I’ve been using arch for a while now and I always used Flatpaks for proprietary software that might do some creepy shit because Flatpaks are supposed to be sandboxed (e.g. Steam). And Flatpaks always worked flawlessly OOTB for me. AUR for things I trust. I’ve read on the internet how people prefer AUR over Flatpaks. Why? And how do y’all cope with waiting for all the AUR installed packages to rebuild after every update? Alacritty takes ages to build for me. Which is why I only update the AUR installed and built applications every 2 weeks.
Nonfree software does not have the ability to be rebuilt on each update anyway, since it’s distributed as pre-built binaries. So they won’t build anyway.
I tend to use AUR packages where possible if the package is not in the official repos. Only if the AUR package is broken do I turn to flatpaks.
Right. So my priority should be like this:
Proprietary: Flatpak
Open Source: Official Repo then AUR
My priority is: Official repo, AUR then Flatpak.
No matter what license it is. Although, if I need microsoft stuff I usually go flatpak there, so it’s sealed off.
Users who don’t want redundant dependencies will probably prefer AUR packages. It can also be nice to manage all the packages with just the helper app. I try to install the binaries of apps from the AUR if they’re available to avoid the long build times.
An AUR package has been done for Arch by (supposedly) someone who knows what they are doing and needs it on their Arch Machine
A Flatpak is something done by someone, to (supposedly) work everywhere, untested on Arch, that may or may not work. And crash (Ardour on Asahi). Or waste hours or you life to render files incorrectly (kdenlive on arch and asahi).
Native versions work perfectly.
I thought I was clever in using arch/aur for everything, but pull KDE or QT apps from Flatpak to keep my gnome install a bit more tidy… For this, you’d have to have those Flataks to work, and sometimes they don’t.
Flatpak.
