Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

420

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

Flatpak is kind of annoying anyway. I rarely use it for updates. Thanks for sharing this!

[–] • 1 pt

Agreed. Everything I've used flatpak based has acted funny. But that's not the point, is it? When a company and distro decide what you can and can't use, is it really free and open source?

[–] • 2 pts

When a company and distro decide what you can and can't use, is it really free and open source?

Does 'open source' include all vendors and third-party associations as well, or just the code for the operating system?

[–] • 2 pts

Android is a close code example of Linux being used. Ubuntu claims to still be "free and open source". So, at least to me, free and open source would mean maintaining your own package system, but giving people easy access to other options should they need or want it.

[–] • 2 pts

There was never anything wrong with FSHS and the proper use of /opt. Snap and Flatpack are the result of devs that grew up on Windows and brought poor habits with them. Let's just all embrace systemd and run everything as root and say to hell with it.

[–] • 1 pt

They’re also intended to be cross distro package formats / managers. AppImage is another one.

[–] • 0 pt

Cross-distro packages are a bad idea as well. Per-distro packages are not hard to do, especially with CPack. The issue distills down to following the FSHS for distribution-level standard packages and proper use of /opt (or /var/opt) for "local" installations. Apps have no business in user homedirs.

[–] • 2 pts

I’ve run into problems with both Snap and Flatpack because of the containerization. I prefer software installed or built locally the normal way, but Appimage and Flatpak are acceptable second choices.

Snap is the one I only use as a last resort because it forces you to use Canonical’s closed source package server. Software authors cannot setup their own Snap servers and publish their packages directly. Everyone using Snap has to go through Canonical’s controlled server. Canonical is trying to create their own fully controlled app store like Google, Apple, and Microsoft. I’ve read that Snap is a bit better than Flatpak on the technology side, but it needs to either open up or die.

It makes perfect sense that Canonical would remove their main competition by default. It’s a good thing they can’t remove support for AppImages. They’re fully self contained executables.

I use Pop!_OS (the System76 Ubuntu flavour) on my desktops. It removes Snap by default in favour of Flatpak. They list apps on FlatHub alongside Apt packages in their GUI software centre. They’ll make sure Flatpak is still there.

[–] • 1 pt

If I were you, I'd seriously leave anything Ubuntu based for a distro that is friendly to the Linux community. Obviously my first choice would be something arch based, but Suse, Fedora, and even Vanilla Debian are good too. I get that 76 disables snaps, but that's not the point. It still feeds the beast into thinking it's desirable

[–] • 1 pt

Let me be clear: I am not a flatpak fanboi. That said: wtf is unbuntu thinking? They stop official support for repositories. They switch to snaps, which are arguably worse than flatpaks in most ways. They don't hold a community repo that can be easily accessed (AUR anyone?). They're boxing their user base into using 1 package format, a Frankenstein kernel, and an update model which has proven itself to be buggy at best and OS breaking at worst. Know who else operates like this? Microsoft. Linux is about freedom and choice. Assuming I EVER had an idea to use an unbuntu distro again, this completely put me off it.