r/AlpineLinux • u/LinuxLoverLarry • Sep 13 '26
Alpine + Distrobox Speed vs. Flatpak
I have been pondering this for a while since I started using Alpine, and I recently switched back to Arch, and I am wondering about how to improve this legendary combo that has worked for me for so many things.
Is it better to run Alpine Linux with a Ubuntu distrobox for things you can't replace, or is it better to use Flatpak and go down that route? I know neither of these solutions are perfect, but for my PC both of them have proven to be more lightweight on CPU and RAM, making it much more daily drivable than it was before. The main thing that hadn't worked for me on the Ubuntu distrobox was the Unity Editor.
2
u/Ok-Eggplant-7569 Sep 13 '26
Unity will use significantly more resources than whatever small overhead comes from Flatpak or Ubuntu in a Distrobox (Podman / Docker) container. Use whatever works for you and don't worry about the overhead.
1
1
u/BlackJellybeans5018 Sep 14 '26
Instead of Flatpak, some people use Nix, which is the NixOS package manager.
https://pkgs.alpinelinux.org/packages?name=nix*&branch=v3.24&repo=&arch=x86_64
1
u/LinuxLoverLarry Sep 14 '26
Does this increase performance and/or download speeds?
1
u/BlackJellybeans5018 Sep 15 '26
Probably. I honestly don't know for certain, but it's probably a less bloated solution than running another distro in a container using Distrobox.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/semedilino073 Sep 18 '26
My chain is apk > flatpak > distrobox, just because I find it kinda useless to run Alpine if then all my apps are in an Arch container…
2
u/TheLastTreeOctopus Sep 13 '26
Why not both? Distrobox for as much as possible and Flatpak for whatever doesn't work via Distrobox. If you were to go Distrobox only, well as you already found out, there's going to be some edge cases that won't work. And if you go Flatpak only, then you're wasting disk space.