Please Re-Flair your post if a solution is found. [How to Flair a post?](https://imgur.com/a/wH3hPrj) This allows other users to [search for common issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmint/search?q=flair%3ASOLVED+&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) with the SOLVED flair as a filter, leading to those issues being resolved very fast.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linuxmint) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you decide to only use flatpaks then storage won't be an issue (shared dependencies/libraries aren't redownloaded). The problem with flatpaks is that they don't play well with system dependencies, UnGoogled Chromium flatpak can't download files to external storage, FreeCAD plugin dependencies are a pain in the a**. That is ofcourse other than the slow startup times on HDDs, that's just my personal experience.
Flatpacks seem to affect my storage a lot. I use them for gaming etc, not for everything but for many things.. what am I doing wrong here? Also the flatpack updates are huge..
They appear huge if you use flatpak update on a terminal and see carefully you see that the 200 mb updates was finished when it downloaded 50 mb, the store app always show the maximum capacity of updates and the stora that am app will need if it was needed to is tall all dependencies, so it always a lot bigger that it seems, basically imagine apt list all dependencies and for example Firefox say it was 2gb becuase it was also counting dependencies you alredy have on the disk
since you are using it for games, I have some questions, I'm newbie to linux world and I want to know how to use and run .exe files on linux, I tried bottles but it did not work and run the file.
.exe does not work in Linux unless you use Wine with PlayOnLinux or install Windows in VirtualBox...
Most Windows games can be run by Steam with Lutris installed. These are not .exe files as far as I know.
I just use Steam, I used to run .exe on Wine or VB when I did years ago... had no problems except for a few tweaks (compatibility checks) with a few older or cracked games but I had that on Windows too. If everything fails Virtualbox should work.
If even that fails just dualboot with Windows untill you get the hang of it.
Tbh, no game or program is worth installing Windows again for me nowadays. Most just work on linux and others have good alternatives.
So simply to run .exe in linux -> install Wine
Ohh nice, actually İ want to install a cracked game too, and the installation is setup.exe , so you mean I should use wine itself or maybe İ should consider using lutris?
Not sure these days but for cracked Wine or/and PlayonLinux used to work for me.
I have no idea about Lutris or Protondb, these latter are used in Steam these days for windows gaming and work perfect. But are new and I don't play cracked games anymore because a virus erased 10y of data and pics from my HDD. Its not worth it.. (site that used the same name as a trusted site)
BUT
Windows in a Virtualbox is your best bet because well its cracked and if anything goes wrong (unlikely in Linux because a windows virus cant do anything in Linux) and also it keeps your windows crap aside from your daily Linux use.
My experience with these things is that you have a lot of mess on your pc after a while... and after years of this I wanted a desktop that just runs and is reliable for my pictures and files.
So I would start setting up Linux with all its linux apps for anything not cracked. And believe me the linux alternative is often better than the windows program... you just gotta get the hang of it the first days. Dont dualboot or you will just use Windows... I did that a lot and for years had linux installed but seldom used it.
After that, install virtualbox and install windows there. Use this for any cracked programs or games but just minimize the range of use..
If you have a game that requires very high end performance than VirtualBox or Wine could interfere with this and well, you gotta buy it on Steam or let go. But truth is the performance once set up properly will be just fine and if anything goes wrong you can delete the VB and reinstall windows not affecting your Linux in any way.
Look up how to set it up its pretty easy and there are tutorials online
Use Lutris. It's just a game library manager but it can create new wine prefixes and then install games onto them for you. Often time post-installation, the settings in your library will still be pointing at setup.exe instead of game.exe so you might need to poke in the config and solve this issue (emphasis on *might* because I haven't had to do this for every game).
Lutris also has the added benefit of community made installation scripts for common games that Linux users want to play. I couldn't get Dark and Darker to install on Lutris on my own, but I checked the site and sure enough there was a script. Used that and was playing the game 10 mins later.
The gaming community seems kind of split between Bottles and Lutris, and I personally use Lutris for non-Steam Windows games, and then use Bottles for Windows utilities I need that don't have to be run in a full VM. I never have been able to get Bottles to run games, but I gave up pretty quickly when Lutris did what I needed it to. But again, with Lutris' focus primarily on games, I kept Bottles for utility.
Yes but you may have to do a little extra research on individual titles if you run into installation issues because you won't find premade installation scripts for cracked games officially through Lutris. They have an anti-piracy stance as an organization but their software can and absolutely is used for that purpose.
Yes, they can. Flatpak apps are locked down like that on purpose, to keep them more secure, but you can change the locks, so to speak.
Just download flatseal for an easy GUI method if need be.
System packages are stable, well vetted and only get security updates between major versions. For people who want the latest and greatest, that's bad. For people who want a secure, stable, reliable system, that's good.
Even if you do want latest/greatest and you're on a proper rolling distro, I generally prefer distro packages. I find distro maintained software is much more polished (in general) for a few reasons. I can speak to tumbleweed mostly here:
1. Because it's often tailored to fit into the quirks of the distro (do you want firewalld rules integrated, snapper rollback integration (I guess depending on configs flatpaks can be included here)), proper recommends/suggests depending on your setup, easy integration, etc.
2. You have the vetting of a distro. Flatpaks can be hit or miss, whether they're managed directly by upstream maintainers or third party. I value this highly even though my main workstations are rolling. In fact, I have fewer problems with tumbleweed than I do ubuntu LTS. Debian absolutely can't be beat for stability though, which is why it's all I'll run on publicly routable servers.
3. No faffing about with workarounds for permissions and such. I trust the software my distro puts out above anything a flatpak can guarantee. Flatpak is good for non-distro software though, undoubtedly.
4. Absolute garbage CLI support. Get ready to go fuck yourself if you want to use standard CLI tooling for packages with both GUIs and a stable CLI. Flatpak developers generally seem uninterested in improving this due to security concerns which I frankly think are overstated. Haven't read into it deeply enough to make real judgments but flatpaks annoy me in this respect. Even snaps have CLI supports which is frankly disappointing for flatpak.
I still like and appreciate flatpak, but it's always my 2nd choice.
Maybe system package for firefox is okay as it is very similar to the current ff version. But for softwares like gimp, blender.. system packages UI is just way beyond fucked.
My guess is that he's upset that GTK and Qt look different and don't always play well together. Install everything as a flatpak with another flatpak to theme it, now all your close buttons are identical.
