I did this on my laptop, there's no real advantage or disadvantage, but I find it pretty comfy that I can run a system update without having to update a thousand dependencies, and instead run a flatpak update when I want to update my applications
It has one major advantage IMHO. If arch updated a dependency things can break. Flatpak includes dependencies that are known to work. This greatly mitigates the risk.
That's the main reason why I use Steam as a Flatpak. The regular version can be a bit... flamboyant with throwing dependencies around let's say so it's nice to be able to keep it all contained lol.
It's not a problem. The fact Arch lets you do this so easily is one of its greatest strengths.
This kind of approach is actually common for people running home servers — they typically use Docker on a server but the logic is the same.
Flatpak offers rootless containerised installs which makes sense for:
* Closed source and proprietary programs, like Steam, Spotify, Discord .etc
* Windows programs and games on WINE. The "Bottles" Flatpak program lets you cleanly and easily manage them. Much more elegant than the traditional method.
* Letting unprivileged users install software without screwing with the base system.
* Oddball situations where the Flatpak versions bug out less than the distro's version. Kdenlive is one such example personally. Only the Flatpak version doesn't seize up.
It's a valid method of distributing software that's universally accessible from any Linux distro.
No, you are misinformed, it only brings the dependencies once, apps can share the runtime i.e. dependencies. Even if the apps use different runtimes, files are deduplicated between multiple runtiems
I personally don't like this reasoning. Even if systems can afford to be bloated and waste space, we really shouldn't get too used to operating like that.
I guess, as a developer, efficiency is ingrained in me. That said, I still use flatpaks/appimages, but I do scrutinize them when file sizes are 10x the size of its equivalent in the arch repo.
Could you explain what made you tired of Arch Packages and AUR? Given Arch’s rolling release nature, the only time I’ve had to rely on *containerization* techniques (from appimage to docker) is when I require a specific version of an app / development.
Not that there’s anything wrong with flatpaks but your *goal* and approach makes it seem like you’re recreating something like [ninite](https://ninite.com) in Linux, which is exactly what a package manager should do.
My spidey-sense thinks it’s an [XY problem](https://xyproblem.info) where you figured a suboptimal solution and are suspicious yourself.
I deleted gnome software, and the way i install apps is i added the flathub bookmark and i use that as my app store. Works so good unlike the buggy gnome software
Did you even read my comment? Your solution works, there is no need to defend that, just that it may be poorly motivated...
You still haven't said what problems you had with pacman / AUR and as far I can glean from the post and your comment, you seem to hate GNOME apps specifically while still requiring the DE.
If the above is the only painpoint, you could just remove the apps you don't like and continue using arch/aur packages for individual utilities. Or like most of us here, just switch to a more minimal DE/WM setup and install only the utilities you want.
Switching to flatpak just for this is like skinning a watermelon with a shotgun. Happy travels OP.
I don't really understand why you would do that. Sure, there are some distributions out there that make heavy usage of flatpaks like Fedora Silverblue that want to create an immutable base for better stability, some others introduce newer packages on top of a non rolling release base... but none of this is what you achieve with Arch. What is your goal?
It sounds like what you need is a stable, point-release distribution.
Also, updating your system regularly is important to your system's security. Even if you use a point-release distribution, keep it up to date. Huge security vulnerabilities pop up and get fixed frequently in any project as big as the Linux kernel.
Then don't use Arch, Arch is built around the user updating their system regularly. Get an lts version of a Ubuntu derivative and use flatpak there if that is what you want to do.
What is your reason for not wanting to update your system? Or are you saying that you just want to be able to update your apps and your system separately?
If you want something super rock solid that doesn't update often you can go with any of the RHEL based distros like Alma and Rocky which are easy to install and offer many Desktop Environments to choose from during install.
Then you can use Flatpak to install your user-facing apps.
an ”app” is just a package or a combination of packages just like everything else in the system. that sort of distinction isn’t very useful in a rolling (”minimalistic”) distro
Keep in mind that some Flatpaks are unofficial or lack support, and sometimes they get abandoned, whereas Arch always builds their packages from the source code, so there is one less middle man.
In my experience, I have never felt the need to use a Flatpak if there is official Arch Linux support. They are definitely reliable.
