I totally agree being a contrarian outcast, but not because of what I commented earlier. Why would I use flatpak thunderbird when there is version in my repos which just needs to be updated?
BC it’s easier for the any dev to package their program for flatpaks assuring it’ll work in all distributions, otherwise you have to wait for your package manager maintainer to repackage the program for your system. Which is what happens for Arch, debian, Suse, Fedora.
It’s not Thunderbird/program responsibility if they decided to make flatpaks the main source of distribution yet you decide to install it through other means. Which idk if they did but more devs are opting to distribute through flatpaks.
There are a couple of reasons. For starters, the applications and all of their files/dependencies are contained in a single location, making them easier to manage/remove and help avoid any dependency hell. They’re distro agnostic, which makes it easier for developers and distro maintainers to troubleshoot. The applications are also somewhat sandboxed, which essentially doesn’t exist otherwise on any distro. Not a perfect solution by any means, but I install all of my main applications this way. Permissions can be further tweaked/restricted with Flatseal. Only thing I’d be wary of is installing any Chromium-based browser this way as it replaces Chromium’s layer-1 sandbox with Flatpak’s, which is inherently weaker.
Not going to install flatpak tb, gimme the full version on my package manager…
I’ll stick with Mutt.
Your meds pal, take them
I totally agree being a contrarian outcast, but not because of what I commented earlier. Why would I use flatpak thunderbird when there is version in my repos which just needs to be updated?
BC it’s easier for the any dev to package their program for flatpaks assuring it’ll work in all distributions, otherwise you have to wait for your package manager maintainer to repackage the program for your system. Which is what happens for Arch, debian, Suse, Fedora.
It’s not Thunderbird/program responsibility if they decided to make flatpaks the main source of distribution yet you decide to install it through other means. Which idk if they did but more devs are opting to distribute through flatpaks.
@dino@discuss.tchncs.de I will use the distribution version as long as they update it. Yes I will gladly take the meds. Thank you.
Still no reason to use the flatpak if a repo packet exists.
There are a couple of reasons. For starters, the applications and all of their files/dependencies are contained in a single location, making them easier to manage/remove and help avoid any dependency hell. They’re distro agnostic, which makes it easier for developers and distro maintainers to troubleshoot. The applications are also somewhat sandboxed, which essentially doesn’t exist otherwise on any distro. Not a perfect solution by any means, but I install all of my main applications this way. Permissions can be further tweaked/restricted with Flatseal. Only thing I’d be wary of is installing any Chromium-based browser this way as it replaces Chromium’s layer-1 sandbox with Flatpak’s, which is inherently weaker.
I am talking from a user perspective, not developer reasons. Also tinkering with flatseal = lol.
Most of what I said is from a user perspective. But, if you want to treat the discussion with condescension, then carry on doing what you do.