Solved Linux Mint Flatpak Sizes A Concern

[garyn]

I don't mind stubborn changes but it seems as if Mint is pursuing flatpak while some may have put the brakes on adopting it by default.

I've asked about the G-I-N-O-R-M-O-U-S flatpak applications and the answer was "they're mostly common libraries just install them"

A Flatpak app takes up some 4 gig of disk space plus (per software manager) the bandwidth to download both of which I run my disks and downloads in my systems on the skinny.

So for now I only use system or appimage applications if needed until I can gen up a test drive, download a dozen or so and see how much of my resources they use.

 

[Condobloke]

@garyn, I forget the numbers, but in the last 12 months I blew away all flatpaks and libraries etc etc etc.....and was impressed with the load taken off the system.

I note that with some apps in Linux' software manager, the system packages appear to be getting squeezed out.

Some apps have both flatpak and system package, but in some cases the system package does not work.

 

[garyn]

@garyn, I forget the numbers, but in the last 12 months I blew away all flatpaks and libraries etc etc etc.....and was impressed with the load taken off the system.

I note that with some apps in Linux' software manager, the system packages appear to be getting squeezed out.

Some apps have both flatpak and system package, but in some cases the system package does not work.

Thanks, I'd like to know if others had similar experiences with flatpak applications.

 

[KGIII]

Thanks, I'd like to know if others had similar experiences with flatpak applications.

Not really, no... I've had a great experience with Flatpaks, and I have a lot of them installed. (I should remove some of them, as I appear to be over my 'retro-gaming' phase.)

I've also never seen a single Flatpak that took up 4 GB. A large one would be 500 MB, in my observations. But, of course, I have not seen all of the Flatpaks out there.

 

[garyn]

>SNIP<<

I've also never seen a single Flatpak that took up 4 GB. A large one would be 500 MB, in my observations. But, of course, I have not seen all of the Flatpaks out there.

If you use Mint, take a look in software manager. Krita takes 3.8 gb of disk space, Bitwarden (password mgr.) 3.7 gb, It's difficult to find one that takes less than 3.5 gb of disk space and most all take 1gb+ of download bandwidth.

 

[KGIII]

If you use Mint, take a look in software manager. Krita takes 3.8 gb of disk space, Bitwarden (password mgr.) 3.7 gb, It's difficult to find one that takes less than 3.5 gb of disk space and most all take 1gb+ of download bandwidth.

On the current Mint Cinnamon...

Krita requires 600 MB on disk for Flatpak.

Bitwarden is 509.

I must be missing something.

 

[garyn]

I guess maybe you are?

 

[J_Temple]

On the current Mint Cinnamon...

Krita requires 600 MB on disk for Flatpak.

Bitwarden is 509.

I must be missing something.

Thank You for this post! I don't use bitwarden & have no need, I use a spreadsheet to keep tack of such things. BUT! I had not come across Krita until you caused me to look it up. I will now be installing it. 600 MB is considerably less than the resources taken up by my ADOBE Photo Shop and apparently Krita is the closest thing yet. I keep an old VISTA machine for the sole purpose of running my old PAID for Photo Shop, I refuse to sign up for a cloud based subscription! I have a few other older, paid for programs on that machine, for the same reason. Krita may ease my mind about what if that machine dies.

 

[KGIII]

I guess maybe you are?

I have zero idea what the difference is. My file sizes are much, much smaller than your file sizes. (That's a Mint Cinnamon system that's fully updated.)

I checked on another system, and it's the same as is in the images I shared, as far as I can tell.

For some reason, and I don't even know where to begin testing, your system requires an outrageous amount of space.

I have two different systems that I've checked, and they're consistent across both of them.

Hmm... Yeah, I can't even begin to speculate why your sizes are that large.

Thank You for this post! I don't use bitwarden & have no need, I use a spreadsheet to keep tack of such things. BUT! I had not come across Krita until you caused me to look it up. I will now be installing it.

Enjoy, though I was not the first to mention it in the thread. I merely showed the screenshot.

Is it safe to say that it's 600 MB at your end, as well?

I'm clueless as to why @garyn has such large file sizes. That's something I've never seen before -- and I've seen a lot of things! LOL

 

[garyn]

I have zero idea what the difference is. My file sizes are much, much smaller than your file sizes. (That's a Mint Cinnamon system that's fully updated.)

I checked on another system, and it's the same as is in the images I shared, as far as I can tell.

For some reason, and I don't even know where to begin testing, your system requires an outrageous amount of space.

I have two different systems that I've checked, and they're consistent across both of them.

Hmm... Yeah, I can't even begin to speculate why your sizes are that large.



Enjoy, though I was not the first to mention it in the thread. I merely showed the screenshot.

Is it safe to say that it's 600 MB at your end, as well?

I'm clueless as to why @garyn has such large file sizes. That's something I've never seen before -- and I've seen a lot of things! LOL

I have two HP Z series I7 workstations, 1gb SDD and the system has 64 gb ram running 22.3 upgraded along the way from earlier versions, my main drive is about 15% full. Ever since I can remember EVERY flatpak has shown the same download sizes.

The only thing I see is out software managers show very different versions.

Oh well, it's not a problem if I don't use them.

 

[KGIII]

The only thing I see is out software managers show very different versions.

They're both 5.2.16 (for Kirta) in your screenshot and in mine.

Hmm... This should probably get resolved. This is something we should probably know and understand.

What's the output of apt policy flatpak on your system?

 

[garyn]

flatpak:
Installed: 1.14.6-1ubuntu0.1
Candidate: 1.14.6-1ubuntu0.1
Version table:
*** 1.14.6-1ubuntu0.1 500
500 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu noble-updates/universe amd64 Packages
500 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu noble-security/universe amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
1.14.6-1 500
500 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu noble/universe amd64 Packages

 

[KGIII]

flatpak:
Installed: 1.14.6-1ubuntu0.1

The mystery deepens.

Anyone care to chime in and let us know what you're seeing in those two applications?

Heck, anyone smarter than I am who can skip that step and go straight to telling me why there's this giant discrepancy?

 

[Rocketing-warp9]

I might have an idea.. but I have no idea if it could be... what about different source servers? Like one routed to you has a different size flatpak than a different server located elsewhere? Or different part of a server? Sort of like when you go to download mint you have different mirrors. Maybe the same for Flat?
I'll check in a little bit the size on mine.

 

[Condobloke]

On the current Mint Cinnamon...

Krita requires 600 MB on disk for Flatpak.

Bitwarden is 509.

I must be missing something.

On my Mint Cinnamon 22.3 ..... Software Manager

 

[Condobloke]

@garyn, which version of Linux Mint are you running ?

 

[garyn]

22.3 and have been since it was released, all upgrades applied along the way. Your screencap is a lot closer to mine.

 

[wizardfromoz]

On

Hmm... This should probably get resolved. This is something we should probably know and understand.

Agreed.

and on

Heck, anyone smarter than I am who can skip that step and go straight to telling me why there's this giant discrepancy?

I'll leave the first part of that sentence alone (you retired around the same age as me, but with way more financial resources, lol), and I am working on the second part of the sentence.

Wiz

 

[bob466]

It would be of concern if someone had Mint on a 16GB Drive but for me using a 500GB SSD it's nothing.

 

[wizardfromoz]

Ooohhh...cheeky sod. Can't think what that might be related to?

Avagudweegend, Bob