My experience with Flatpak is okay, the payload by runtimes is okay and it works. What worries me is the actual amount of files within /var/lib/flatpak, for 23

My experience with Flatpak is okay, the payload by runtimes is okay and it works. What worries me is the actual amount of files within /var/lib/flatpak, for 23 packages (apps and all depdencies) it is about a half million files. This a problem, moving /usr now takes a lot time. I think Flatpak applies well for checking out new applications and closed-source binary applications. You don't want many closed-source applications within the official package-mangement and the core system, it also prevent their publisher to create distribution specific packages. Good things require always hard work, there is no magic solution. I appreciate API and ABI stability and slick package management of Linux distributions. The work of developers and package maintainers make this possible. This is the reason why Linux is efficient and comfortable. This is not a magic solution but work. And it makes efficient distributions possible. The grass is green on the other side? On Windows you have to install all automatic updates or new applications will not run. If you don't do this you will face errors about missing C#-Runtimes or a C++ Redistributable. And application developers need to ship dependencies within the application. This is the reason why Windows is so fat, why applications are fat and the usage of a permission system is not possible. The article doesn't states this. MacOS on the other hand? The break compatibility every few years. MacOS Classic to MacOS X, Quartz, PPC, Intel and finally M1. Android and iOS had the luck to be new. Permissions work, if they aren't requested all. But still, iOS fails to provide file-system access, file handling is burden for users and backups are impossible. Apps haven grown quickly into being fat. Garmin Connect, an app which cannot do anything without cloud, 340 MB. Do yourself a favor an check what your banking app requires, you won't get away with less than 200 MB and only the good ones can show you our balance locally - which requires how many kilobytes to store? Messengers like Signal are also growing an growing, Signal is right about 170 MB. Back to Linux: I can only appreciate the path to system wide ABI/API stability on Linux, with Systemd, GLIBC, LIBSTDC++ valuing stability and the recent changes around Gtk3 and Gtk4 the situation may become even better. I think Flatpak can be improved, it should be improved. But we don't need another competing standard, before we didn't tried hard to improve the existing solution. I hope that at one day Canonical will start collaborating with the community and especially Red Hat, they always implement a less favorable solution (Mir, Unity, Snap, Upstart...) lose and harm Linux. Collaborate with Flatpak, add a payment solution and share the revenue with Red Hat and others?