• Samueru
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The first app installed may seem big but often the next app will use many of the same libraries rather than redownload/reinstall them.

    Do you want me to repeat the flatpak test as see if I install libreoffice along side firefox that the install size wont go from 3 GiB to 3.3GiB or more?

    needs to be decompressed which causes further overhead

    You don’t have to do this, you can run the decompressed appimage at the cost of increasing its size, which yeah you will have to decompress a lot of appimages before the space usage is comparable to that of flatpak.

    Simple apps with few dependencies will be small, but big apps can bloat massively particularly

    kdenlive is 200 MiB, is that too big for such application?

    I wouldn’t want to run a web browser using a poorly maintained appimage for example

    Good thing librewolf releases their appimage officially.

    while every AppImage is crudely it’s own distro.

    Do you think portable apps are also their own distro?

    • rollingflower@lemmy.kde.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Portable apps are their own distro, yes.

      Why use an appimage when they also have official RPM or DEB repos? There is nothing gained here, but you have an insecure install and update mechanism.

      • Samueru
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Btw I just added libreoffice and kdenlive and shit is 6.2 GiB wtf.

        https://imgur.com/gCUuW5P.png

        How the fuck did libreoffice even increase the size by 1.4 GiB? the libreoffice appimage that is “its own distro” is 860 MiB uncompressed (it is 323 MiB when it is an appimage btw) , the flatpak added 1.4 GiB somehow kek.

        There is nothing gained here

        I use appimages because they have a lot of features that I really like, from having portable homes, taking less space than native packages, etc.

        They also allow easy version control, did I run into a regresion from certain application? let me try the older appimage (this happened with ferdium to me btw).

        Why use an appimage when they also have official RPM or DEB repos?

        What if I’m using (I am btw) archlinux, and not that means that I need to rely on aur packages which I can’t even compile right now because my system ran into a weird bug in cmake and haven’t even been able to report because I can’t register in the cmake gitlab lol.

        Also I used voidlinux for a few weeks and that really opened my eyes on how much I relied upon the aur and I made the change to switch to appimages.

        and update mechanism.

        I use appimages with the AM packages manager that installs them, adds a symlink to PATH, adds the desktop entry, and keeps them up to date as well.

        Yes I will give you that flatpaks are safer than appimages, aur or even native packages, but from there everything else is just downsides, including performance regressions, and I don’t know about you, I don’t like that so I don’t use it, as simple as that. And it really made me mad when I saw that github thing of the other user lying that appimages bloat the system, that shit even links an article saying that firejail isn’t safe as argument against appimages, when that very article even mentions that flatpaks sandbox isn’t safe either kek.

        • rollingflower@lemmy.kde.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Check again with that tool that size is really strange.

          I am not a fan of that bloat, as Android works similar and apps are 30MB max. I simply think flatpak is the best foundation.

          • Samueru
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Alright I just moved flatpak to its own partition and checked the size of the partition instead:

            with firefox, kdenlive and libreoffice:

            Disk (/var/lib/flatpak) 2.69 GiB / 19.12 GiB (14%) - ext4

            That’s much better now. But still twice the size that 15 appimages took.

            This is with now having firefox librewolf brave kdenlive and libreoffice:

            Disk (/var/lib/flatpak) 3.40 GiB / 19.12 GiB (18%) - ext4

            Still though, the appimages take less space. A by a large margin.

              • Samueru
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                WIth the same 5 application that I had before: https://imgur.com/Yn5O7Ni.png

                I moved it to a different partition because I had already noticed that my Btrfs filesystem level compression was makiing the size different much smaller (the root filesystem actually grew by about 3 GiB but my file manager was reporting over 6 GIB on the flatpak dir).

                EDIT: Also that tool reports the flatpak size as 3.5 GiB while fastfetch reports the flatpak partition as 3.4 GIB.

                EDIT2: This is after installing yuzu:

                ~/ ./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)
                

                It actually grew considerably for yuzu, yuzu appimage itself is 60 MiB compressed 170 MiB uncompressed.