3 ms·

That's unacceptable, it's Windows levels of bloat. Of course, Windows does something similar to maintain backwards compatibility with apps going all the way ba

That's unacceptable, it's Windows levels of bloat. Of course, Windows does something similar to maintain backwards compatibility with apps going all the way back to Windows 3.1, and does so pretty efficiently all things considered. Flatpack seems anything but efficient.

nulbyte 3y ago
To be fair, the author of the article states that 173 graphical applications take up that much space, not just a handful of browsers. I think gp misses the point the author is trying to make, that over 100 apps takes up less space than expected.
- seba_dos1 3y ago
  That's not a huge number of applications at all, unless we're talking about asset-heavy things like games. It would usually take about 10 GB or so complete with the whole operating system.
  - selcuka 3y ago
    > It would usually take about 10 GB or so complete with the whole operating system. So it takes around 3.7x the size it should? That's not unusual given that it isolates all dependencies.
    - eviks 3y ago
      It's not unusual, but it's still bad
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]