this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2024
421 points (95.3% liked)

linuxmemes

20880 readers
3 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I know this, but it's still way lighter than flatpak. (the required app depencies size <<< whatever the hell flatpak downloads)

An app image that weighs a few hundred megabytes ( it's often less) becomes several gigabytes as a flatpak. I can download more than a dozen of appimages and it still would weigh as much as a single flatpak. I think it's just that my use case require me to have a handful lightweight apps in their latest version and the rest can be managed by the OS.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, the first flatpak is big cause you have to download the runtime (most common dependencies you will probably need anyways in the future). The majority of other flatpaks you will download will use the runtime you've already downloaded so those flatpaks will be lighter than the appimage variant

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago

Solution to too many package managers: two more package managers