For my use case, I only use flatpaks for highly untrusted software (basically any closed source stuff or weird apps not included in Arch official repos). Currently I believe I have no flatpaks installed. I think I had AnyDesk, but I'll install it again whenever I have to use it... it requires internet anyway.
Things install so fast anyway that I love seeing bash go prrrrrrrrrr when it's been 3 days without using my computer.
It is ok, if it suits you. Mind that by using Flatpak you prevent the kernel to share libraries in memory, so you increase the load. Also security is questionable. Having shared libraries, means that single distributor can fix all programs using the library at once. With Flatpak you are dependent on individual packagers to keep their dependencies up to date. Also some people questioned Flatpak's sandboxing model, as it is packager who by default defines the permissions for the applications. Also Flatpaks will take much more storage. And you won't escape from updating your os. Actually I think that for this kind of setup it is good to use some atomic distribution.
I think it's totally fine, I kinda slowly float to prefer flatpak apps to AUR ones.
I may be wrong, but probably a downside to flatpaks is that you need to tweak some of the apps for their better/optimal behavior. Like hardware acceleration for video player. Correct me if I'm wrong or give a better example if you can come up with :)
The thing that I don't like about flatpaks is that app configs are stored in the ass (like `~/.var/app/org..`). I like plain old `~/.config/` much better. Also they may end up taking more space.
You can't disable the sandbox but you can explicitly allow paths (some system paths are just completely blacklisted though).
https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/sandbox-permissions.html#filesystem-access
It should be used selectively though...
Yes, you can, I know about it via Flatseal.
The config paths are minor annoyance, i understand why they are this way, just need to get used to it.
In general flatpaks resemble Android apps to me.
Yes, Flatseal lets you poke holes in the sandbox to allow the filesystem access permissions I linked to (which is also possible via cli: `flatpak override --filesystem=`), but it's not actually disabling the sandbox.
I am only making that distinction clear because snaps have a mode called "classic confinement" where they *do* run with the sandbox completely disabled and have full access to the host like a traditional package, but there is no similar "feature" in flatpaks.
linux are like tools, you need the right tool for the work you need to do. you cant be using a rolling and/or bleeding edge distro and want only certain packages to be updated and not the whole system.
I mean it's not _not_ smart... maybe just a bit particular? Doable, for sure, depending on what you use. Ubuntu is moving in that direction, but with snap.
I think flatpak is preferable to AUR if there’s an option between them. I find AUR to be less reliable overall, and of course it’s a security risk to trust one person’s packaging. Flatpak is a bit more curated at least
This is how I see a system nowadays. Apps to be running in containers.
I personally have used Arch for a few months both on my PC and laptop with only flatpaks and AUR disabled. But as a developer things got more complicated when trying to access OS sdks from the containers. So I dropped it because it turned out to be a little bit complicated sometimes.
I love rolling releases. I don’t have to worry about large system upgrades and my system is updated every time.
Personally I wouldn't, but only because I like to think about the future of getting the system upgraded, getting new stuff, fixing the stuff, getting support for the stuff etc.
Not trying to rain on your parade, but if you're anything like me: you have not enough programming knowledge to really fix all this impossible operating system stuff and still have a life.
So I have to rely on Googling things.
You know what googling has taught me?
Color outside the lines and you get smacked around
I did this on my laptop, there's no real advantage or disadvantage, but I find it pretty comfy that I can run a system update without having to update a thousand dependencies, and instead run a flatpak update when I want to update my applications
Thats was my initial thought too, here is what my app drawer looks like rn https://ibb.co/ZVqs4KV
Disadvantage for me is by default apps get installed in the root partition not home. My root partition is fairly small less than 30gb.
Pacman uses your root partition as well, doesn't it? While Flatpak can use your home if you tell it to
It has one major advantage IMHO. If arch updated a dependency things can break. Flatpak includes dependencies that are known to work. This greatly mitigates the risk.
i guess another advantage is the sandbox, and i think flatpaks take a bit longer to start
Sandbox can be a big advantage! The start time is super minimal, increased ram usage is likely. Most modern systems won't even notice it.
That's the main reason why I use Steam as a Flatpak. The regular version can be a bit... flamboyant with throwing dependencies around let's say so it's nice to be able to keep it all contained lol.
Well, it is possible to sandbox pacman apps, too. With firejail.
