4 ms·

> Sadly I have to agree with this. How many "package maintiners" are just wannabe developers that are just doing a bullshit job. I'd be a little more charitabl

by bsder 3y ago

> Sadly I have to agree with this. How many "package maintiners" are just wannabe developers that are just doing a bullshit job. I'd be a little more charitable. "Package maintainers are overworked, thus Flatpak." Flatpak is not an improvement on any technical axis. It's going to bloat your disk usage. Your apps are going to have slight inconsistencies as app developers are going to lock to a specific version of Gtk/Qt/etc. and never move. I can go on and on. However, that's not the point. The point is that package maintenance is work that nobody is willing to do or to pay for. At the end of the day, there simply is no choice other than shoving this back at the app developers.

saidinesh5 3y ago
> The point is that package maintenance is work that nobody is willing to do or to pay for. It's also work that shouldn't have to exist in the first place. Same application being packaged in different formats - rpms, debs, tarballs and what not -, linked against different set of libraries - so that end users can unpack and run the application developers develop. I know I'm simplifying the issue, but when you step back and look at the issue of how much time, energy and money goes into maintaining packages of the same software for different versions of different distributions, makes you wonder how we got into such a situation. I remember having to update whole Ubuntu version to get a newer version of an application I wanted to use.