@hehemrin Adding onto what @mah said, I'd argue Flatpak is very important for the sustainability of the Linux desktop longterm compared to using formats like .deb. I wrote about it here: https://memoryfile.codeberg.page/posts/Distribution-packaging-for-Linux-desktop-applications-is-unsustainable/
This talk is also very good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WuYGcs0t6I
@memoryfile @mah Thanks, I will read later. So, with risk without having read or viewed a few comments... I have seen problems with FlatPak. My few AppImages works better. But I prefer deb. One FlatPak I tried quite a while ago was sooo old, seemed to be abandoned by the person who made the FlatPak (which appeared to have no relation to the original sw developer). Now I have one FlatPak, where there are quite often updates of Free desktop and whatever. But real issue is probably because it 1/2
@memoryfile @mah is a container. It seems as it does not integrate as desirable. Which, as I understood is intentionally as it is a container. Probably it can be fixed with giving special permissions, but that really requires some skills, knowing what I am doing. I have not seem similar issues with deb. But I get the general advantage of easier to make a sw working for all Linux with container-concept (which I think is similar to macOS approach). 2/2