this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
691 points (92.5% liked)

Linux

56132 readers
1088 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 day ago
[–] ztwhixsemhwldvka@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I use SystemD binary Gentoo with Flatpaks. Sue me.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Bluewing@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I have used rpms, AppImages, Flatpaks, and source. I have even used a snap or two when I had no other choice.

If you can't work with them all, can you even say you Linux Bro?

[–] AnIntenseMoist@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Bro, TRUTH. I have preferences but when you gotta get something done, it doesn't matter how the app comes bundled. I'd run .exe's through Wine if I needed to.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lordnikon@lemmy.world 106 points 1 day ago (1 children)

?? I manage flatpaks exclusively in the terminal

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Allero@lemmy.today 33 points 1 day ago (22 children)

Certainly a fan, and I don't understand the hate towards it.

Flatpaks are my preferred way of installing Linux apps, unless it is a system package, or something that genuinely requires extensive permissions like a VPN client, or something many other apps depend on like Wine.

The commonly cited issues with Flatpaks are:

  • Performance. Honestly, do you even care if your Pomodoro timer app takes up 1 more megabyte of RAM? Do you actually notice?
  • Bloat. Oh, yes, an app now takes 20 MB instead of 10 MB. Again, does anybody care?
  • Slower and larger updates. Could be an issue for someone on a metered traffic, or with very little time to do updates. Flatpaks update in the background, though, and you typically won't notice the difference unless you need something newest now (in which case you'll have to wait an extra minute)
  • Having to check permissions. This is a feature, not a bug. For common proponents of privacy and security, Linuxheads grew insanely comfortable granting literally every maintainer full access to their system. Flatpaks intentionally limit apps functionality to what is allowed, and if in some case defaults aren't good for your use case - just toggle a switch in Flatseal, c'mon, you don't need any expertise to change it.

What you gain for it? Everything.

  • Full control over app's permissions. Your mail client doesn't need full system permissions, and neither do your messengers. Hell, even your backup client only needs to access what it backs up.
  • All dependencies built in. You'll never have to face dependency hell, ever, no matter what. And you can be absolutely sure the app is fully featured and you won't have to look for missing nonessential dependencies.
  • Fully distro-agnostic. If something works on my EndeavourOS, it will work on my OpenSUSE Slowroll, and on my Debian 12. And it will be exactly the same thing, same version, same features. It's beautiful.
  • Stability. Flatpaks are sandboxed, so they don't affect your system and cannot harm it in any way. This is why immutable distros feature Flatpaks as the main application source. Using them with mutable distributions will also greatly enhance stability.

Alternatives?

AppImages don't need an installation, so they are nice to see what the program is about. But for other uses, they are garbage-tier. Somehow they manage both not to integrate with the system and not be sandboxed, you need manual intervention or additional tools to at least update them/add to application menu, and ultimately, they depend on one file somewhere. This is extremely unreliable and one should likely never use AppImages for anything but "use and delete".

Snaps...aside from all the controversy about Snap Store being proprietary and Ubuntu shoving snaps down people's throats, they were just never originally developed with desktop applications in mind. As a result, Snaps are commonly so much slower and bulkier that it actually starts getting very noticeable. Permissions are also way less detailed, meaning you can't set apps up with minimum permissions for your use case.

This all leaves us with one King:

And it is Flatpak.

[–] nitrolife@rekabu.ru 20 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (15 children)

I've been working on Linux for 15 years now and I perfectly remember the origin of many concepts. If you look at it through time, what would it be like:

  1. We can build applications with external dependencies or a single binary, what should we choose?
  2. The community is abandoning a single binary due to the increased weight of applications and memory consumption and libraries problems
  3. Dependency hell is coming ...
  4. Snap, flatpack, appimage and other strange solutions are inventing something, which are essentially a single binary, but with an overlay (if the developer has hands from the right place, which is often not the case)
  5. Someone on lemmy says that he literally doesn't care if the application is built in a single binary, consumes extra memory and have libraries problems. Just close all permissions for that application...

Well, all I can say about this is just assemble a single binary for all applications, stop doing nonsense with a flatpack/snap/etc.

UPD: or if you really want to break all the conventions, just use nixos. You don't need snap/flatpack/etc.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] mayako@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Personally I am okay with them actually. I use several on my system and having each app allowed to have different permissions is super useful.