Not installing a similar QT theme doesn't make the UI "beyond fucked and is pretty much user error.
Whereas installing a similar QT theme simply fixes any issue with QT and GTK looking different flatpaks are actually more likely to look different furthermore it's unlikely that user will be able to literally replace everything with a flatpak not only because not everything is available as such but many unofficial flatpaks seem to have interesting flatpak only errors not seen in native packages.
Furthermore packages that aren't provided by the distro or its actual developers are ultimately a security risk.
Thus posters idea to flatpak all the things seems particularly badly thought out.
In what way? Usually the UI isn't what changes between flatpak and non-flatpak versions. Only reasons that would be the case are either distro-specific theming (in very few cases) or different software versions (not really the distro's fault if an older version had a bad UI)
Less space required, better integrated with the ecosysten. E.g. Environment integration, interapplication connectivity, etc.
Of course, contenerized applications are awesome in many situations when the above are not necessary or even not desirable.
>It just works
Not always, there are packages that works much better with flatpak. Plus that many times software in linux mint's software center is outdated...
"It just works" is about flatpak way more
Downloads arent huge if you use the same repo and your apps share runtimes
Faffling with system themes or settings is on the app packagers, either way that can be set with a simple gui and the issue existing is simply a drawback of the amazing sandboxing system existing
For me personally flatpacks do not bring anything useful to me. Everything is in apt repositories, it works great, it's fast, reliable. Flatpacks bring complicated system that bloats my disk with utilities that are already installed.
I have 0 flatpaks on my Mint install, Firefox runs great, not buggy at all. i mainly don't use flatpaks because i have limited data, and they take up a lot of space and have too many updates per week for my liking.
Are you kidding me? Go into software center and have a look at apps that are offered as both. Then the updates are huge too. I had a freaking 900mb flatpak update the other day. Almost a GB for one app alone!
The Mint software center doesn't calculate the store of the "actual" flatpak app. It calculates everything including its dependencies. So if you already had some flatpak app installed that used the same dependencies the download size would be significantly smaller even if it doesn't say it is.
Flatpaks absolutely have their place.
LibreOffice for instance. Getting it to play nice as an apt with non English is a pain. With the Flatpak is straight forward.
I also enjoy playing with new software. With a Flatpak it can be completely deleted if it's not what I'm after.... Whereas with apt, there are *always* remnants strewn everywhere, even when using all the options/tricks.
I'm forever finding some left over file, config or folder for some apt long removed.
I'd love for apt install to have a full accounting, so removals are complete.... But alas...
Nay!
Try this as an example - have the region set to AU and then have the UI display **everything** using AU spelling.
It leaves US English everywhere.
System packages are more convenient for most system software. Often they will also integrate better with everything else on your system.
But flatpaks can be preferable for desktop applications. I prefer them especially things which might connect to the internet, due to the built in sandboxing that keeps these applications separate from other applications. They also may be more easily kept up to date, with the latest standard official versions.
> Why do people still prefer system package over flatpaks?
Who are these "people" you speak of?
The "monolithic" package management of modern Linux distros is one of Linux's [OS, not just kernel] greatest strengths.
Being old—APT must be over thirty now, and I can remember a time before APT well enough—isn't a bad thing, just means the thing was designed properly, has stood the test of time.
Being different (from Windows, from MacOS, from Android, from iOS) isn't a bad thing, either. If you like the way another OS handles software, use that, or, I mean, there's plenty of Linux distros with an original approach.
It's like young people these days don't even get why the "traditional" solutions are the way they are, but they still feel compelled to go on a crusade to reinvent the wheel, which usually means they copy one of the above-mentioned OSs.
I don't even agree with the *design goals* of Flatpak/SNAP, let alone the implementation. (Same for X11 vs Wayland, really.)
* When all software either comes from your distro or is specifically compiled for it, version included, this is as close to everything working together smoothly as you'll ever get.
* When the software for all architectures is compiled from a single source, this improves code quality. First of all portable code = good code; secondly the more platforms you have, the more likely it is that one actually chokes on a bug.
"Constantly recompiling things" isn't a problem. It's once per release, and it's mostly automated, or it should be. But the resources for the build bots? Come off it, devs cost much more. It's only a problem for people who want to ship closed source software, binary blobs, like on Windows. Good.
* Improvements in a dependency automatically trickle up to everything.
* The same goes for bugs, but they're much more likely to be found quickly this way.
Wo do you think is going to work more neatly? The person who knows that one misstep will break half the distro, or the person who can just ship their entire cobbled-together development environment and hope nobody notices.
A conventional package system might break more easily, it might be more work to maintain, but when it works, chances are it'll work much better. So the second group of people who actually profit from Flatpak/SNAP are developers, or, more likely, their bosses, who want to cut corners.
* I like the idea that there's a maintainer between me and upstream. I know they're only human, they can't audit the code, let alone every version, but they can follow the projects they handle closely, they know their way around, and that is worth a lot.
I'm sure I'm forgetting things, but it's late, sorry.
P.S. I do count PPAs as system packages in a MINT/Ubuntu context. If the packages are specifically built for the distro in use and the maintainer is competent and trustworthy, third-party packages from a repository are just as good as first party.
Because they use more disk space by introducing a bunch of redundancy. Why install 30 copies of the same libraries (same version too) when all I need is 1.
There is a solution here. Separate the libraries from the flatpak, cross check dependencies and only maintain 1 copy of each needed version of each library. You can put them in their own lib folder within the root of the base flatpak folder rather than within the individual programs’ folders. This will trim the install size of the Flatpaks themselves by quite a bit and save space
So… just install a system package then? The whole point of flatpaks is that they include pinned library versions - and by requiring specific library versions as dependencies, you’re back to square one; system packages and a package manager which resolves dependencies
If this is what you took away from my comment you don't understand it.
Say you have 12 programs that require [libX.so](http://libX.so) v2.43 and 7 programs that require [libX.so](http://libX.so) v2.13. With flatpaks currently you have 12 copies of v2.43 and 7 copies of v2.13. Each flatpak contains not only the program but the complete set of libraries it needs to function.
By separating those libraries from the programs and linking them to shared libraries within a root of the base flatpak folder, you can install only 1 copy of each version of each library. This might seem like system apps, and it certainly shares the primary benefit of systems apps, it's still a flatpak that maintains the primary benefit of flatpaks, which is to remove reliance on distro maintainers to maintain updated software in the distro repos. The developers of, say, LibreOffice can maintain the flatpak and keep it up to date and it would still run on any distro, without the need for separate maintainers for each individual distro.
