Flatpak haters seem to believe that if an app isn't on their distro's repos, it's the developers' fault.
Flatpak haters seem to believe that if an app isn't on their distro's repos, it's the developers' fault.
If you're separating your application from the core system package manager and shared libraries, there had better be a good and specific reason for it (e.g. the app needs to be containerized for stability/security/weird dependency). If an app can't be centrally managed I don't want it on my system, with grudging exceptions.
Chocolatey has even made this possible in Windows, and lately for my Windows environments if I can't install an application through chocolatey then I'll try to find an alternative that I can. Package managers are absolutely superior to independent application installs.
laughs in appimage.
They do? I've always seen that as being up to distro maintainers, and out of control of the devs.
You don't need the distro to package your sodtware through their package management systems though. Apt and dnf repositories are extensible, anyone can publish. If you go to copr or ppa you can have a little extra help too, without distro maintainers.
The headache comes up when multiple third party repositories start conflicting with each other when you add enough of them, despite they're best efforts. This scenario starts needing flatpack, which can, for example concurrently provide multiple distinct library versions installed that traditionally would conflict with each other. This doesn't mean application has to bundle the dependency, that dependency can still be external to the package and independently updated, it just means conflicts can be gracefully handled.