But also I like things that are directly installed cause they seem just a tad faster performance wise.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The thing that grinds my gears is when I'm doing an apt update and then it goes off to check on the snaps and drags the process out a lot longer. It doesn't help that they're slower to load the apps too. Then there's the additional attack surfaces to accumulate more CVE reports (and more out of date library versions on your system begging for a security patch...) Mostly, I just purge snap support from Ubuntu these days - but for people who don't notice / mind such things, you do you - maybe they'll eventually improve the lightweight container system until the rest of us don't notice it either.

[–] fatur0000new@lemmy.ml 1 points 22 hours ago

I like flatpak, but I can't download Flathub flatpak applications and (specially) Flathub flatpak runtimes from my phone. I hope Flathub learns from F-Droid

[–] MystValkyrie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

There was a few years where I pretty much only used Flatpaks because I was scared of the terminal. But now that I've learned how to use the terminal, it's so much more convenient because I can quickly update all my applications all in one place without having to open a separate app. Plus, some Flatpaks can fall really behind on software updates.

There might be a Linux userbase someday where no one other than developers actually knows how to use the terminal, because users can run everything they want without a command line, but maybe that's actually a good thing because it'll drive up how many people use a Linux distro.

With Windows and Mac, there's a shareholder incentive to enshittify. With Linux, if a distro goes bad and gets commercialized, there's always another distro people can move to, not to mention there's no financial incentive. The more people get on Linux, the less power these tech companies have. Personally, that and privacy are what drew me to Linux much more so than being able to tinker or fine-tune my experience.

[–] otacon239@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

There might be a Linux userbase someday where no one other than developers actually knows how to use the terminal, because users can run everything they want without a command line

Ideally, all the essential terminal commands could be replicated in a user-friendly GUI-applicable manner. Don’t ever have to remove the terminal for those that enjoy it, but if we could have a magic world where even the failure states could be navigated with little to no prior knowledge required and it gets everyone away from Windows and Mac for good, I’m all for it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I'm not a huge fan of Flatpaks, they're a lot harder to distribute offline versus something like AppImage. Seriously, you have to like create an offline repository, then create a bundle, and it's like 6 or 7 steps, it's honestly kind of ridiculous lol but other than that they seem fine, and they're easy enough to update (but so are apt packages)

I know some people may say "oh why do you need that", but Linux has taught me that my computer is my own, and I should be able to use it the way I want to. I shouldn't have to fight with my package manager to get it to do what I want. So I guess you could say, no I'm not really a fan of Flatpaks.

Personally, I didn't mind Snaps, but I'm getting kind of really fed up with especially for-profit companies etc so I don't like Snap that much now either.

Apt packages are nice, but the more of them you have installed, especially if you're using Ubuntu-based distros and have lots of PPAs, the more annoying upgrading your distro version can be because of all the dependencies and cross-dependencies.

AppImage tends to just work for me, as long as it's not compiled with a newer libc-bin version than the distro I'm currently using has, and I really enjoy that it's just one file I can copy and run pretty much anywhere.

[–] Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I seem to have constant issues with AppImages. Every single one I have currently won't open. I get an error message relating to either qT or GTK. Tried searching for the error and get a bunch of old forum threads talking about either not being compatible with Wayland at all, or comments stating that the one specific AppImage in question must have been "packaged badly". Thankfully, nothing 'mission critical' for me is an AppImage currently, but it is quite upsetting that I have the most problems with the supposed "just works" app packaging/distribution option.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] axum@lemmy.blahaj.zone 57 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Flatpaks are good, especially compared to snap.

The future is atomic OS's like silverblue, which will make heavy use of things like flatpak.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago (13 children)

Having nails driven into my testicles is better than snap. It's not a high bar.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] yozul@beehaw.org 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Atomic distros are cool, and I'm sure they will only get more popular, but I don't buy the idea that they're "The" future. They have their place, but they can't really completely replace traditional distros. Not every new thing needs to kill everything that came before it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] NotSteve_@lemmy.ca 46 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (14 children)

I love installing things from the CLI and prefer to only do it that way but Linux needs a single click install method for applications if it’s ever going to become a mainstream OS. The average person just wants to Google a program, hit download and install. If not that then they want to use a mobile-like App Store.