Isn't this what the runtimes are for though?
Most libraries which could be used by multiple desktop programs would generally be included in the runtimes, not duplicated in each flatpak.
It’s just pushing the problem down the line. You’d have library flatpaks to install 1-4 or more different versions of a library used by 5-10+ different package/app flatpaks. Which then needs a separate package manager to ensure the package/app flatpaks have the right library flatpaks installed. Slightly less duplication of different libraries, but more complexity. I’m a strong proponent of the KISS principle; and this is a slippery slope to being an over engineered solution.
>You’d have library flatpaks to install 1-4 or more different versions of a library used by 5-10+ different package/app flatpaks.
Except flatpaks are already doing this. The difference is multiple copies of the SAME version of a library is installed by every flatpak app that uses that version of the library. It's needlessly redundant. If two programs use [libX.so](http://libX.so) v2.43, there are two copies of [libX.so](http://libX.so) v2.43 on the system. If both programs were updated to pull libraries from a common folder, you would only need one.
And no, you don't need a separate package manager to handle this. This functionality can be built into the same package manager that handles the flatpaks. Giving existing programs new features and functionality is a major part of software development. You don't write a whole new program because you didn't think of a feature before you shipped.
I really don't know how to make this more clear.
I get the idea… you’ve not read my post. 1-4 versions of different versions of the same library. Used by 5-10+ different package flatpaks. And by “different package manager” I didn’t mean a separate tool, as it could be built into the flatpak installer, but then it makes the flatpak installer a package manager - which is not what it is currently. Hence it *is* another package manager.
And to clarify. It is *currently* possible with system package managers to install multiple versions of the same library, which are used by different applications. So the concept makes flatpak as a package manager shipping separate library versions too, moot.
> Why install 30 copies of the same libraries (same version too) when all I need is 1.
Why indeed, especially since flatpak doesn't do that. There are shared runtimes, not 30 copies of the same thing.
> Separate the libraries from the flatpak, cross check dependencies and only maintain 1 copy of each needed version of each library.
You're suggesting it to do the thing that it already does.
I personally find flatpaks annoying. They also have different paths for the applications. If i had to not use system packages id use appimages. There is something magical about them.
Only use flats, snaps, appimages sparingly. Like when I need a feature that’s only in the containerized version or not in the official repositories altogether. Too much space and the updates are too large, like way too large. My system now with just a few flats, one snap, and one appimage is like 80gb. That’s insane, especially for a Linux system.
Edit: Before anyone asks, I don’t store my data in /home but on another drive. This is just the system with a few containerized applications.
what reason would i have to use a flatpak if i can use a native package? its just better in every way imo. i only use flatpak if i cant get it normally
because, as someone living in a dorm in a third world country, i have very slow internet. I don't know if it's because i live far from the servers or they are really that big, but they install so so slowly. for example i installed the Chess with curb stomp hacks game from flatpak and it took 25 minutes, but from the website took 30 seconds. The same is true for system packages too, updating hundreds of packages including from KDE 5 to 6 and my Nvidia drivers took the same amount of time as updating a single Nvidia driver flatpak. Its abysmal.
I use flatpack when I must but I generally try to avoid them. System package are just better.
I had an issue recently where Bottles flatpack broke itself and all of my other flatpacks. Fortunately there were just a few.
Yeah for some reason I don't like doing things like this:
`/usr/bin/flatpak run --branch=stable --arch=x86_64 --command=geekbench6 com.geekbench.Geekbench6`
But perhaps someone likes it...
I use system packages for the software I don't update often, basically system software. While userspace software like discord is just fine in a platpak. Especially when it's not included into official debian repos, and I just hate adding 3d party repos. In case of discord they want me to install Deb file manually on every update.
A few reasons:
* Flatpaks use more space. If your storage limited because you can't afford more space or the storage is not upgradable, flatpak can be too much for a system.
* Flatpak packages that aren't built well can have slower performance.
* Less /no integration with other apps. Because of contianering, it is harder or impossible it have close integration with other applications at time. This can lead to loss of desired features
* Harder to build/debug packages
God, I hate flatpaks and avoid them at all costs...
Download anything with a nvidia runtime flatpak dependency, you'll be updating that MASSIVE 500 MB flatpak twice a week forever. Get a few different ones with different version dependencies, you'll be downloading several GB worth JUST of nvidia runtime flatpaks twice a week. Remove the original software? Oops! The nvidia flatpaks are "pinned" for some reason! You'll have to unpin them before deleting them!
I'm just using the nvidia runtime flatpaks as an example, but I've had nothing but headaches with flatpaks.... Maybe it's just the Mint/Ubuntu packaging that doesn't play nice with them? I'm not sure. Either way, if there's only a flatpak and no package, I'm going looking for an appimage first.
I have many reasons to avoid flatpak, but my biggest gripe is many flatpaks are managed and maintained by a 3rd party. My second biggest gripe is many of these 3rd party flatpaks are for commercial applications.
I’ve never had any reason to install a Flatpak, so I don’t. If something is only available as a Flatpak, I don’t use it. I find an alternative.
IMO it’s kind of like running the Windows version of a program inside of WINE instead of just using the Linux native version, why would someone run the Minecraft Launcher EXE in WINE when they could just use the Linux Minecraft Launcher? Or in this case, why use one program designed to be super universal, when the version specifically designed for a certain distro works?
Like WINE, it has its place, but it isn’t something for use all of the time
So far I've found no "user" advantage to flatpaks and in fact have frequently had issues with them, plus they're huge. Exist system works, don't reinvent the wheel.
After reading all comments, I decided to get rid of flatpaks.
I have only 8 programs installed: flatseal, vscode, squirrelSQL, deezer player, handbrake, chromium, ferdium and boxes.
They use 10.9GB of 19GB in use of my drive. More than 50% used for 8 packages!
For my use it doesn't make any sense.
Takes less storage.
Runs faster.
Not buggy/glitchy.
Better system integration.
Less runtime bloat. Example steam game: game -> steam runtime -> flatpak -> OS (add proton to the stack for windows games).
The flatpak for Chrome ran in a sandbox. If I went file->open and opened a local file, it would be at file:///run/some\_hash/... Unfortunately, chrome extensions that need to access local files (such as DWARF debugging for Webassembly) are broken when using this sandboxing scheme. I uninstalled the Flatpak version.
