this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
241 points (89.8% liked)

Linux

5491 readers
576 users here now

A community for everything relating to the linux operating system

Also check out [email protected]

Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

As a person who was all in on the AppImage distribution system (vs Flatpaks), I'm both sad and excited to see how well Flatpaks seem to be working out.

I guess they won that little competition in the end - which seems good, as there's now a healthy standard we can focus on.

It's genuinely great to now have widely accepted distribution independent packaging standards.

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 19 hours ago

I'm glad Flatpack appears to be winning over the utterly horrible Snap, but I still don't like it. I fear a day when it becomes difficult to get software that isn't packaged in Flatpack, and I have good reason to: Ruby Gems. Long ago, I was big into Ruby, and was a major contributor (I authored one of the core standard libraries). Gems came along, and I hated them; eventually, for unrelated reasons, I stopped using Ruby altogether, and now when I encounter it, it's impossible to use anything that doesn't have Gem woven into it. Consequently, AFAIK, my current system has nothing Ruby installed on it - unless my OS package manager is doing it under the hood.

IMHO, Flatpacks are a really poor work-around for people supporting and using programming languages that don't build software correctly. Rust and Go do it right: they build stand-alone executables. Flatpack adds literally no value to software built with these. They're not the only languages that do this, but they're the ones having their moment; any language that builds stand-alone, statically linked binaries would do.

I'm with you about AppImage; it would have been a better solution. Any packaging solution requiring extra software to be installed and a service to use is a bad design. I'd be objecting less if AppImage were emerging as the winner.

Incidentally, this is why Podman is superior to Docker: yes, you still need extra software to be installed, but there's no system service with crazy, root-level permissions required to run containers with podman.