• Vilian@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    they are needed, linux need universals package manager, building for every single distro is a waste of time

      • coolmojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        A bit of history. The first universal packaging format was snap by Canonical and used to be called Click apps and it was made for the Ubuntu mobile OS and later to the Ubuntu desktop. Red Hat in response to that created the FlatPak format. The AppImages are community effort.

          • dan@upvote.au
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            almost every time Ubuntu goes off and does its own thing, not including the rest of the Linux community in its decisions, it ends up designing stuff that never gets adopted

            This is something I like about Debian… They don’t make changes unless it’s really necessary. I run it on all my servers, except an Unraid server. Network config is still in /etc/network/interfaces in the same format it was in 20 years ago. When they adopted systemd, they still had full backwards compatibility with SysV init, and even today I think you can still uninstall systemd. It just keeps working.

          • lengau@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Remember Upstart?

            Yeah, the worst implementation of it I had to deal with was a CentOS 6 system.

            The best implementation I’ve used is probably my Chromebook.

        • leopold@lemmy.kde.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          AppImages long predate Snaps, but yes, Snaps do predate Flatpaks by a few months. There’s also Nix packages, which predate all three. Of course, this all matters very little compared to the merits of all four technologies. The heavy dependence on proprietary technology for repositories makes Snap clearly unsuitable to become the universal Linux package format.

        • Bezier@suppo.fi
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I don’t think that matters at this point. Flatpak is widespread and Canonical can’t possibly expect the linux crowd to choose the proprietary alternative. I could see snap being the one, had they just handled it differently.

      • Vilian@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        true, appimage is not exactly a package manager, so we have flatpaks so win in the end btw supporting flatpak and snap is 10x easir than old .rpm .deb and support more distros