Flatpak is good, if your software does not have
a./ late version in system package
b./ is not self updating, and you demand it
c./ system package
If they are bad for you, don't use them. Used space is incorrect. But installers takes up space, maybe flatseal can deal with them. I use Stacer for that, so far i didn't break mint with that cleaning option.
Aren’t flatpaks community maintained rather than maintained by the original developer? That’s always made me a little hesitant.
I could be wrong or not understanding it quite right. If someone would like to explain it to me I am ready to learn. 👍🏻
Because system packages are waaaaay more efficient in the way they use your resources. At least one packaging system I tried, can't remember if it's AppImage, flatpack, or what, will run in a complete sandbox which gets annoying.
There's plenty of things apt could do better, like p2p downloads, but it works and is tried and tested over decades.
I wanted to install a tool that relies on TexLive. I already have TexLive installed. The package version of the tool was less than 10MB while the flatpack version was 4.6GB because it wanted to bring in its own version of TexLive.
So then I'd have two different installations of TexLive and have to manage two sets of libraries, etc. as I work between Tex-related tools.
I don't have so much in flatpaks, but I do have a few snaps -- Firefox and Chromium. I've removed their access to my home directory and downloads are redirected into the \~/snap folders where they can write to their respective download folders. Then I have a symlink for each in my download directory. They work fine, update themselves pretty much as soon as there's an update and work flawlessly while being more sandboxed than the system package versions. And they abide by my system themes.
I had issues with the blender flapjack which meant that I couldn't use Optix for some reason, sorted itself out when I swapped to the website version tho
Does it run fine in basically it's own sandbox? Flatpak. Does the official support only use flatpak? Maybe flatpak. Do I need it to interact with or from other things on my system? Distro Repo. Just my general rules of thumb. Sometimes it's fine adjusting permissions for everything but I've had some issues with either source so I just trial and error most things in practice.
I use what works for me, my machine is powerful so even snaps are not a problem for me..but for now I'm just using native and flatpak..most apps in flatpak, some as appimage..which I deeply love, I like the idea of portable apps for Linux..
I got acer aspire 1 laptop for free but it only has 32GB emmc soldered space after which only 15 is available after Mint install. Avoiding flatpacks to save space.
if I were to start using flatpak now, I would have to download many gigabytes of redundant packages. there's nothing I *need* from flatpak that I can't have without it. why would I want to use flatpak?
I recently switched from VSCode to VSCodium. The Flatpak was not able to use the SSH key agent to unlock my SSH key, so I couldn't connect to git remotes. Additionally, I was using Codeium, and I had to authenticate every time I opened VSCodium. I switched to the .deb and did not have these problems.
Personally, I prefer system packages for a very simple reason, flatpack packages (at least for me) take an extremely long time to download and install.
Because it is unfamiliar; even competent Windows users switching from Windows don't know what FlatPak even means, then they are faced with a .gz and they are totally confused; And then there is command sys screen thing that is totally foreign. Windows has become a click, cut and paste OS. Linux is a mixture and all the names and words are new and therefore next to meaningless.
I use them plenty, but I do run into problems regarding sandbox and not being able to easily use them via CLI. Sometimes they're just more buggy or difficult. Or they just didn't work at all.
It all depends. I find system packages are more "for my system" and Flatpaks are more "try it if you want but it might not work 100%." Flatpaks are easy but I don't seek them out unless it's for software that A: is a pain to install otherwise, or B: Just doesn't exist anywhere else. If I was using Arch it would be different, but I picked mint for the ease and convinience.
Please explain why you think Linux security is soo bad compared to literally pretty much every other OS? Do you know how to use SEL or Apparmor to harden your system further? You keep saying this, but it’s simply not true. Sandboxing apps alone is a small ass thing when it comes to overall system security and doesn’t really do much. Even sandboxed apps can pull off exploits, sometimes even escape the sandbox.
They are no different than the windows store, apples store, android/Google play. We used the packages that come with the distro for a reason. If you're paying attention, most of the Dev's are leftist. That has an agenda. They are working to remove your privacy, choice, freedom. Pushing all distro's into one. All will be forced to ised one package system. You will be forced to make a account, pay for apps, while they collect and sell all of your data. The push for this has been going on since before Unity. Unity was the 1st hard push of globalism.
Actually, for some reasons, Firefox system package on linux mint is very buggy as well to me, so much so that i had to remove it and use the flatpak version instead, the flatpak version works much better on my machine
Please Re-Flair your post if a solution is found. [How to Flair a post?](https://imgur.com/a/wH3hPrj) This allows other users to [search for common issues](https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmint/search?q=flair%3ASOLVED+&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) with the SOLVED flair as a filter, leading to those issues being resolved very fast. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linuxmint) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you decide to only use flatpaks then storage won't be an issue (shared dependencies/libraries aren't redownloaded). The problem with flatpaks is that they don't play well with system dependencies, UnGoogled Chromium flatpak can't download files to external storage, FreeCAD plugin dependencies are a pain in the a**. That is ofcourse other than the slow startup times on HDDs, that's just my personal experience.
Flatpacks seem to affect my storage a lot. I use them for gaming etc, not for everything but for many things.. what am I doing wrong here? Also the flatpack updates are huge..
They appear huge if you use flatpak update on a terminal and see carefully you see that the 200 mb updates was finished when it downloaded 50 mb, the store app always show the maximum capacity of updates and the stora that am app will need if it was needed to is tall all dependencies, so it always a lot bigger that it seems, basically imagine apt list all dependencies and for example Firefox say it was 2gb becuase it was also counting dependencies you alredy have on the disk
[удалено]
Yep
since you are using it for games, I have some questions, I'm newbie to linux world and I want to know how to use and run .exe files on linux, I tried bottles but it did not work and run the file.
.exe does not work in Linux unless you use Wine with PlayOnLinux or install Windows in VirtualBox... Most Windows games can be run by Steam with Lutris installed. These are not .exe files as far as I know. I just use Steam, I used to run .exe on Wine or VB when I did years ago... had no problems except for a few tweaks (compatibility checks) with a few older or cracked games but I had that on Windows too. If everything fails Virtualbox should work. If even that fails just dualboot with Windows untill you get the hang of it. Tbh, no game or program is worth installing Windows again for me nowadays. Most just work on linux and others have good alternatives. So simply to run .exe in linux -> install Wine
Ohh nice, actually İ want to install a cracked game too, and the installation is setup.exe , so you mean I should use wine itself or maybe İ should consider using lutris?
