Screenshot doesn’t even show half.

    • QuazarOmega@lemy.lol
      0·
      1 year ago

      snap/flatpak >500mb

      Don’t know about Snap, but Flatpak download sizes decrease significantly after installing the main platform libraries, they can become really small; of course that’s pretty much fully negated if you’re installing Electron apps, but even then 500MB isn’t very accurate, more like 150MB on average

      flatpak run com.very.easy.to.remember.and.type.name

      Yes I hate it, what is even more annoying is that you can do flatpak install someapp and it will search matches on its own, it shows them to you to let you decide, but after that you can’t do flatpak run someapp because it “doesn’t exist”

      • aksdb@feddit.de
        0·
        1 year ago

        Then you do a flatpak list and it abbreviates the shit out of the identifiers so you can’t use them either. Whoever designed that UX needs to lean back an contemplate life a bit.

        • QuazarOmega@lemy.lol
          0·
          1 year ago

          Well that comes down to your terminal size, you have to filter the columns if your screen is too small: docs

          flatpak --columns="app" list
          • aksdb@feddit.de
            0·
            1 year ago

            Sure, it’s possible. I can also use flatpak list -d to show everything. But the combination of these defaults is just fucked up UX (require the full id for certain operations, but don’t always show the full id by default).

    • Pantherina@feddit.de
      0·
      1 year ago

      Runtimes are okay, the problem is there is no runtime package manager and often you have like 7 of them, which is horrible. But on modern hard drives also no problem.

      Appimages cant be easily ran from terminal, you need to link then to your Path.

      For Flatpak I made a tool that aliases their launch commands to be very easy.

  • digdilem@lemmy.ml
    0·
    1 year ago

    Try it in enterprise where you have automated systems that deploy alert sensors and they instantly go off because each mount is 100% full.

    • exi@feddit.de
      0·
      1 year ago

      Pretty much every alerting system I know also has a filter option to only apply automated discovery rules to certain filesystem types.

      But yes, most don’t first squashfs or mounted read-only snapshots by default and it sucks.

  • I_like_cats@lemmy.one
    0·
    1 year ago

    I think Snap has the potential to be better than Flatpak. It’s a real sandbox instead of the half-assed shit Flatpak has going on. The problem I have with Snap is that Canonical keeps the Server closed-source. I don’t want a centralized app store where Canonical can just choose to remove apps they don’t like. So as long as the Server is closed-source, I will stay on Flatpak

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        0·
        1 year ago

        Kind of? Maybe?

        It has similar goals to something like docker, but goes about it very differently, and it’s obviously meant for user-facing applications.

        You wouldn’t use docker to install steam, but you can use flatpak.

        • MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world
          0·
          1 year ago

          I asked the question because of the label “half-assed” that the commenter above me put on Flatpak. I do not know much about snap, Flatpak and how they differ (other than the fact that both are used as containerisation technologies for desktop apps and the former is by Canonical), and why Flatpak is necessarily worse that snap (by what metric? System performance? Storage?)

          • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
            0·
            1 year ago

            They are referring to flatpaks level of security. It’s sandboxing leaves a lot to be desired, as I’ve understood it.

            • Johanno@feddit.de
              0·
              1 year ago

              Well probably because you usually don’t want it so secure that it doesn’t function correctly anymore.

              On snap I often need the --classic option to get sth running because it won’t run properly in a full ssndbox