4 ms·
Mostly agree, though isolation is still useful against security flaws. You access untrusted content with software you trust but which might be imperfect. I wou
by jraph 3y ago
Mostly agree, though isolation is still useful against security flaws. You access untrusted content with software you trust but which might be imperfect.
I wouldn't mind a bit of isolation between apps on my Linux desktop (and phone). I would mind the cost of bringing one or several additional copies of a Linux system and degraded performance though, so I'm not a fan of Flatpak for this reason.
- l72 3y agoDo you find that you really have degraded performance with Flatpak? On my pinephone running postmarketos, all my non system applications are from Flatpak, which allows sandboxing and easy updates. I can't say I've noticed any performance differences (unlike with Snap last time I tried it).
- jraph 3y agoI think that when the app is actually running, it runs fast, but boot time is higher, and I suspect increased memory usage. I end up not installing a lot of Flatpak apps because of disk space usage anyway. Each package choose a different base system so they end up sharing nothing and taking hundreds of megs each, it's quite annoying. On the PinePhone I only have OSM Scout Server and Pure Maps installed like this, and that's really because there are no Debian packages for them.
- Bu9818 3y agoThe only performance impact I know of is with the seccomp filter in CPU-bound tasks: https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/issues/4187 https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/issues/4187 Skimming through the recent comments, there might be a way to optimize some of it.