Its even worse when you force Firefox to use wayland its icon doesn’t even show.

Edit: Oh since everyone now is confused; I only have the flatpak version of Firefox installed yet it doesn’t use the pinned icon and doesn’t even use the firefox icon under wayland at all.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
5 points

I never intend to use a flatpak or snap, and avoid them like the plague. The whole concept is incredibly ugly to me, and wasteful of computer resources.

permalink
report
reply
22 points

The whole concept is incredibly ugly

Depends on the viewpoint. As a software consumer, sure. As a software producer though, not having to deal with with tons of different packaging formats and repositories for different distributions and versions is a blessing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It wastes resources on the consumer side to free up resources on the developer side, allowing for more time spent on improving the software instead of worrying about millions of different system setup combinations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Pretty much typical these days. Developers will often use metric tons of middleware hell to avoid writing one function or using native library. What’s that, GTK or Qt require few days to learn. Naah, I’ll just include whole browser with my application and write interface in HTML/CSS. Who cares about people’s configuration, accessibility needs, battery life, screen readers, etc.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Am a developer and I can very much agree on package managers have nasty configuration, but at the same time flatpak is the exact same thing. No different that any other package. Except now you have to learn yet another standard that’s even less popular than major ones. You can even claim it’s easier, but the fact remains it’s not the defacto standard, so you still have to provide other packages as well as flatpak if you wish to do so.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

flatpak isn’t the same because you only have to learn one packaging format and can distribute to virtually any system out there. I really don’t see why you’d also package for every distro individually then. Installing flatpak isn’t that hard, it not being “the defacto standard” shouldn’t be an issue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points
*

Yep lazy developers! That doesn’t care about security!

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

You aren’t owed a native package for whatever OS you’re using. In fact, you should be thankful that flatpak exists because the most common alternative is piping wget into shell.

And if you care so much about security, just build your stuff from source. Whether flatpak or apt, at some point you will run third-party code.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

-said the person that probably has never worked in their entire life

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yesterday I freed up 6GB of diskspace by uninstalling a single flatpak app and running

flatpak uninstall --unused

Somehow flatpak had grown to fill the disk over the years, my installation is about 5 years old, and I have only used flatpak very sparingly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Yes. Great for lazy developers who don’t give a crap about quality.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Agreed

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points
*

I don’t really understand why you would do anything other than native install unless you really, really need the performance.

Edit: 5 months later and I recognize this was a shit take.

permalink
report
parent
reply

linuxmemes

!linuxmemes@lemmy.world

Create post

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:
Community rules
  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

Community stats

  • 8K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.3K

    Posts

  • 69K

    Comments