Flatpak is kind of perfect at achieving both those things

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don’t really care about all these different things, as long as none of them become a crazy confusing mess, like Windows DLLs.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The one "good" thing about containers is that you keep your DLL-like mess localized. Just one or a few related apps run in the container and if they want / need some weird library version, they can have it without breaking other things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bvoigtlaender@feddit.org 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

iit: nerds unable to comprehend that building a piece of software from source in not something every person can do.

EDIT: or doesn’t want to do

[–] jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

one of my least favorite things about arch and other rolling distros is that yay/pacman will try and recompile shit like electron/chromium from source every few days unless you give it very specific instructions not to - which is annoying as shit bc compiling the entirety of chrome from source takes hours even with decent hardware.

granted, i fucking hate google products too but if you’re doing any web dev it’s necessary sometimes.

idk im definitely willing to admit i might be the idiot here. managing your packages with pacman might just be routine to some people. to me arch is the epitome of classic bad UX in an open source project. it’s like they got too focused on being cmatrix-style terminal nerds and forgot to make their software efficiently useable outside of 5 very specific people’s workflows. it’s not even the terminal usage that is bad about arch. plenty of things are focused on that and… don’t do it shittily? idk…

edit: yes to all the arch fanboy’s points in response to me. i used to be super into arch and am aware of the fact that this isn’t explicit behavior but to act like it doesn’t happen in a typical arch user experience is disingenuous. i also disagree with the take that arch doesn’t endorse this outright with its design philosophy, bc it does. the comparison of the AUR to other, similar things like PPAs doesn’t land for me bc PPAs aren’t integrated into the ecosystem nearly as much as AUR is with arch. you can’t tell people to just grab the binaries or not use AUR whenever it’s convenient to blame the user, when arch explicitly endorses a philosophy amicable to self-compilation and also heavily uses the AUR even in their own arch-wiki tutorials for fairly basic use cases. arch wants to have its cake and eat it too and be a great DIY build it yourself toolkit while also catering to daily driver use and more generalist users. don’t get me wrong, it’s the best attempt at such a thing i’ve seen - but at a certain point you have to ask if the premise makes sense anymore. in the case of arch, it doesn’t and it causes several facets of the ecosystem to flounder from a user perspective. the arch community’s habit of shouting “skill issue” at people when they point out legitimate issues with the design philosophy bugs the fuck out of me. this whole OS is a camel.

[–] ayaya 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

All of the normal Arch packages are pre-built, so the only way you'd be compiling things that often is if you installed a large amount of things from the AUR. Make sure you get the bin versions instead of git versions.

The google-chrome and chromium packages are already a binaries so my guess is you need ungoogled-chromium-bin. You can also use the Chaotic AUR repo to get pre-built binaries of a lot of the most common AUR packages. But ideally you should avoid using the AUR when it's not necessary.

While using the AUR is common, it's a bit frustrating you are blaming Arch for your experience. If you only use pacman you would never compile anything, or have very many conflicts. It's like if you added 20 different PPAs on Ubuntu and then complained about the problems that arose from that.

[–] frozenspinach@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

one of my least favorite things about arch and other rolling distros is that yay/pacman will try and recompile shit like electron/chromium from source every few days unless you give it very specific instructions not to

My understanding is that constantly triggering compiling like that shouldn't be happening in any typical arch + pacman situation. But it can happen in AUR. If it does, I think it's a special case where you should be squinting and figuring out what's going on and stopping the behavior; it's by no means philosophically endorsed as the usual case scenario for packages on arch.

There's certainly stuff about Arch that's Different(TM) but nothing about the package manager process is especially different from, say, apt-get or rpm in most cases.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Spectrism@feddit.org 11 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Is there no -bin version available for those packages?

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] The_Walkening@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I like the idea of them because I don't like dealing with dependencies changing and breaking stuff and I don't really care too much about disk space in the context of non-game desktop apps, as I don't tend to install lots of them.

That being said I absolutely hate that permissions are all over the place and flatpak doesn't ship a GUI to manage them by default, nor do you get any indication as to what permissions a program has until you try some functionality (like filesystem or camera access) only to find out it doesn't work out of the box.

[–] NostraDavid@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What’s a flatpak? Is that like a worse NixOS package? I prefer NixOS, BTW.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Andrzej3K@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago

Cursed solution to a cursed problem 🤷

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›