• @TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    10
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Wow you are really trying to mislead here.

    No, Firefox doesn’t take up multiple gigabytes of space. It shares a runtime with a bunch of other programs. So yeah if you literally install one Flatpak, it’ll prompt you to download a bunch of extra stuff, but after that it won’t. Most people don’t only install one program on their PCs, so it’s not much of an issue.

    Flatpak has deduplication, which appimages doesn’t have. If you install a load of appimages and a bunch of flatpaks, the flatpaks should take up less space, because Flatpak uses deduplication (i.e. only one copy is actually stored) and appimages don’t, it has several copies of the same dependencies.

    Appimages also sometimes don’t even contain everything your system needs to run them, which can cause issues if the host system doesn’t have it. So it can frequently fail at the main touted usecase: portability!

    And don’t get me started on stuff like theming, lack of app updates, worse Wayland support (the main dev even flat out refusing to merge Wayland fixes as he is ideologically opposed to it), and downloading programs via a browser like on a Windows system.

    Not to mention having to browse to a specific folder and running the appimage every time, unless you do tedious work to add them to your app launcher, or you have a program that acts as an appimage launcher, which is again more tedious setup.

    • @Samueru@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      -3
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Wow you are really trying to mislead here.

      Alright do you want to install those 15 application on flatpak and compare the space usage again? Are you 100% sure that it wont be over 4GiB if I do that? (while the appimages was 1.2 GiB I remind you).

      EDIT: also, that 3GiB doesn’t include that dependencies that flatpak installed in my system lol. It is only the var dir but it doesn’t include the other stuff that flatpak pulled when it installed on my system lol.

      EDIT2: I JUST INSTALLED flatpak, firefox and libreoffice, AND THE THING IS 4.4GiB NOW, HOW THE FUCK DOES LIBREOFFICE FLATPAK CAN EVEN DO THIS WTF.

      Will you still say that I’m trying to mislead?

      And don’t get me started on stuff like theming, lack of app updates, and downloading programs via a browser like on a Windows system.

      Asif flatpak never had theming issues or lack of updates, I can tell you for example that the suyu flatpak is outdated right now while the appimage isn’t.

      Also you don’t have to download appimages via a browser… why do you even bother replying if you don’t know this? I mentioned several appimage package managers in this very thread.

      o 4.4 GIB

      DO YOU WANT ME TO CONTINUE?

      • @TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That isn’t the amount of space it’s using. This has been explained to you. Stop intentionally misleading people.

        And what’s with the writing in caps? Just write like a normal person.

        Appimages have waaaaaaaay worse theming issues lol. No appimage can integrate with system theming, Flatpak does.

        You clearly don’t understand what I meant when I mentioned updates. Or maybe you did and were just trying to mislead again. My point was that flatpaks don’t have a mechanism for updating, unless the developer builds an updater service into the program, like apps do in Windows. The official way to update appimages is to open your browser and go to each individual piece of software’s download page, then download it.

        Yes I’m aware there are appimage managers and launchers. But that’s more setup, more tinkering, and isn’t a part of the appimage standard. You may as well be saying “what do you mean downloading apps on Windows is a pain? There’s Chocolatey and a Ghocolatey GUI for app management!” Like yeah, cool, but it’s a separate hacked-on project. Not part of the actual appimage standard.

        Downloading appimages via a browser is very much the intended usecase.

        There’s a reason why appimages don’t get much support but Flatpak does. Bluntly, because they’re a far worse solution.

        • @Samueru@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          -33 months ago

          My point was that flatpaks don’t have a mechanism for updating, unless the developer builds an updater service into the program, like apps do in Windows.

          Freudian slip eh.

          That isn’t the amount of space it’s using. This has been explained to you. Stop intentionally misleading people.

          Alright, you were right, flatpaks don’t use 6GIB for 6 applications, I am very sorry, they use 4 GIB KEK.

          ~/ ./flatpak-dedup-checker
          Directories:                /var/lib/flatpak/{runtime,app}
          Size without deduplication: 5.70 GB
          Size with deduplication:    4.03 GB (70% of 5.70 GB)
          
          • @TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            7
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Freudian slip eh.

            You clearly don’t know what that means. Since Flatpaks do have a mechanism for updating, that statement cannot be a Freudian slip.

            A Freudian slip essentially means revealing secret thoughts or feelings through misspeaking, it doesn’t just mean parsing a sentence wrong. It’s not my secret thought that Flatpaks actually can’t update and any updates pushed to them have actually been a collective hallucination of everybody who uses them.

            Now are you going to address the actual point that I was making? Of course not.

            Alright, you were right, flatpaks don’t use 6GIB for 6 applications, I am very sorry, they use 4 GIB KEK.

            Again with the lies.

            I have 61 flatpaks installed and it totals under 5GiB. HuR dUr FiRefOx fLatPaK usEs 3GiB

            • @Samueru@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              -4
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              You clearly don’t know what that means. Since Flatpaks do have a mechanism for updating, that statement cannot be a Freudian slip.

              Why are you so mad lmao.

              Flatpak is just a bloated mess, even with deduplication (Gimp increased the size to 4.8 GiB sorry 4.79GIB since I don’t want to mislead people):

              Again with the lies.

              I have 61 flatpaks installed and it totals under 5GiB. HuR dUr FiRefOx fLatPaK usEs 3GiB

              Bro, that is the size of my entire distro with the appimages included (and it also includes the home files), So yeah it is really bad kek.

              Also, here what it actually uses with the suggested tool:

              THAT’S STILL VERY TERRIBLE and more than what 15 appimages use wtf.

                • @Samueru@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -33 months ago

                  Lol you remind me of the people that get mad when someone talks badly about their favorite video game console.

                  • @TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    3
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    Mate, you’re spreading misinformation about a packaging format and going on all-caps rages about how great the one you use is.

                    You’re projecting so hard that I’m considering calling you IMAX.