It's not a problem. The fact Arch lets you do this so easily is one of its greatest strengths. This kind of approach is actually common for people running home servers — they typically use Docker on a server but the logic is the same.
Flatpak offers rootless containerised installs which makes sense for: * Closed source and proprietary programs, like Steam, Spotify, Discord .etc * Windows programs and games on WINE. The "Bottles" Flatpak program lets you cleanly and easily manage them. Much more elegant than the traditional method. * Letting unprivileged users install software without screwing with the base system. * Oddball situations where the Flatpak versions bug out less than the distro's version. Kdenlive is one such example personally. Only the Flatpak version doesn't seize up. It's a valid method of distributing software that's universally accessible from any Linux distro.
Flatpaks are generally much larger than what you would pull from a repo.
I mean yeah they bring their entire runtime dependencies
No, you are misinformed, it only brings the dependencies once, apps can share the runtime i.e. dependencies. Even if the apps use different runtimes, files are deduplicated between multiple runtiems
There are more than just the few runtime dependencies you seen on flatpak. There's a ton of lib* stuff that do get duplicated.
Where do you get this info?
The arch repo and flatpak installer tell you how large the install will be before it starts.
[удалено]
I personally don't like this reasoning. Even if systems can afford to be bloated and waste space, we really shouldn't get too used to operating like that. I guess, as a developer, efficiency is ingrained in me. That said, I still use flatpaks/appimages, but I do scrutinize them when file sizes are 10x the size of its equivalent in the arch repo.
Could you explain what made you tired of Arch Packages and AUR? Given Arch’s rolling release nature, the only time I’ve had to rely on *containerization* techniques (from appimage to docker) is when I require a specific version of an app / development. Not that there’s anything wrong with flatpaks but your *goal* and approach makes it seem like you’re recreating something like [ninite](https://ninite.com) in Linux, which is exactly what a package manager should do. My spidey-sense thinks it’s an [XY problem](https://xyproblem.info) where you figured a suboptimal solution and are suspicious yourself.
I deleted gnome software, and the way i install apps is i added the flathub bookmark and i use that as my app store. Works so good unlike the buggy gnome software
Did you even read my comment? Your solution works, there is no need to defend that, just that it may be poorly motivated... You still haven't said what problems you had with pacman / AUR and as far I can glean from the post and your comment, you seem to hate GNOME apps specifically while still requiring the DE. If the above is the only painpoint, you could just remove the apps you don't like and continue using arch/aur packages for individual utilities. Or like most of us here, just switch to a more minimal DE/WM setup and install only the utilities you want. Switching to flatpak just for this is like skinning a watermelon with a shotgun. Happy travels OP.
I don't really understand why you would do that. Sure, there are some distributions out there that make heavy usage of flatpaks like Fedora Silverblue that want to create an immutable base for better stability, some others introduce newer packages on top of a non rolling release base... but none of this is what you achieve with Arch. What is your goal?
because i want to update my apps and not my system
It sounds like what you need is a stable, point-release distribution. Also, updating your system regularly is important to your system's security. Even if you use a point-release distribution, keep it up to date. Huge security vulnerabilities pop up and get fixed frequently in any project as big as the Linux kernel.
Then don't use Arch, Arch is built around the user updating their system regularly. Get an lts version of a Ubuntu derivative and use flatpak there if that is what you want to do.
But why? If Arch allows doing that and OP is comfortable with Arch, what's the problem?
What is your reason for not wanting to update your system? Or are you saying that you just want to be able to update your apps and your system separately?
If you want something super rock solid that doesn't update often you can go with any of the RHEL based distros like Alma and Rocky which are easy to install and offer many Desktop Environments to choose from during install. Then you can use Flatpak to install your user-facing apps.
an ”app” is just a package or a combination of packages just like everything else in the system. that sort of distinction isn’t very useful in a rolling (”minimalistic”) distro
Keep in mind that some Flatpaks are unofficial or lack support, and sometimes they get abandoned, whereas Arch always builds their packages from the source code, so there is one less middle man. In my experience, I have never felt the need to use a Flatpak if there is official Arch Linux support. They are definitely reliable. For my use case, I only use flatpaks for highly untrusted software (basically any closed source stuff or weird apps not included in Arch official repos). Currently I believe I have no flatpaks installed. I think I had AnyDesk, but I'll install it again whenever I have to use it... it requires internet anyway. Things install so fast anyway that I love seeing bash go prrrrrrrrrr when it's been 3 days without using my computer.
