3 ms·
Could this be solved by smarter layering? I've read that Flatpaks are just container images under the hood and I'm sure many of those share the same base layers
by 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Could this be solved by smarter layering? I've read that Flatpaks are just container images under the hood and I'm sure many of those share the same base layers.
- Havoc 4y agoDocker does that, but I had understood flatpak to be closer to a VM. i.e. not layered in the same way
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- akvadrako 4y agoFlatpak is even better than layering. All the files are stored in OSTree, a git-like repo, and hard-linked under the root for each app. So duplicate files don't take up space.
- hotpotamus 4y agoAnd thus we re-invent shared libraries? Like that's not even really a snarky question; isn't that sort of restarting the cycle?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoGood point. Yes. But there are too many versions and varieties. In the same vein there is a lot of variety of image layers. What problem does Flatpak solve? I assume it's because it's tough to create Linux desktop applications when you have no idea what shared libraries, compiler, or version expect.
- hotpotamus 4y agoI always thought of containers as essentially a universal linux package manager. If you ever yum install something and see it pull in dependencies, it's not like there's an elegant software solution that makes that happen; it's work done by people who maintain lists of what each package requires and compatible versions. Red Hat puts considerable effort into that, and it's work duplicated by other distros, each with their own packaging idiosyncrasies.
- Brian_K_White 4y agoSo we reinvented static binaries, except 500x worse.