• 31337@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Wastes RAM and disk space (compared to package-manager installed applications) by storing more libraries on disk and loading them into RAM rather than just using the libraries already installed on the distro. It’s probably better than Snap and Appimage though.

    • henfredemars@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      That is definitely a sacrifice being made here I agree with you. It gives developers more control over exactly how their app runs, but it does mean less storage efficiency.

    • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      Is it even a problem for a desktop in 2024? Never had an issue with RAM or diskspace. And even for those that have, they can just not use flatpak until they upgrade, no reason to kill it.

      • 31337@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        I assume the “kill it” comment was a little tongue-in-cheek. On small SBCs, like a Pi, or old hardware, it could be a problem. I’ve seen people with flatpaks taking up 30GB of space, which is significant. I’m not sure how much RAM it wastes. I assume running 6 different applications that have loaded 6 different versions of Qt libraries would also use significantly more RAM than just loading the system’s shared Qt libraries once.

        • pressanykeynow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          I don’t see a problem with Flatpak in this. It does what it’s supposed to do. You find not using it better? That’s great, that option is the default in all of the distributives.