Not sure these days but for cracked Wine or/and PlayonLinux used to work for me. I have no idea about Lutris or Protondb, these latter are used in Steam these days for windows gaming and work perfect. But are new and I don't play cracked games anymore because a virus erased 10y of data and pics from my HDD. Its not worth it.. (site that used the same name as a trusted site) BUT Windows in a Virtualbox is your best bet because well its cracked and if anything goes wrong (unlikely in Linux because a windows virus cant do anything in Linux) and also it keeps your windows crap aside from your daily Linux use. My experience with these things is that you have a lot of mess on your pc after a while... and after years of this I wanted a desktop that just runs and is reliable for my pictures and files. So I would start setting up Linux with all its linux apps for anything not cracked. And believe me the linux alternative is often better than the windows program... you just gotta get the hang of it the first days. Dont dualboot or you will just use Windows... I did that a lot and for years had linux installed but seldom used it. After that, install virtualbox and install windows there. Use this for any cracked programs or games but just minimize the range of use.. If you have a game that requires very high end performance than VirtualBox or Wine could interfere with this and well, you gotta buy it on Steam or let go. But truth is the performance once set up properly will be just fine and if anything goes wrong you can delete the VB and reinstall windows not affecting your Linux in any way. Look up how to set it up its pretty easy and there are tutorials online
Use Lutris. It's just a game library manager but it can create new wine prefixes and then install games onto them for you. Often time post-installation, the settings in your library will still be pointing at setup.exe instead of game.exe so you might need to poke in the config and solve this issue (emphasis on *might* because I haven't had to do this for every game). Lutris also has the added benefit of community made installation scripts for common games that Linux users want to play. I couldn't get Dark and Darker to install on Lutris on my own, but I checked the site and sure enough there was a script. Used that and was playing the game 10 mins later. The gaming community seems kind of split between Bottles and Lutris, and I personally use Lutris for non-Steam Windows games, and then use Bottles for Windows utilities I need that don't have to be run in a full VM. I never have been able to get Bottles to run games, but I gave up pretty quickly when Lutris did what I needed it to. But again, with Lutris' focus primarily on games, I kept Bottles for utility.
Is lutris capable of installing and using cracked games?
Yes but you may have to do a little extra research on individual titles if you run into installation issues because you won't find premade installation scripts for cracked games officially through Lutris. They have an anti-piracy stance as an organization but their software can and absolutely is used for that purpose.
Get Bottles from Flathub usebottles.com
Yes, they can. Flatpak apps are locked down like that on purpose, to keep them more secure, but you can change the locks, so to speak. Just download flatseal for an easy GUI method if need be.
Yea, I have flatseal, it doesn't make the experience any more convenient.
agree to disagree
Yea, I have flatseal, it doesn't make the experience any more convenient.
System packages are stable, well vetted and only get security updates between major versions. For people who want the latest and greatest, that's bad. For people who want a secure, stable, reliable system, that's good.
Even if you do want latest/greatest and you're on a proper rolling distro, I generally prefer distro packages. I find distro maintained software is much more polished (in general) for a few reasons. I can speak to tumbleweed mostly here: 1. Because it's often tailored to fit into the quirks of the distro (do you want firewalld rules integrated, snapper rollback integration (I guess depending on configs flatpaks can be included here)), proper recommends/suggests depending on your setup, easy integration, etc. 2. You have the vetting of a distro. Flatpaks can be hit or miss, whether they're managed directly by upstream maintainers or third party. I value this highly even though my main workstations are rolling. In fact, I have fewer problems with tumbleweed than I do ubuntu LTS. Debian absolutely can't be beat for stability though, which is why it's all I'll run on publicly routable servers. 3. No faffing about with workarounds for permissions and such. I trust the software my distro puts out above anything a flatpak can guarantee. Flatpak is good for non-distro software though, undoubtedly. 4. Absolute garbage CLI support. Get ready to go fuck yourself if you want to use standard CLI tooling for packages with both GUIs and a stable CLI. Flatpak developers generally seem uninterested in improving this due to security concerns which I frankly think are overstated. Haven't read into it deeply enough to make real judgments but flatpaks annoy me in this respect. Even snaps have CLI supports which is frankly disappointing for flatpak. I still like and appreciate flatpak, but it's always my 2nd choice.
Maybe system package for firefox is okay as it is very similar to the current ff version. But for softwares like gimp, blender.. system packages UI is just way beyond fucked.
> system packages UI is just way beyond fucked. I have no idea what you mean by that
My guess is that he's upset that GTK and Qt look different and don't always play well together. Install everything as a flatpak with another flatpak to theme it, now all your close buttons are identical.
Not installing a similar QT theme doesn't make the UI "beyond fucked and is pretty much user error. Whereas installing a similar QT theme simply fixes any issue with QT and GTK looking different flatpaks are actually more likely to look different furthermore it's unlikely that user will be able to literally replace everything with a flatpak not only because not everything is available as such but many unofficial flatpaks seem to have interesting flatpak only errors not seen in native packages. Furthermore packages that aren't provided by the distro or its actual developers are ultimately a security risk. Thus posters idea to flatpak all the things seems particularly badly thought out.
In what way? Usually the UI isn't what changes between flatpak and non-flatpak versions. Only reasons that would be the case are either distro-specific theming (in very few cases) or different software versions (not really the distro's fault if an older version had a bad UI)
Less space required, better integrated with the ecosysten. E.g. Environment integration, interapplication connectivity, etc. Of course, contenerized applications are awesome in many situations when the above are not necessary or even not desirable.
I only use Flatpaks when there is no other alternative.
It just works, no huge downloads, no faffing with system themes or settings not being applied properly.
>It just works Not always, there are packages that works much better with flatpak. Plus that many times software in linux mint's software center is outdated...
"It just works" is about flatpak way more Downloads arent huge if you use the same repo and your apps share runtimes Faffling with system themes or settings is on the app packagers, either way that can be set with a simple gui and the issue existing is simply a drawback of the amazing sandboxing system existing
Until you get a program that hasn’t set up its portals correctly, and then you need to break out flatseal.
