I’ve been using arch for a while now and I always used Flatpaks for proprietary software that might do some creepy shit because Flatpaks are supposed to be sandboxed (e.g. Steam). And Flatpaks always worked flawlessly OOTB for me. AUR for things I trust. I’ve read on the internet how people prefer AUR over Flatpaks. Why? And how do y’all cope with waiting for all the AUR installed packages to rebuild after every update? Alacritty takes ages to build for me. Which is why I only update the AUR installed and built applications every 2 weeks.

  • Fliegenpilzgünni@slrpnk.net
    0·
    6 months ago

    AUR for niche stuff, Flatpak for everything else.

    I personally prefer Flatpak because:

    • It’s simple
    • It’s the recommended way of installation for most distros, especially image based ones, like Fedora Atomic for example
    • It’s accessible for everyone more easily
    • It works most of the time

    I use the AUR in a Distrobox container for software I can’t find any other installation method. For me, it’s to cumbersome to hop into the terminal and proceed with the installation.
    For Flatpaks, it’s just one click and it’s done.