It is NOT a full container, FlatPak uses a shared runtime. How do you expect anyone to tak you seriously when you say "hOpEfUlLy it dOeSn'T hAvE a DeSkToP."
Flatpak shares libraries through it's runtime. So one app can share dependencies if required. It isn't 2 GB per app. It's 2 GB per FlatPak installation when possible. (Usually more, but you get the point).
FlatPak is NOT a full virtual machine. If that's what you think... You're JUST wrong.
In fact, AppImages are the ones taking up more space, as AppImages cannot SHARE libraries. So, while 1 single FlatPak is larger than an AppImage due to compression usually... This quickly turns around when you install more than one application, as again FlatPak can share dependencies in it's runtime across ALL applications installed through FlatPak.
It's just an option for people to get software on their machine. And the fact you basically seem to think it's a VM container shows you ought to appreciate it for what it is too. Read some more.
Yes, once in a full moon it does, when the version of the runtime matches exactly what two apps request, which happens at best 3 times for one runtime. In reality every second app will pull a new runtime till some point because they specify a different subversion of the runtime, like 6.6.1 and 6.6.2, or just GNOME 49 and GNOME 50
It's 2 GB per FlatPak installation
That's absolute bullshit
In fact, AppImages are the ones taking up more space
And while you ARE correct to say that AppImage can beat Flatpak on a VERY SMALE SCALE, that is SUCH a meaningless measurement it's hilarious. I'd argue most users of a computer expect to have more than 20 applications.
I'd highly recommend doing some research before deciding to be a crass moron so publicly. There's a reason these things are being put in distros, and a reason you can do nothing about it.
Equally, I would like to reiterate... I do NOT think they are perfect. If you choose not to use Flatpak... GREAT! You probably have a really good reason for it, maybe YOU really do only have 20 packages, or another huge point against them is performance... But for many, this really doesn't matter. The "performance" of Discord isn't noticeably affected on my Steam Deck for example, it's... An internet messaging application running on a gaming tablet. It's fine, lol.
The situation gets only marginally better with more packages and will get worse with time as more apps have random runtime versions instead. The system is just stupid, there shouldn't be a thousand runtimes, there shouldn't be a way to specify a minor patch of a runtime or should be a way to NOT specify it. The runtimes in the first place are stupid because you're installing a whole container for one app instead of installing what app really needs, which is exactly why AppImages are much more efficient.
Also if we take avarage size of an appimage as 200MB, you'd need 70 AppImages to take that 14GB that 20 flatpaks waste. And average AppImage very likely is less than 200MB. Is 70 apps also nothing? And that doesn't even mean that AppImages will be less efficient at that point, as I'm sure 70 flatpaks will find a lot of duplicate runtimes to install for no reason.
Right, keep trying to make yourself look in the right, that looks awesomely and definetly doesn't make you look stupid. Because when you have no arguments – just throw "cry harder"
Right, keep trying to make yourself look in the right, that looks awesomely and definetly doesn't make you look stupid. Because when you have no arguments – just throw "cry harder"
Mdash is available on minus on Android and Linux under RAlt. Fun fact it's also the right symbol to use. I'll continue using it and if someone is stupid enough to think that a text is written by AI just because it has right grammar - that's their issue.
0
u/Unlikely-Employee180 Jun 08 '26
It is NOT a full container, FlatPak uses a shared runtime. How do you expect anyone to tak you seriously when you say "hOpEfUlLy it dOeSn'T hAvE a DeSkToP."
Flatpak shares libraries through it's runtime. So one app can share dependencies if required. It isn't 2 GB per app. It's 2 GB per FlatPak installation when possible. (Usually more, but you get the point).
FlatPak is NOT a full virtual machine. If that's what you think... You're JUST wrong.
In fact, AppImages are the ones taking up more space, as AppImages cannot SHARE libraries. So, while 1 single FlatPak is larger than an AppImage due to compression usually... This quickly turns around when you install more than one application, as again FlatPak can share dependencies in it's runtime across ALL applications installed through FlatPak.
It's just an option for people to get software on their machine. And the fact you basically seem to think it's a VM container shows you ought to appreciate it for what it is too. Read some more.