What is the difference between installing software via FLATPAK vs ZorinOS APT and why would I use one over the other?
This is the standard and stable packaging system. It provides stable packages that are meshed for use with your build.
THis is an alternative packaging system that is being pushed upon us. It offers cutting edge, but is not meshed to be stable on the system and so must carry dependencies with it - increasing package size and space. It is also isolated from the system, in order to carry its own dependencies, and for many packages, this causes them to not work since many packages need access to the system in order to work.
Why choose one over the other:
If you want cutting edge versions of a package or want the package to be installable no matter the build, you can choose Flatpak.
If you want stable packages that just work - use APT.
3 Likes
I was thinking about what you stated and it made me think of AppImages, so I suspect that Flatpak in some senses is similar to AppImages which, too, are also self-contained bloatware.
Flatpak is ok if that's your only choice for a program you want. (Certainly better than Snap.) Flatpak apps are isolated for safety, which works fine for simple programs. But apps that need to deeply interact with your system can’t do much because Flatpak keeps them boxed in. And that's actually a good thing.
But if there's an APT out there, that's always the best bet.
I disagree with the 'safe' option statement.
not the best word choice I suppose.
To add something to @Aravisian's Comment here:
The Thing with the Dependencies is that they can be shared. When You already have downloaded a Dependency with a Flatpak and another Flatpak uses that, too. It will not be downloaded again.
One Thing for Updates: Flatpaks doesn't get Updates via the Software Updater. they get Updates in Gnome Software. Alternatively, You can update them in the Terminal, too.
I think the issue here is:
Snap and Flatpak packages are not sandboxed for safety or security.
They are sandboxed because they must carry their own dependencies and therefor, isolate from the system since the system and the isolated package use different dependencies.
This then can be used as a "Selling point" for the isolated packages by citing, "Use these because they are secure, since they are sandboxed."
But what they end up being is "Double sandboxed" because the GnuLinux system is already sandboxed and isolated.
Then these Flatpak or Snap packages are also sandboxed, within that sandbox.
Are they therefor more secure? Well, in a way you can say that. If I wear a helmet over my helmet, I can say I am more safe than I would be with only one helmet.
1 Like
But they would not fit very well!
For the determined, it is possible:
Very safe!
Nope! Let's take a look at:
Riding a motorcycle and you fall off it you assume you would be safe. True. But only if you do not exceed a speed of 30 m.p.h.
In much the same way an airbag in a car will only protect you if you are travelling at 40 m.p.h. or less.
Unless of course you are driving a certain Citroën.
1 Like
Let's not get lost on how the analogies work:
Double Sandboxing creates new problems.
Stating you could feasibly make an already secure system a bit more secure (but not by much) is not a fair compensation for the headaches.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.