Flatpaks aren’t huge at all. This is a debunked myth. I can’t recommend reading this article enough.

  • taladar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    So you only need to use two technologies that add complexity and cost performance (filesystem compression and deduplication) to get to the point where you are still 10+% higher in disk space use? I am not sure your post supports the argument it is trying to make.

    • j0rge@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Author here. The distro comes with the filesystem compression and deduplication already set up and I don’t need to manage it, so of course I’m going to use it.

      Given the cost of storage I have no problems spending a barely noticeable amount of space to use flatpaks given all the problems they solve.

    • moreeni@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Deduplications comes with flatpak for free. Both systems had filesystem compression, so this one doesn’t count. 10% higher disk space is neglectible on most systems and the containerisation makes it worth it.

    • AProfessional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Compression often improves performance as it means reading less data from storage. Deduplication, as flatpak uses it, is free.

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      If I had to suffer only having 600GB of free disk space instead of 640GB of free disk space I’d shoot myself