How does it stack up against traditional package management and others like AUR and Nix?
@kingmongoose7877 until someone tells me another way to run 2 python apps one which requires python 2 and one which requires python 3, on the same system, which is EASIER than installing a flatpak, im gonna maintain that they have a use case, even if they aren’t idealized package management as we dreamed of
I think pyenv would be the appropriate tool for doing a native install. And of course when it comes to CLI, Flatpak isn’t really for that.
@pingveno i think that two things get conflated. 1. flatpaks and appimages, snaps, have some niche uses for obsolete software and maybe some other edge cases 2. because the two major standards are backed by dumbass corporate entities, they have been promoted as the universal solution to everything that will revolutionize linux 3. the real thing everyone hates, is these stupid companies trying to get rid of a beautiful package management architechture so they can enshittify linux like windows
I think their uses extend beyond obsolete software. In particular, trying to get updates out to a wide variety of Linux distros has generally meant a tradeoff between “move fast, break things” and “move slow, never change”. Flatpak gives you a stable set of libraries to work with and the ability to run multiple versions of those libraries at once. Linux package managers have a place, but their sheer proliferation means that for most applications to reach all desktop Linux users, they have to go through something like Flatpak for distribution.
