28
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2026
28 points (96.7% liked)
Linux
63789 readers
299 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Your question is not Arch specific, it's "should I use flatpaks?" And the answer in my opinion is probably no.
Flatpaks are a good idea to isolate certain applications and to provide a uniform way of installing packages. So there might be some apps that are not available in your native package manager, but do provide flatpaks. For those cases flatpaks are probably preferred. But Arch based distros have the AUR, so there are a lot of apps that aren't packaged for Arch that you can still get as a native package. Sure, using the AUR is risky and if you're not on actual Arch things might break sporadically because of mismatched dependencies (although I think CachyOS is full parity of packages with Arch, so that's maybe more of a Manjaro warning).
But flatpaks are clunky, bloated, require annoying permissions to be set to do basic things, and require you to update two package managers to do a full system update. They are more appealing for systems where you don't want to give users root access but still allow them to install programs, but for your own computer I have never seen the appeal.
I usually use the pacman repo and if it's not in there decide for this specific app if I use the AUR or flatpak version
Yup, that sounds like a good approach. I could even see people doing Pacman -> Flatpaks -> AUR and it would make sense to me.
This is my approach. I use pacman where I can, flatpaks when something is unavailable, and AUR to get everything not available in the first two, or when a native package is preferred but isn't in the Arch repos.
I guess you could put it that way. For most general applications, I prefer to use flatpak over pacman. Pacman and arch's repos to me are still very confusing over other package managers (dnf, apt, etc)
What makes it confusing to you?