• HouseWolf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      As a newer Linux user I really like flatpaks.

      I don’t use them for most things I install but proprietary apps I want sandboxed or programs that have weird issues with dependencies I grab the flatpak.

    • ayaya@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      For me on Arch, Flatpaks are kinda useless. I can maybe see the appeal for other distros but Arch already has up-to-date versions of everything and anything that’s missing from the main repos is in the AUR.

      I also don’t like how it’s a separate package manager, they take up more space, and to run things from the CLI it’s flatpak run com.website.Something instead of just something. It’s super cumbersome compared to using normal packages.

      • Mactan@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        fwiw those simple names exist, you just haven’t added it to your PATH

    • priapus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Agreed, flatpaks are great for desktop apps. I use Nix for the majority of my packages, but I use flatpak for proprietary for the sandboxing.

        • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I honestly prefer Ansible.

          I use Ansible all day. For work. Oh, god, is it sad compared to everything else in the space. RedHat had the choice between two in-house products and they chose poorly.

          It can do lots of configuration and [set up] and install flatpaks.

          We had that 20 years ago, just with a different product. The state of the art is now two generations newer.