• Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
      7·
      11 months ago

      Yes, but each package manager has it's (dis-)advantages. It's great to have flatpak and docker to be able to run software on almost all distros, but the OS still needs a way to update.

      Almost all immutable distros use multiple package manager.

      • Fedora Silverblue: rpm-ostree + flatpak (+ toolbox)
      • OpenSUSE MicroOS: zypper with snapshots (transactional-update) + flatpak (+ distrobox)
      • NixOS is unique since it only uses the Nix package manager
      • immutable Ubuntu will probably only use snap for OS + apps.

      All those OS support distrobox and docker additionally.

      • monk@lemmy.unboiled.info
        3·
        11 months ago

        NixOS is unique because it uses the only potent package manager (if we don’t count that one reimplementation of Nix). Calling the others “package managers” becomes mostly a courtesy when NixOS enters the picture.

        lalala with FS-level snapshots + flatpak + distrobox + a kitchen sink

        look_what_they_need_to_mimic_the_fraction_of_our_power.png

        • GuybrushThreepwo0d@programming.dev
          0·
          11 months ago

          I don’t consider myself a dumb person but I couldn’t figure out nix when last I decided to play with it. Theoretically it seems super interesting to me, but I really just can’t dedicate the time again now to learn that esoteric syntax.

      • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
        21·
        11 months ago

        all the more reason to sunlight these old packaging formats and move to universal solutions like flatpak and nix

    • Synthead@lemmy.worldEnglish
      81·
      11 months ago

      Linked dependencies, for one. What if your distro uses uClibc? A different imagemagick version? What about LTS distros? Immutable distros?

      • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
        3·
        11 months ago

        What if who cares?

        When I used to build app packages internally I also built packages for our own python and ruby versions for our in-house software. The motto was: “system packages are for system software”. We weren’t writing system software, we were writing business software and shipping it, so why be dependent on what Redhat or Debian provided?

        Universal packages are just an extension of this philosophy, and is why things like docker and app stores are such a success. Burdening the user with getting system dependencies right is worse than the DLL hell of the old windows days.

      • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
        1·
        11 months ago

        Usually people mean flatpak and other desktop-focused formats when talking about universal package formats.

        Even docker images are usually built with traditionial package managers, except if they're built directly by Nix.

        I agree that there won't be "the" package format, since they all have their tradeoffs. E.g. Nix updates need quite a bit of memory, so it isn't a good choice for resource constrained embedded use-cases.

    • 768@sh.itjust.works
      311·
      11 months ago

      Almost every person having their own flat could also seem like a lot of duplicate work.

      This also has big "Grand Unified Leftist Party" energy.

  • Shatur@lemmy.ml
    1·
    11 months ago

    I see how it can be convenient for some distros to get the latest version or install something that is not in the official repo.

    But I use ArchLinux and we always have latest versions and big repo + AUR, so I never used universal packages.

  • Karcinogen@discuss.tchncs.de
    59·
    11 months ago

    Frankenstein is a surname. The mad scientist's name was Dr. Victor Frankenstein. Since the monster wasn't endowed with a first name, the only name it would have is Frankenstein: the same last name as its father.