tamper and therefore reduce security in sandboxing solutions, such as the sandboxing browsers use. Therefore browsers are one of the only things you should install directly on the host.

>Follow minimum required access ideology by modifying permissions with flatseal
A lot of flatpaks just give themselves unecessary and complete access to /home, /etc/, or your entire drive as well as other shit that they don't really need. Every time you install a flatpak, review it's permissions with flatseal and figure out what it actually needs, then only give access to that. Remove all unnecessary permissions.

>only grab flatpaks from verified contributors
Anyone can make a flatpak, meaning potential for MITM bullshit. If a flatpak is verified, it means that the creator of the software you're trying to install has verified the flatpak as "official", meaning either making the flatpaks themselves or a third party that they have ok'd.

>Remove non/old/incorrectly maintained flatpaks
A good (and occasional negative) thing about flatpaks is that they have everything necessary for the program you want to function. however, this means that in situations where the flatpak maintainer is a moron, or perhaps retarded, they don't update the supporting required software, meaning you could have critical CVE's in support software that the idiot haven't patched.

If you keep these things in mind, you should be good. Use flatpaks for everything, should be the new standard imo - but linux being linux you have retards who refuse to adapt to more user friendly technologies.

>>101230962
>you have retards who refuse to adapt to more user friendly technologies.
Learning pacman or portage takes less time than doing everything that you just said re-tard

>>101228719
I see a blue hexagon
Inside are two rhombuses, one on the left and on on the right, but the right has been cut in half leaving only a triangle.

>>101228565
I've really liked it. Just werks and can allow for nice system/user separation. Good way to use a stable distro but have latest "apps".
>>101228624
Can be nice for solving the codec issue

>>101229009
It's like another anon said if you have few gigs free then it's no problem space wise.

>>101230679
If that's the goal then there's AppImage

>>101228565
if you add filesystems=!home;!host to your global config, yes it's fine

>>101231088
AppImage is decent and usually just works from a user POV, but it requires an annoying amount of setup to create them properly from a dev POV.

>>101228565
Flatpak and immutable distros will finally bring about the year of the Linux desktop.

>>101231998
Yeah it's not my favourite and I don't see it as taking over application distribution like flatpak has (and will). But for the goal of "single file you can transfer over" it's the best solution so far.

>>101229913
this pic is the same for malware too, it's hilarious.

It's mediocre. It's just another hack on the behemoth that is the Linux desktop. I understand what they're trying to do, but I think AppImages do that better. And you don't really need either if you actually know how to configure Linux. But for normies I guess it's alright.

>>101232309
I think flatpaks have a few benefits over AppImages. Namely the repo model and the shared runtimes. And for whatever reason my experience with AppImage on different distros has been really hit-and-miss, pretty often it has failed where flatpaks (and snaps) have jsut werked.

>>101232698
I don't like repos. Windows was right in just having apps install themselves, it's much simpler to go on a website, download a program and execute it, rather than already having been on that website, hoping it exists in whatever repo you're using and using a separate program to install it.

I tend to prefer whatever package manager comes with my distro though because that's just how I learned to use Linux and those packages often come configured specifically for the distro.

>>101231034
>Can be nice for solving the codec issue
What codec issue? I haven't had any since mplayer times.

>>101233045
I personally can't stand the Windows model. You'll have to fetch shit from all over and updating shit manually is a pain or everything has their own janky ass updater. Much nicer being able to just click on update.
>>101234305
Some distros don't ship patent encumbered codecs for fear of litigation.

>>101234611
>Some distros don't ship patent encumbered codecs for fear of litigation.
And in all of them it's trivial to install repositories that have it, such as AUR, Packman, RPMFusion and whatever Debian and Ubuntu use.

>>101234645
Arch, Ubuntu and Debian have proprietary codecs in their native repositories, correct me if I'm wrong. Ubuntu just has you tick a "install third-party multimedia codecs" checkbox in the installer.

It's great. The only thing I loathe about it are the huge sizes and the currently annoying way permissions are handled.

>>101228719
I see a merchant

>>101234645
I know. It's trivial to add extra repos but at least on openSUSE the extra repo in question (Packman) can cause issues. So I rather not add it when the issue can be solved by installing the media facing stuff as flatpaks

>>101234611
The updater can't be "janky" because it was built specifically for that app and it's usually as simple as clicking an "update" popup box.

You haven't actually used Windows in a while have you? There are simply some things Windows does right.

File: 110922145_p0.png (401 KB, 1417x1417)

401 KB PNG

>install a couple of flatpaks
>run out of space
thanks linux!

>>101236140
>The updater can't be "janky" because it was built specifically for that app and it's usually as simple as clicking an "update" popup box.
Kek. Someone making an updater for specifically their application doesn't tell anything about how well it functions. If they're a shit programmer of course the end result won't be good just because they're making both the app and the updater. And out of all the shit that has an updater of their own (and jesus don't get me started on the mess of every program having their own with varying ways of functioning and some starting updating when you try to use that program etc etc) a lot of them are pretty shit. Fucking hell, the Windows Updates shit is made specifically for Windows. Must be good, right? Kek
>You haven't actually used Windows in a while have you?
I wish. I'm the tech support for my wife and few other people. The fucking pain of trying to make sure everything is up to date. On my distro it's just one click. On Windows, it's a fucking pain having to start every software and sometimes having to check if there's a new version online, downloading it and going through a goddman install wizard. What utter bullshit waste of time.
>There are simply some things Windows does right.
I bet. This just isn't one of them. Single click to update the system and all apps vs the diarrhea soup of bazillion separate updaters, manual tasks and a garbage pajeetware Windows updater to top it all off.

>>101236231
Try something that isn't a floppy disk next time.