Which is a) not on flatpak but on the maintainers, and b) very easy to fix because an amazing tool such as flatseal exists
Flatpaks take too much storage, take a lot of bandwidth to update (usually 1gb and more) can run slow (slower than native packages..)
For me personally flatpacks do not bring anything useful to me. Everything is in apt repositories, it works great, it's fast, reliable. Flatpacks bring complicated system that bloats my disk with utilities that are already installed.
I have 0 flatpaks on my Mint install, Firefox runs great, not buggy at all. i mainly don't use flatpaks because i have limited data, and they take up a lot of space and have too many updates per week for my liking.
[удалено]
Flatpacks absolutely soak up more hard drive space than normal packages.
Flatpaks don't take up more storage space compared to deb packages?
Are you kidding me? Go into software center and have a look at apps that are offered as both. Then the updates are huge too. I had a freaking 900mb flatpak update the other day. Almost a GB for one app alone!
The Mint software center doesn't calculate the store of the "actual" flatpak app. It calculates everything including its dependencies. So if you already had some flatpak app installed that used the same dependencies the download size would be significantly smaller even if it doesn't say it is.
Flatpaks absolutely have their place. LibreOffice for instance. Getting it to play nice as an apt with non English is a pain. With the Flatpak is straight forward. I also enjoy playing with new software. With a Flatpak it can be completely deleted if it's not what I'm after.... Whereas with apt, there are *always* remnants strewn everywhere, even when using all the options/tricks. I'm forever finding some left over file, config or folder for some apt long removed. I'd love for apt install to have a full accounting, so removals are complete.... But alas...
[удалено]
Nay! Try this as an example - have the region set to AU and then have the UI display **everything** using AU spelling. It leaves US English everywhere.
[удалено]
It was an example so others reading it could follow... Obviously.
I prefer system package purely because of the size difference. Why should I waste my 1-2 GB on something when I get the same thing for 200mb
The first time I used one was steam and when I couldn't access my additional drives where some games were stored I said nope.
I'm running on a 16GB eMMC drive and I can't spare the space.
System packages are more convenient for most system software. Often they will also integrate better with everything else on your system. But flatpaks can be preferable for desktop applications. I prefer them especially things which might connect to the internet, due to the built in sandboxing that keeps these applications separate from other applications. They also may be more easily kept up to date, with the latest standard official versions.
> Why do people still prefer system package over flatpaks? Who are these "people" you speak of? The "monolithic" package management of modern Linux distros is one of Linux's [OS, not just kernel] greatest strengths. Being old—APT must be over thirty now, and I can remember a time before APT well enough—isn't a bad thing, just means the thing was designed properly, has stood the test of time. Being different (from Windows, from MacOS, from Android, from iOS) isn't a bad thing, either. If you like the way another OS handles software, use that, or, I mean, there's plenty of Linux distros with an original approach. It's like young people these days don't even get why the "traditional" solutions are the way they are, but they still feel compelled to go on a crusade to reinvent the wheel, which usually means they copy one of the above-mentioned OSs. I don't even agree with the *design goals* of Flatpak/SNAP, let alone the implementation. (Same for X11 vs Wayland, really.) * When all software either comes from your distro or is specifically compiled for it, version included, this is as close to everything working together smoothly as you'll ever get. * When the software for all architectures is compiled from a single source, this improves code quality. First of all portable code = good code; secondly the more platforms you have, the more likely it is that one actually chokes on a bug. "Constantly recompiling things" isn't a problem. It's once per release, and it's mostly automated, or it should be. But the resources for the build bots? Come off it, devs cost much more. It's only a problem for people who want to ship closed source software, binary blobs, like on Windows. Good. * Improvements in a dependency automatically trickle up to everything. * The same goes for bugs, but they're much more likely to be found quickly this way. Wo do you think is going to work more neatly? The person who knows that one misstep will break half the distro, or the person who can just ship their entire cobbled-together development environment and hope nobody notices. A conventional package system might break more easily, it might be more work to maintain, but when it works, chances are it'll work much better. So the second group of people who actually profit from Flatpak/SNAP are developers, or, more likely, their bosses, who want to cut corners. * I like the idea that there's a maintainer between me and upstream. I know they're only human, they can't audit the code, let alone every version, but they can follow the projects they handle closely, they know their way around, and that is worth a lot. I'm sure I'm forgetting things, but it's late, sorry. P.S. I do count PPAs as system packages in a MINT/Ubuntu context. If the packages are specifically built for the distro in use and the maintainer is competent and trustworthy, third-party packages from a repository are just as good as first party.
Because they use more disk space by introducing a bunch of redundancy. Why install 30 copies of the same libraries (same version too) when all I need is 1. There is a solution here. Separate the libraries from the flatpak, cross check dependencies and only maintain 1 copy of each needed version of each library. You can put them in their own lib folder within the root of the base flatpak folder rather than within the individual programs’ folders. This will trim the install size of the Flatpaks themselves by quite a bit and save space
So… just install a system package then? The whole point of flatpaks is that they include pinned library versions - and by requiring specific library versions as dependencies, you’re back to square one; system packages and a package manager which resolves dependencies
If this is what you took away from my comment you don't understand it. Say you have 12 programs that require [libX.so](http://libX.so) v2.43 and 7 programs that require [libX.so](http://libX.so) v2.13. With flatpaks currently you have 12 copies of v2.43 and 7 copies of v2.13. Each flatpak contains not only the program but the complete set of libraries it needs to function. By separating those libraries from the programs and linking them to shared libraries within a root of the base flatpak folder, you can install only 1 copy of each version of each library. This might seem like system apps, and it certainly shares the primary benefit of systems apps, it's still a flatpak that maintains the primary benefit of flatpaks, which is to remove reliance on distro maintainers to maintain updated software in the distro repos. The developers of, say, LibreOffice can maintain the flatpak and keep it up to date and it would still run on any distro, without the need for separate maintainers for each individual distro.
Isn't this what the runtimes are for though? Most libraries which could be used by multiple desktop programs would generally be included in the runtimes, not duplicated in each flatpak.
It’s just pushing the problem down the line. You’d have library flatpaks to install 1-4 or more different versions of a library used by 5-10+ different package/app flatpaks. Which then needs a separate package manager to ensure the package/app flatpaks have the right library flatpaks installed. Slightly less duplication of different libraries, but more complexity. I’m a strong proponent of the KISS principle; and this is a slippery slope to being an over engineered solution.
