TLDR at bottom.

On most linux forums, it seems that everyone is trash talking flatpaks, snaps, docker, and other containerized packages with the statement that they are “pre-compiled”. Is there a real-world affect that this has with performance and/or security, and does this have to do with canonical and/or redhat leaving a bad taste in people’s mouths due to previous scandals?

Also, it is easier for the developer to maintain only one version of the package for every user. All of the dependencies come with the package meaning that there aren’t distro-specific problems and everything “just works” out of the box.

I understand that this also makes the flatpaks larger, but there is deduplication that shrinks them as you install more by re-using libraries. Do the drawbacks of a slightly larger initial disk usage really outweigh all of its advantages?

I have heard that flatpaks are slower than distro-specific compiled binaries but haven’t seen a case where this affects performance in the real world.

TLDR: In most forums linux users tend to take the side of distro-specific packages without an explanation as to why.

  • SFaulken@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Mostly because they’re uneducated fools, that haven’t any actual idea what the hell they’re talking about.

    Unless you’re pulling sources, and building everything yourself, everything you get from most major distributions is “pre-compiled”.

    People hate anything new, they fear change, and they like drama, that’s all it is.

    • jrgd@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is disingenuous to simply state that people think new = bad. There are definitely both advantages and disadvantages to the current containerized packaging platforms / formats at the moment. Some of which, some people may see as greater positives, negatives than others.