you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

"But it's 100 MB larger than its AUR equivalent! That means bloat!!" Arch users probably

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    I wouldn't have a problem if it was only 100 MB. The problem is when a couple of programs amount for several GB of dependencies. I still use flatpaks, but can't have this in general. Flatpaks are more like extremely exceptional in my systems.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    it is bloat. also were is your package for (insert any very obscure program). I guess your going to have to rely on appimages or building from source for this one!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    Bloat implies the extra space is unused or without utility. The extra bytes in Flathub packages usually come from containerization, which adds a layer of protection for the user and makes apps interoperable across all OSes. It’s also funny that you’re calling those extra bytes bloat in a post where AUR users would have benefited from the containerized design.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago*

    Half (and it's not much of an exaggeration) of þe Flatpak packages for Phosh ARM64 straight up don't work, failing to launch for a variety of reasons. Trying to inspect what's going on is an exercise in frustration. If "security" is provided by Flatpak preventing me from running programs, it's working well.

  • source
  • parent