On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 17:12:12 -0500
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 1:11 AM wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:36:12PM -0500, pa...@quillandmouse.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > I find the trend disturbing. If you have a lot of apps running,
> > > and they're all the
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 1:11 AM wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:36:12PM -0500, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > 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 [..
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 09:13:06AM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
[...]
> > In a distro, applications have to get along with each other, agree
> > on a common set of libraries, file system layout, etc. I think this
> > is a Good Thing. Every app carrying its own little distro is like
> > neoliberal
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 01:34:11AM -0500, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote:
[...]
> I trust Debian to audit and ensure my packages are secure and
> interoperable. I don't necessarily trust Canonical or Flathub.
That's a very good condensate. That's my take, too.
Cheers
--
t
signature.asc
Descri
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:18:45PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > I'm not a friend of flatpaks and similar concepts, either. For me,
> > it's not memory use, but the shifting of power from a distrubution
> > model to single applications. I find that makes software less "free".
>
> Indeed. These
> I'm not a friend of flatpaks and similar concepts, either. For me,
> it's not memory use, but the shifting of power from a distrubution
> model to single applications. I find that makes software less "free".
Indeed. These end up reproducing the black-box model "it just works".
If you like that,
to...@tuxteam.de (12023-02-15):
> I'm not a friend of flatpaks and similar concepts, either. For me,
> it's not memory use, but the shifting of power from a distrubution
> model to single applications. I find that makes software less "free".
>
> In a distro, applications have to get along with eac
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 07:11:02 +0100
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:36:12PM -0500, pa...@quillandmouse.com
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > 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 memo
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:36:12PM -0500, pa...@quillandmouse.com wrote:
[...]
> 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 [...]
I'm not a friend of flatpaks and similar concepts,
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 23:55:03 +0100
Oliver Schoede wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 09:35:34 -0500
> 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]
>
On Mon, 13 Feb 2023 09:35:34 -0500
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? One of the reasons to use these formats is
>to avoid library version mismatches, an
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 09:35:34AM -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?
"Yes, but it depends."
Let's say you have two app
12 matches
Mail list logo