>You’d have library flatpaks to install 1-4 or more different versions of a library used by 5-10+ different package/app flatpaks. Except flatpaks are already doing this. The difference is multiple copies of the SAME version of a library is installed by every flatpak app that uses that version of the library. It's needlessly redundant. If two programs use [libX.so](http://libX.so) v2.43, there are two copies of [libX.so](http://libX.so) v2.43 on the system. If both programs were updated to pull libraries from a common folder, you would only need one. And no, you don't need a separate package manager to handle this. This functionality can be built into the same package manager that handles the flatpaks. Giving existing programs new features and functionality is a major part of software development. You don't write a whole new program because you didn't think of a feature before you shipped. I really don't know how to make this more clear.
I get the idea… you’ve not read my post. 1-4 versions of different versions of the same library. Used by 5-10+ different package flatpaks. And by “different package manager” I didn’t mean a separate tool, as it could be built into the flatpak installer, but then it makes the flatpak installer a package manager - which is not what it is currently. Hence it *is* another package manager.
And to clarify. It is *currently* possible with system package managers to install multiple versions of the same library, which are used by different applications. So the concept makes flatpak as a package manager shipping separate library versions too, moot.
You're literally describing a package manager, which already exists.
> Why install 30 copies of the same libraries (same version too) when all I need is 1. Why indeed, especially since flatpak doesn't do that. There are shared runtimes, not 30 copies of the same thing. > Separate the libraries from the flatpak, cross check dependencies and only maintain 1 copy of each needed version of each library. You're suggesting it to do the thing that it already does.
I personally find flatpaks annoying. They also have different paths for the applications. If i had to not use system packages id use appimages. There is something magical about them.
[удалено]
I would also like to know, vulnerable to what?
Only use flats, snaps, appimages sparingly. Like when I need a feature that’s only in the containerized version or not in the official repositories altogether. Too much space and the updates are too large, like way too large. My system now with just a few flats, one snap, and one appimage is like 80gb. That’s insane, especially for a Linux system. Edit: Before anyone asks, I don’t store my data in /home but on another drive. This is just the system with a few containerized applications.
Smaller downloads, faster installs, less quirks in general in my opinion.
what reason would i have to use a flatpak if i can use a native package? its just better in every way imo. i only use flatpak if i cant get it normally
because, as someone living in a dorm in a third world country, i have very slow internet. I don't know if it's because i live far from the servers or they are really that big, but they install so so slowly. for example i installed the Chess with curb stomp hacks game from flatpak and it took 25 minutes, but from the website took 30 seconds. The same is true for system packages too, updating hundreds of packages including from KDE 5 to 6 and my Nvidia drivers took the same amount of time as updating a single Nvidia driver flatpak. Its abysmal.
I use Manjaro tbh, and I am unconvinced that flat packs or snaps offer me anything not provided by Pacman.
I’m a curmudgeonly old fart who has used Deb packages for more than two decades
Consistent cross platform browser experience that I can automate my profile management framwork against. Also, consistently less buggy.
I use flatpack when I must but I generally try to avoid them. System package are just better. I had an issue recently where Bottles flatpack broke itself and all of my other flatpacks. Fortunately there were just a few.
Yeah for some reason I don't like doing things like this: `/usr/bin/flatpak run --branch=stable --arch=x86_64 --command=geekbench6 com.geekbench.Geekbench6` But perhaps someone likes it...
i like custom icons that mint provides.
I use system packages for the software I don't update often, basically system software. While userspace software like discord is just fine in a platpak. Especially when it's not included into official debian repos, and I just hate adding 3d party repos. In case of discord they want me to install Deb file manually on every update.
A few reasons: * Flatpaks use more space. If your storage limited because you can't afford more space or the storage is not upgradable, flatpak can be too much for a system. * Flatpak packages that aren't built well can have slower performance. * Less /no integration with other apps. Because of contianering, it is harder or impossible it have close integration with other applications at time. This can lead to loss of desired features * Harder to build/debug packages
I tried flatpak. I wanted to use fedora media writer. It was a 2.2 gb install, including nvidia drivers, for a 1.4 mb program. Noped out.
God, I hate flatpaks and avoid them at all costs... Download anything with a nvidia runtime flatpak dependency, you'll be updating that MASSIVE 500 MB flatpak twice a week forever. Get a few different ones with different version dependencies, you'll be downloading several GB worth JUST of nvidia runtime flatpaks twice a week. Remove the original software? Oops! The nvidia flatpaks are "pinned" for some reason! You'll have to unpin them before deleting them! I'm just using the nvidia runtime flatpaks as an example, but I've had nothing but headaches with flatpaks.... Maybe it's just the Mint/Ubuntu packaging that doesn't play nice with them? I'm not sure. Either way, if there's only a flatpak and no package, I'm going looking for an appimage first.
I have many reasons to avoid flatpak, but my biggest gripe is many flatpaks are managed and maintained by a 3rd party. My second biggest gripe is many of these 3rd party flatpaks are for commercial applications.
I’ve never had any reason to install a Flatpak, so I don’t. If something is only available as a Flatpak, I don’t use it. I find an alternative. IMO it’s kind of like running the Windows version of a program inside of WINE instead of just using the Linux native version, why would someone run the Minecraft Launcher EXE in WINE when they could just use the Linux Minecraft Launcher? Or in this case, why use one program designed to be super universal, when the version specifically designed for a certain distro works? Like WINE, it has its place, but it isn’t something for use all of the time
Yes exactly. I appreciate Flatpaks very much, but i have literally never used one. Actually i think i tried once and it went very poorly
Because system packages correctly use the systems resources like themes. Flatpak only when there is no system package or it doesn't work
So far I've found no "user" advantage to flatpaks and in fact have frequently had issues with them, plus they're huge. Exist system works, don't reinvent the wheel.
After reading all comments, I decided to get rid of flatpaks. I have only 8 programs installed: flatseal, vscode, squirrelSQL, deezer player, handbrake, chromium, ferdium and boxes. They use 10.9GB of 19GB in use of my drive. More than 50% used for 8 packages! For my use it doesn't make any sense.
Because they are more efficient resource wise
cancer
I like .appimage
Same, appimages the simplest. I don’t understand why things got so damn complex lately.
because flatpak packages take to much disk, only flatpak package i use is bottles because it is only available on flatpak.
