Less with Flatpak. It is, IMHO, the wrong solution to a real problem; I install n flatpaks and suddenly I have n+1 openssl, libpng, etc. library versions to worry about, and unknown capabilities and policies for responding to security issues in each of them. Give me Debian unattended-upgrades any day!
Seriously, Flatpak is nice as a “backup repository” for when your actual repo lacks a certain package, but it is a workaround rather than a true solution. It’s the problem of “we have too many standards so let’s create another standard”. It just adds extra copies of dependencies on top of your system’s packages. The thing that I loved about Linux’s package management most when I first switched is just how damn efficient it all was. One package manager updates the ENTIRE system and dependencies all get properly shared. Why are we all clamoring to go backwards?
Really there with you on Debian bookworm!
Less with Flatpak. It is, IMHO, the wrong solution to a real problem; I install n flatpaks and suddenly I have n+1 openssl, libpng, etc. library versions to worry about, and unknown capabilities and policies for responding to security issues in each of them. Give me Debian unattended-upgrades any day!
Seriously, Flatpak is nice as a “backup repository” for when your actual repo lacks a certain package, but it is a workaround rather than a true solution. It’s the problem of “we have too many standards so let’s create another standard”. It just adds extra copies of dependencies on top of your system’s packages. The thing that I loved about Linux’s package management most when I first switched is just how damn efficient it all was. One package manager updates the ENTIRE system and dependencies all get properly shared. Why are we all clamoring to go backwards?