Thread 107088170

>solves linux packages

With software like bazaar we now have a finally good GUI front end for flatpak that just werks.

I dont think it will replace native packages entirely since we all need specific packages that would be way too much work and linux is designed for it anyways.

I think most native packages that are system utils like ssh, curl, jq etc etc should still be packaged and debian should still be around.

Third party stuff like AUR should move to flatpak and most downloaded stuff like steam and many thing are already there.

>>107088170 (OP)
>I think most native packages that are system utils like ssh, curl, jq etc etc should still be packaged and debian should still be around.

Of course. Flatpak was designed for GUI apps. The reverse DNS naming scheme Flatpak uses for apps isn't too fun to use from a terminal.

Snaps can be used for CLI apps though.

>>107088170 (OP)
whats the difference between bazaar and kde discover? is it a hassle to switch them out?
they use bazaar on the universal blue distros but when i trued it out it crashed so i just went back to my regular fedora kde with kde discover

>>107088357
>whats the difference between bazaar and kde discover?
KDE discover will handle system level updates as well as flatpaks whereas I believe Bazaar just does flatpaks. I don't really think Bazaar is really worth it if you have KDE Discover installed, but it does have a much better interface for searching and installing flatpak add-ons.

>>107088170 (OP)
To me it's at best a minor annoyance that I have another area I need to update when doing so.
But I don't really mind them. Why do peopl ehate flatpaks again? I'm not that familiar with them.

>>107088371
>Why do peopl ehate flatpaks again?
Because AppImage is just better

>>107088370
atleast in aurora they have bazaar that also handles system shit but that probably requires setup

honestly i usually update both flatpaks and system packages from cli because i like seeing the updoot bars go up

>>107088378
I think flatpak is fine it has sandboxing, its easy to package and has universal updating.

Add a way to easily back them up for offline and its the best

>>107088170 (OP)
Wish more distros would embrace it. Having every piece of software under the sun being managed separately across dozens of distros by different maintainers is a huge waste of effort.

>>107088322
>snaps
Fuck off

>>107088371
>Why do peopl ehate flatpaks again?
They use KDE Plasma

>>107088170 (OP)
>>solves linux packages
what the fuck are you talking about. there's nothing wrong with debian packaging. do you understand that there's many different package managers for many different things that you should use all at once? god you /g/tards are fucking dumb as shit
>AUR
oh i see, you're a faggot arch user. you're gay and don't even know how to use a computer

>>107088170 (OP)
The AUR would be obsolete if everything was a flatpak, wouldn't it?

>>107088170 (OP)
>steam flatpak
brother

>>107090375
>everything just works
>every dependency just works
>sandboxed however you want
>can edit permissions however you want
>independent of system libraries and dependencies
yes what are you trying to tell me? are you an unemployed guy who likes to tinker instead of actually using their system? do you use arch?

>>107089361
i use both aur and flatpak on bazzite. mostly just convience.

>>107088170 (OP)
Almost solved it. If Canonical stopped being jewish and finally adopted Flatpak and dropped SNAP, we would have every single program supporting flatpak within a year. This way it's fucking fragmented again and half the programs out there only offer snap and half flatpak, or worse only AppImage.
>>107088378
We can have both. Flatpak for installing and sandboxing and AppImage for instant run without sandbox.

>>107088170 (OP)
>flatpak
choosy mothers choose roundmeal. either way, who knows what's in that shit. same with just about anything these days

>>107090499
>everything just works
lmao no it's dogshit that creates random bugs and offers subpar performance.