3 ms·

> Not every package is available on every distribution. Snap/Flatpak were meant to solve that issue. This "issue" was already solved by static executables. Sn

• przmk 6y ago
  You still need to distribute the static executables and there's no way to update them besides downloading them again unless the software has some auto-updater built-in. That definitely doesn't solve the issue.
  • enriquto 6y ago
    I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here. If you are so concerned about the security of your system that you want to run each program on a sandbox, then you definitely do not want to allow programs to "update" themselves by automatically downloading random binaries from the internet.
    • przmk 6y ago
      Well, I never said I was concerned with security. I am to some extent but not to the point where I inspect every single update. What I value most is having every software or library available through some form of package manager. Downloading static binaries off the internet without auto-update just doesn't make it which is why I like having Flatpak as a fallback. It also makes it easier for the common user to have every piece of software available through one store. They don't need to know whether it's a .deb or a Flatpak underneath, it just needs to be there and work reasonably well. There's really no other option: either distro maintainers include every single piece of software in the repositories (unlikely), or we need a common format that works on all distros (already the case with Flatpak).
• aesh2Xa1 6y ago
  Snaps and Flatpaks provide package management without system privilege required by the system package manager. This is a good deal for users. On the maintainer/author side, yes, I think static binaries largely perform the same.