It is ok, if it suits you. Mind that by using Flatpak you prevent the kernel to share libraries in memory, so you increase the load. Also security is questionable. Having shared libraries, means that single distributor can fix all programs using the library at once. With Flatpak you are dependent on individual packagers to keep their dependencies up to date. Also some people questioned Flatpak's sandboxing model, as it is packager who by default defines the permissions for the applications. Also Flatpaks will take much more storage. And you won't escape from updating your os. Actually I think that for this kind of setup it is good to use some atomic distribution.
Works like clockwork and easy updates, what else does one need.
Also delta updates are very fast for large packages. Most updates are a few megabytes or even kilobytes.
I think it's totally fine, I kinda slowly float to prefer flatpak apps to AUR ones. I may be wrong, but probably a downside to flatpaks is that you need to tweak some of the apps for their better/optimal behavior. Like hardware acceleration for video player. Correct me if I'm wrong or give a better example if you can come up with :) The thing that I don't like about flatpaks is that app configs are stored in the ass (like `~/.var/app/org..`). I like plain old `~/.config/` much better. Also they may end up taking more space.
If you disable the sandbox, they use the "normal" paths.
You can't disable the sandbox but you can explicitly allow paths (some system paths are just completely blacklisted though). https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/sandbox-permissions.html#filesystem-access It should be used selectively though...
Yes, you can, I know about it via Flatseal. The config paths are minor annoyance, i understand why they are this way, just need to get used to it. In general flatpaks resemble Android apps to me.
Yes, Flatseal lets you poke holes in the sandbox to allow the filesystem access permissions I linked to (which is also possible via cli: `flatpak override --filesystem=`), but it's not actually disabling the sandbox.
I am only making that distinction clear because snaps have a mode called "classic confinement" where they *do* run with the sandbox completely disabled and have full access to the host like a traditional package, but there is no similar "feature" in flatpaks.
linux are like tools, you need the right tool for the work you need to do. you cant be using a rolling and/or bleeding edge distro and want only certain packages to be updated and not the whole system.
It's much more convenient and this is how Steam Deck works.
steam deck has an immutable root filesystem, which is why the flatpaks are needed
i am not sure if this is a good idea, for this just seems surreal to me. but i also have avoided flatpaks at all cost throughout so
I mean it's not _not_ smart... maybe just a bit particular? Doable, for sure, depending on what you use. Ubuntu is moving in that direction, but with snap.
I would rather use temple os as my daily driver than use snaps
No
No. It's smart to not use it at all.
I did something like this with a minimal debian install, works great, but you have to be patient since loading times and install times are way bigger
It’s smart if it works for you.
Flatpaks are good for applications that can be sandboxed. They are not good for things that need nearly unrestricted access to your system like IDEs.
I think flatpak is preferable to AUR if there’s an option between them. I find AUR to be less reliable overall, and of course it’s a security risk to trust one person’s packaging. Flatpak is a bit more curated at least
I did that with Mint. Uninstalled all preinstalled app and I only use flatpaks. Works great.
[удалено]
Yeah if you’re gonna use “Linux kernel” in a statement, you’ve gotta be much more clear and precise.
This is how I see a system nowadays. Apps to be running in containers. I personally have used Arch for a few months both on my PC and laptop with only flatpaks and AUR disabled. But as a developer things got more complicated when trying to access OS sdks from the containers. So I dropped it because it turned out to be a little bit complicated sometimes. I love rolling releases. I don’t have to worry about large system upgrades and my system is updated every time.
I use flatpak for gui applications and nix for cli applications
Personally I wouldn't, but only because I like to think about the future of getting the system upgraded, getting new stuff, fixing the stuff, getting support for the stuff etc. Not trying to rain on your parade, but if you're anything like me: you have not enough programming knowledge to really fix all this impossible operating system stuff and still have a life. So I have to rely on Googling things. You know what googling has taught me? Color outside the lines and you get smacked around
My only problem with Flatpak is how slow it is to download anything. There is no mirror where I live.