Flatpaks aren’t huge at all. This is a debunked myth. I can’t recommend reading this article enough.

  • bigkahuna1986@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Maybe I’m in the wrong here but I would think focusing on management time for Flatpak vs whatever would be the important part, not disk space usage.

      • bigkahuna1986@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        10 months ago

        My premise is that sysadmin/user time is more expensive than drive space. Seeing some real world examples of how Flatpak could save time over the long run would probably be beneficial for increasing usage.

        Keep in mind I have no dog in this fight, I don’t have a preference of one over the other. I only made that comment because everytime I see a Flatpak reference on the web it’s always in the context of disk usage.

          • GreyBeard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            10 months ago

            If I was running business workstations on Linux, I’d probably prefer Flatpak over distro specific package managers most of the time.

        • j0rge@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’m the author of the blog post and a former sysadmin, there’s really no maintenance to do with flatpaks, not having to deal with traditional package manager issues have removed that problem completely from my life.

          Distros may or may not provide this functionality, but on my systems they’re set up for zero maintenance of the OS base image and the flatpaks via service units and then I don’t have to do anything.