I think it benefits the distro maintainers. They can vet and ship version 0.13.1 of some multi-player video game, and support that for two years without bothering to package multiple backward-incompatible releases from the game developers. People won’t come demanding that they break their distro’s stable version no major version upgrades rule because everyone actually playing the game can just use the snap/flatpak published by the developers.

So again… who does this benefit?

It benefits me because I can install 32 bit software as Flatpak without any troubles and without messing up my whole system with 32 bit libraries dependency hell.

As a Steam Deck user I really like flatpak, because it allows me to install third party apps while my system remains exactly the same as every other Steam Deck on the same version.

That means just like other “consumer” devices and unlike most PCs, updates are simple and risk free. There is no risk of having an update break because I installed some app that broke system level stuff.

Users who want to have software accessible

It benefits the end-user.

People do not want to be in dependency resolution hell; where they have three programs that all use different versions of libssl and require them to install all of them properly and point each application to the correct one. Most users have no ability to resolve problems like that. By not bundling, the application developer is forcing them to either try anyway or just not install their software.

Bundling dependencies with Flatpak or Snap helps the end user at the cost of only a few extra megabytes of space, which most users have in abundance anyway.

Benefits any software dev on Linux, as flatpak ships all your dependencies in one “container”. This allows you to deploy once and forget about whether some Ubuntu system dependency is on the same version/compatible with your test environment. Software that works everywhere is the biggest win of flatpaks. One could also make the same argument for snaps except the package repository is closed-sourced.

For me, it allows an easy configurable sandbox with Flatseal. This is the main reason I use flatpaks TBH, software is packaged with too much express permissions on Linux. You also get delta updates. Plus I don’t have to worry about mucking around with system packages if for example some dependency is not available or needs building/installing.

It benefits both devs and end users.

Many people don’t have the time or resources to manage a broken application especially devs who have to deal with that on several Linux distributions simultaneously.

Many distros use different package install scripts and repos to suit their specific needs. If I were to use a Debian-based distro, I would need to use apt to grab from a Debian-compatible repo. If I somehow got apt to work on Fedora, then not only would the program I installed not work, it would likely annihilate many of the preexisting dependencies and possibly brick the system.

I personally use Arch Linux which uses pacman, my package manager of choice, and a lot of times I’ll find an application that doesn’t work on my system due to mismatched dependencies. Arch is incompatible with .deb and .rpm files and does not use the Debian repo and its derivatives. It uses the AUR and its own derivatives of that repo. I don’t have the time or skill to get a program to work with a newly updated dependency on one distro nevermind however many exist on the internet. Many devs do that for free after they’ve been working at their job for hours and/or taking college courses.

What a Flatpak or appimage (ignoring goofy aah snaps) really does is allow a developer to update dependencies for their application at their own pace without having to play catchup when something inevitably breaks due to an update. It allows for a more stable system. As a Debian Bro, you might not need that, but on rolling-release distros like Arch and funky distros like Manjaro that can be very much welcome.

I’d agree with mainly the developers. And maybe sometimes me, when there isn’t a packaged version available.

But you’ll certainly lose the benefits your distro’s maintainers provide. They coordinate all the software and make sure it works together. Give it some polish, keep things updated, patch things when there’s a vulnerability. Strip tracking libraries and change default settings so it fits into your distro’s politics. And a flatpak doesn’t use the distro’s libraries which get maintained painstakingly by the maintainers. And distros oftentimes promise to maintain software for a certain timespan and not abandon it. (Of course in case you use a distro that does these things properly.)

You’re now at the mercy of whoever made that flatpak.

And like mentioned in this post you now have multiple sources of software and you have maybe 3 things to keep up to date instead of 1 that does this on its own.

And if there is a vulnerability in some library like there was with webp this week… The distros are likely to do something about it. And if you have several independent other versions of that library on your system, maybe you’ll stay vulnerable until a developer chooses to release a new version with a new or patched library. Some library package managers will show you open vulnerabilities while programming. But I’m unaware of such a thing being included into flatpak, snap etc. Your distro will have a mailing list or something like that.

deleted by creator

not me, as a user, that’s for sure

I benefit from using flatpaks they are up to date and stable I use flatpaks on debian so that I can have both stability and up to date software, I also get more control over permissions which I’ve definitely used (I nearly fully restrict discord access to my system)

The main downside to me is the package size but this gets wayyyy better after you install the runtimes.

Mainly software vendors.

The fact that you can build a package with all dependences built in etc. Means software vendors can release a product for Linux. Without worring about all the different versions of library’s out there.

This is useful for os when trying to support less common distress. As you are not rellying on the distro to package everything. Then destros that wish to may compile more efficient versions based on there own dependencies can. But other distros are supported if they do not want to compile. Without your team having to compile for every distress.

But it also allows commercial closed source vendors to package once and know every linux system (on the hardware they choose to support) will have the dependencies expected. No matter the distro choice or other software requirements. Removing the issue with supporting every distress. As this is a common reason commercial software avoids Linux. As 100s of different distress divided between a relatively small customer base. Means support is often not cost effective.

Using flatpak was a hit and miss for me. For some apps it worked, for some apps it didn’t (app wasn’t running or was crashing). So I would say it benefits no one. If the main purpose is providing a format that “just works on all computers” and doesn’t “just work” than it’s useless. Now I just try to avoid it.

Me. A flatpak Firefox means not adding a repo to install non-free codecs. A flatpak steam means not installing a hideous number of 32 bit libs. Can’t remember what software it is because I rarely use it, but another flatpak prevents me needing to build it from source.

It helps distributing applications that don’t break left and right. Deepin is creating its own thing as well and they said they are gonna check host system first then supplement missing components if needed. This should result in maximum space saving, but allow developers to cherry pick dependencies.

How this is gonna play out remains to be seen.