this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
809 points (97.4% liked)

linuxmemes

20751 readers
1390 users here now

I use Arch btw

Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
poopsmith@lemmy.world
zephyr@lemmy.world
809
Snap out of it (lemmy.zip)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by 299792458ms@lemmy.zip to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
169 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

How do you guys get software that is not in your distribution's repositories?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Samueru@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

. If you end up with 4.7GB for runtimes, that’s basically nothing these days

Yes but that wasn't the original comment I replied to was about.

163 flatpaks and the runtimes used 8.7GB

163 flatpaks using 8.7 GiB means that the average flatpak is using 54.6 MiB.

That's good the other time I got this linked: https://tesk.page/2023/06/04/response-to-developers-are-lazy-thus-flatpak/#but-flatpaks-are-easier-for-end-users

Which is no good as in that example there was 173 flatpaks using 27.66 GiB, average 160 MiB, while in your case the average flatpak is using 91 MiB.

This is what I have with appimages:

In this case the average appimage is using 69 MiB, though there is one outliner which is the Steam appimage that I have there (470 MiB) which is an entire conty container with its own video drivers and everything, without it the average would be 56 MiB.

I know this doesn't matter these days but once again that wasn't what the original comment was about.

Well we are talking about two gigs, after all. Unless you’re using an embedded system, it’s not a much of a concern if you ask me. But it is more, true

Thanks for the link showing an average flatpak using 54 MiB though, didn't think it was possible lol.

WAIT I just took a deeper look at the link, isn't that guy just showing the runtimes without the applications using 8.7 GiB?

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago

Yes but that wasn’t the original comment I replied to was about.

I know this doesn’t matter these days but once again that wasn’t what the original comment was about.

I agree, it was just about the size differences. I just think it's good to bring up since there's many confused about the flatpak size use. Often people might want to install some small app and they're hit with gigs of stuff and come off thinking that's the same for every app, which would be insane of course.

WAIT I just took a deeper look at the link, isn’t that guy just showing the runtimes without the applications using 8.7 GiB?

Yes it's specifically comparing runtimes. Same for my number, I was calculating how much the runtimes used.