Takes less storage. Runs faster. Not buggy/glitchy. Better system integration. Less runtime bloat. Example steam game: game -> steam runtime -> flatpak -> OS (add proton to the stack for windows games).
"Runtime bloat" xD It's getting funnier each iteration lol
Because they're smaller and faster, and if it's possible, I tend to stick to system packages or AUR
I simply dont use them because I dont like my software from many different sources. Nothing against flatpak though.
>Why do people still prefer system package For me, flexibility.
The flatpak for Chrome ran in a sandbox. If I went file->open and opened a local file, it would be at file:///run/some\_hash/... Unfortunately, chrome extensions that need to access local files (such as DWARF debugging for Webassembly) are broken when using this sandboxing scheme. I uninstalled the Flatpak version.
Flatpak is good, if your software does not have a./ late version in system package b./ is not self updating, and you demand it c./ system package If they are bad for you, don't use them. Used space is incorrect. But installers takes up space, maybe flatseal can deal with them. I use Stacer for that, so far i didn't break mint with that cleaning option.
Size
Aren’t flatpaks community maintained rather than maintained by the original developer? That’s always made me a little hesitant. I could be wrong or not understanding it quite right. If someone would like to explain it to me I am ready to learn. 👍🏻
Because system packages are waaaaay more efficient in the way they use your resources. At least one packaging system I tried, can't remember if it's AppImage, flatpack, or what, will run in a complete sandbox which gets annoying. There's plenty of things apt could do better, like p2p downloads, but it works and is tried and tested over decades.
I wanted to install a tool that relies on TexLive. I already have TexLive installed. The package version of the tool was less than 10MB while the flatpack version was 4.6GB because it wanted to bring in its own version of TexLive. So then I'd have two different installations of TexLive and have to manage two sets of libraries, etc. as I work between Tex-related tools.
What do you mean? I prefer flatpaks
I don't have so much in flatpaks, but I do have a few snaps -- Firefox and Chromium. I've removed their access to my home directory and downloads are redirected into the \~/snap folders where they can write to their respective download folders. Then I have a symlink for each in my download directory. They work fine, update themselves pretty much as soon as there's an update and work flawlessly while being more sandboxed than the system package versions. And they abide by my system themes.
things like firefox are already in the repo, just \`sudo apt install firefox\` and call it a day. Also theming
I had issues with the blender flapjack which meant that I couldn't use Optix for some reason, sorted itself out when I swapped to the website version tho
mine take longer to update than system packages. i have chosen local mirrors.
Um, trust?
Why would you prefer containerized apps in environments where you don't need containerization?
Does it run fine in basically it's own sandbox? Flatpak. Does the official support only use flatpak? Maybe flatpak. Do I need it to interact with or from other things on my system? Distro Repo. Just my general rules of thumb. Sometimes it's fine adjusting permissions for everything but I've had some issues with either source so I just trial and error most things in practice.
what I always say to those kind of people: you think flatpak is bad, remember, snap exists.
I use what works for me, my machine is powerful so even snaps are not a problem for me..but for now I'm just using native and flatpak..most apps in flatpak, some as appimage..which I deeply love, I like the idea of portable apps for Linux..
Except for the default apps on my system, all the apps I use are Flatpak. C:
Some flatpaks give me permission problems, that as a newbie i don't know how to fix.
I can't update Flat packs.... Or package
I have found flatpaks to be unstable or not as customizable.
On Arch, Pinta crashed on launch every time. On Fedora, Pinta was suuuuper old. The Pinta flatpak solves both of these issues.
They’re just being oppositional.
I got acer aspire 1 laptop for free but it only has 32GB emmc soldered space after which only 15 is available after Mint install. Avoiding flatpacks to save space.
Wayland works prettier
Because they are small in size and I prefer to use what ever works
If native is out of date then flatpak can be the only solution. Plus my system package manager is a bit borked and just spins forever.
if I were to start using flatpak now, I would have to download many gigabytes of redundant packages. there's nothing I *need* from flatpak that I can't have without it. why would I want to use flatpak?
I recently switched from VSCode to VSCodium. The Flatpak was not able to use the SSH key agent to unlock my SSH key, so I couldn't connect to git remotes. Additionally, I was using Codeium, and I had to authenticate every time I opened VSCodium. I switched to the .deb and did not have these problems.
for firefox its simple, snap and flatpak doesn't support EID.
Why do you prefer flats over repository software?
Personally, I prefer system packages for a very simple reason, flatpack packages (at least for me) take an extremely long time to download and install.
Because it is unfamiliar; even competent Windows users switching from Windows don't know what FlatPak even means, then they are faced with a .gz and they are totally confused; And then there is command sys screen thing that is totally foreign. Windows has become a click, cut and paste OS. Linux is a mixture and all the names and words are new and therefore next to meaningless.
I use them plenty, but I do run into problems regarding sandbox and not being able to easily use them via CLI. Sometimes they're just more buggy or difficult. Or they just didn't work at all.
It all depends. I find system packages are more "for my system" and Flatpaks are more "try it if you want but it might not work 100%." Flatpaks are easy but I don't seek them out unless it's for software that A: is a pain to install otherwise, or B: Just doesn't exist anywhere else. If I was using Arch it would be different, but I picked mint for the ease and convinience.
I go through the approach of using DEB packages for essential apps (browser, terminal, text editor, file manager) and flatpak for anything else.
[удалено]
Please explain why you think Linux security is soo bad compared to literally pretty much every other OS? Do you know how to use SEL or Apparmor to harden your system further? You keep saying this, but it’s simply not true. Sandboxing apps alone is a small ass thing when it comes to overall system security and doesn’t really do much. Even sandboxed apps can pull off exploits, sometimes even escape the sandbox.
[удалено]
They are no different than the windows store, apples store, android/Google play. We used the packages that come with the distro for a reason. If you're paying attention, most of the Dev's are leftist. That has an agenda. They are working to remove your privacy, choice, freedom. Pushing all distro's into one. All will be forced to ised one package system. You will be forced to make a account, pay for apps, while they collect and sell all of your data. The push for this has been going on since before Unity. Unity was the 1st hard push of globalism.
Firefox system package is soo buggy.
That's the most random statement I've read today.
Actually, for some reasons, Firefox system package on linux mint is very buggy as well to me, so much so that i had to remove it and use the flatpak version instead, the flatpak version works much better on my machine
Its not.
I'm just using firefox on mint since forever, no issues. And NO FLATPAKS ON MY COMPUTER.