11mo ago

Flatpak is only for graphical apps - Flatpak's biggest flaw?

I love Flatpaks, the programs are nicely separated so they don't interfere with each other. They also don't have flaws like Snap's low performance or Nix's complexity.

But being limited to only graphical apps seems like a real drawback. If one wants to use Flatpaks as their primary package manager there have to be some awkward workarounds for cli programs.

E.g., the prime Flatpak experiene is supposed to be on immutable distros like Silverblue. But to install regular cli programs you are expected to spin up a distrobox (or toolbox) and install those programs there.

Having one arch distrobox where I get my cli programs from will not work, as the package entropy over time will get me the very dependency issues that Flatpak wants to solve.

So what is the solution here? Have multiple distroboxes and install packages in those in alternation and hope the boxes don't break? Use Nix alongside Flatpak? Use Snaps?

You're viewing a single thread.

41 comments

I think Nix is great for installing CLI apps, it's not that complicated, in fact, it can make many things in your life easier.
- This.
  Also, @Libretto@iusearchlinux.fyi - you not be aware but you can use Nix in an imperative way (as opposed to declarative), which doesn't require learning the Nix language or editing config files etc.
  Eg: say you wanted to install tealdeer, all you need to do is run: nix profile install nixpkgs#tealdeer
  There are similar one-liners to search, upgrade, rollback etc.
  I use Fedora uBlue (Bazzite), and use Nix to install all my CLI apps, and Flatpak for all my GUI apps. Been running this setup for a few months on and it's been great experience (bit of a learning curve doing this way of course, but I'm pretty happy with my setup now).
  
  Thanks, I will try that out. I want to use uBlue as well, but cli program installation has been holding me back.
  uBlue also makes nix available via fleek, but the way you describe it it seems easier to just use nix directly
  
  ublue contributor here. We're set up so you can install any cli program from any distro transparently. Should we outline that more in our docs?
  
  hey, I'm a bit overwhelmed by all the options you provide to install cli programs. There's nix, fleek, devbox, devcontainers, distrobox, incus, brew and probably even more options.
  I just want one preferred way to install my cli programs globally, like on normal distributions, but it is not clear which option is the default one. After digging through posts on the forum I found out that the ubuntu distrobox with apt is supposed to be this default installation environment. Maybe make that clear when someone opens the host terminal on bluefin, or let the bluefin installer give this info to the user.
  Even then, projectbluefin.io in the FAQ section suggests that homebrew is the creator's preferred installation method, not ubuntu. So which one should I use now? On one hand, bluefin's default DE is GNOME which is very simplified and has one correct workflow, on the other hand bluefin provides a multitude of choices all seeming equally viable, which is more in line with KDE's philosophy.
  Also, why prefer homebrew over something like nix? AFAIK, homebrew leads to the same dependency issues that the traditional package managers have.
  Additionally, what is making ublue hard for me is that all the important info seems to be scattered on the ublue website, blog posts and forum posts. I'd really like it if there would be one website which gives clear guidance for people who are new to bluefin (or bazzite etc.). Not explaining all of the possibilites, but just the most important stuff to get started. Just a really dumbed down, compressed version of the existing ublue guides. The users can figure out more themselves afterwards.
  Something like:
  install bluefin-dx (not the regular bluefin)
  only install graphical stuff via flatpak
  only use the ubuntu terminal for any terminal stuff, including cli program installation
  do not use the host terminal unless you are doing host administration with ujust or rpm-ostree
  etc.
  These starter instructions may not be perfect, but at least then the users have a daily driver they can learn more about over time instead of having to learn everything before daily-driving ublue.
  Thank you for all the hard work you guys are putting into this, I'm excited to see the project mature
  
  Maybe make that clear when someone opens the host terminal on bluefin, or let the bluefin installer give this info to the user.
  We're working on a dynamic motd system that will give you some guidance when you first run the terminal. Here's the issue if you have some feedback! https://github.com/ublue-os/bluefin/issues/609
  So which one should I use now?
  Yeah the reason it's ubuntu by default is that's what the target audience uses, but we've been working on a wolfi/brew distrobox that ends up being a better experience, so we're mulling shipping that by default.
  Also, why prefer homebrew over something like nix? AFAIK, homebrew leads to the same dependency issues that the traditional package managers have.
  We picked homebrew because it's overwhelmingly the most popular package manager for cloud people and has everything people need. nix doesn't really fit in a container world, but we don't stop people from using it, and with devbox there's at least a common devcontainer pattern people can use. I haven't really run into dependency issues with homebrew but the new bluefin-cli container maintains state and is destroyed/rebuilt regularly so that hopefully won't be a problem.
  scattered on the ublue website, blog posts and forum posts.
  Yeah this is annoying and we're in the middle of consolidating docs, I'm hoping to streamline it by Fedora 40. I'm also working on a 10m "how to use this thing" video, it's just been hard to spend time on it when we're still making it. We're almost feature complete at this point so I'll start on this soon.
  Your starter steps are exactly what we want the default to be, do you think we should say that more strongly? Thanks for your feedback! I think we can clean up a bunch of this stuff to make it easier.
  
  Thank you for the answers and listening to the feedback.
  Your starter steps are exactly what we want the default to be, do you think we should say that more strongly?
  Yes, I'd definitely try to make it more clear to the user that the ubuntu/wolfi distrobox is the way to go and that all the other installation methods are just bonus for those who need it.
  Also, I think it's a bit confusing for newcomers whether to choose bluefin or -dx. It seems like dx is always the better option, even if you end up not using all of the extra features
  
  Yep exactly. I tried Fleek first, but it just added a whole bunch of layers of complexity which I wasn't prepared to get into. In fact, the first time I tried setting it up, I couldn't even get it to work with a basic preset ("bling" level), because some dependency in the chain somewhere was broken and it thru a bunch of errors.. and that to me wasn't a good sign of things to come, so I abandoned the idea.
  Nix however has been super easy to use, literally just install/uninstall stuff just like how you'd use a regular package manager, except it installs to your user profile/path, doesn't need sudo, no container/sandbox slowing things down, no Distrobox limitations and bugs, and most impressively it's fast. Like so fast that stuff installs instantly, and you'd think that the command didn't work!

41 comments