On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 23:55:03 +0100 Oliver Schoede <oliver.sch...@online.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 09:35:34 -0500 > <pa...@quillandmouse.com> wrote: > > >Am I correct in assuming that package formats like Flatpak, Snap and > >Appimage, because they package up everything with the executable, > >would consume more system memory? [snip] > Flatpak is the odd one out and doesn't exactly work like this. Rather > than completely self-contained images, the packages aren't that much > different from what we have in Debian. The difference being that as > for dependencies it's more of an all or nothing affair. I principally wanted to confirm my suspicions about memory usage. There's been increasing usage of Flatpaks, Snaps and Appimages. As though it's a solution to the "problem" of distributions' own package management systems. And now Fedora is openly embracing Flatpaks. I find the trend disturbing. If you have a lot of apps running, and they're all these types of packages, you're going to be using considerably more memory. The alarming increase in the size of the Linux kernel is yet another symptom of this idea that, because memory is cheap, we simply use more. In my mind, it's a little like having access to unlimited amounts of water and thus using all of it you can. Or gasoline/petrol. Or food. I don't have a problem with Debian's packaging system, and am generally satisfied with the stable but older versions of Debian packages. They get the job done. Maybe I'm weird. Paul -- Paul M. Foster Personal Blog: http://noferblatz.com Company Site: http://quillandmouse.com Software Projects: https://gitlab.com/paulmfoster
