• Samueru@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Wow you are really trying to mislead here.

    Alright do you want to install those 15 application on flatpak and compare the space usage again? Are you 100% sure that it wont be over 4GiB if I do that? (while the appimages was 1.2 GiB I remind you).

    EDIT: also, that 3GiB doesn’t include that dependencies that flatpak installed in my system lol. It is only the var dir but it doesn’t include the other stuff that flatpak pulled when it installed on my system lol.

    EDIT2: I JUST INSTALLED flatpak, firefox and libreoffice, AND THE THING IS 4.4GiB NOW, HOW THE FUCK DOES LIBREOFFICE FLATPAK CAN EVEN DO THIS WTF.

    Will you still say that I’m trying to mislead?

    And don’t get me started on stuff like theming, lack of app updates, and downloading programs via a browser like on a Windows system.

    Asif flatpak never had theming issues or lack of updates, I can tell you for example that the suyu flatpak is outdated right now while the appimage isn’t.

    Also you don’t have to download appimages via a browser… why do you even bother replying if you don’t know this? I mentioned several appimage package managers in this very thread.

    o 4.4 GIB

    DO YOU WANT ME TO CONTINUE?

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      That isn’t the amount of space it’s using. This has been explained to you. Stop intentionally misleading people.

      And what’s with the writing in caps? Just write like a normal person.

      Appimages have waaaaaaaay worse theming issues lol. No appimage can integrate with system theming, Flatpak does.

      You clearly don’t understand what I meant when I mentioned updates. Or maybe you did and were just trying to mislead again. My point was that flatpaks don’t have a mechanism for updating, unless the developer builds an updater service into the program, like apps do in Windows.

      Yes I’m aware there are appimage managers and launchers. But that’s more setup, more tinkering, and isn’t a part of the appimage standard.

      Downloading appimages via a browser is very much the intended usecase.

      There’s a reason why appimages don’t get much support but Flatpak does.

      • Samueru@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        My point was that flatpaks don’t have a mechanism for updating, unless the developer builds an updater service into the program, like apps do in Windows.

        Freudian slip eh.

        That isn’t the amount of space it’s using. This has been explained to you. Stop intentionally misleading people.

        Alright, you were right, flatpaks don’t use 6GIB for 6 applications, I am very sorry, they use 4 GIB KEK.

        ~/ ./flatpak-dedup-checker
        Directories:                /var/lib/flatpak/{runtime,app}
        Size without deduplication: 5.70 GB
        Size with deduplication:    4.03 GB (70% of 5.70 GB)
        
        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Freudian slip eh.

          You clearly don’t know what that means. Since Flatpaks do have a mechanism for updating, that statement cannot be a Freudian slip.

          A Freudian slip essentially means revealing secret thoughts or feelings through misspeaking. It’s not my secret thought that Flatpaks actually can’t update and any updates pushed to them have actually been a collective hallucination of everybody who uses them.

          Now are you going to address the actual point that I was making? Of course not.

          Alright, you were right, flatpaks don’t use 6GIB for 6 applications, I am very sorry, they use 4 GIB KEK.

          Again with the lies.

          I have 61 flatpaks installed and it totals under 5GiB. HuR dUr FiRefOx fLatPaK usEs 3GiB

          • Samueru@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            You clearly don’t know what that means. Since Flatpaks do have a mechanism for updating, that statement cannot be a Freudian slip.

            Why are you so mad lmao.

            Flatpak is just a bloated mess, even with deduplication (Gimp increased the size to 4.8 GiB sorry 4.79GIB since I don’t want to mislead people):

            Again with the lies.

            I have 61 flatpaks installed and it totals under 5GiB. HuR dUr FiRefOx fLatPaK usEs 3GiB

            Bro, that is the size of my entire distro with the appimages included (and it also includes the home files), So yeah it is really bad kek.

            Also, here what it actually uses with the suggested tool:

            THAT’S STILL VERY TERRIBLE and more than what 15 appimages use wtf.

              • Samueru@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Lol you remind me of the people that get mad when someone talks badly about their favorite video game console.

                • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Mate, you’re spreading misinformation about a packaging format and going on all-caps rages about how great the one you use is.

                  You’re projecting so hard that I’m considering calling you IMAX.

                  • Samueru@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    Might wanna improve the reading skills there, because I even mentioned here that appimages suck because the runtime doesn’t statically link glibc and that would improve their compatibility to 100% if they did (would work on musl distros).

                    going on all-caps rages

                    Yeah I can’t take blatantl lies like those that say that appimages bloat the system while promoting flatpaks, and I’ve already shared you enough info showing that is utterly false.

                    I’m considering calling you IMAX.

                    You’re funny lol.