jablkoziemne<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@unix_discussions" class="u-url mention">@<span>unix_discussions</span></a></span> Why they compared tge size of the executable file, with the size of <a href="https://101010.pl/tags/flatpak" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>flatpak</span></a> package? Shouldnt we at least try to include for standard <a href="https://101010.pl/tags/linux" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>linux</span></a> <a href="https://101010.pl/tags/package" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>package</span></a> all <a href="https://101010.pl/tags/dependencies" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>dependencies</span></a> it requires or at lest compare <a href="https://101010.pl/tags/staticlinking" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>staticlinking</span></a> with their flatpak counterparts to get rough estimate of flatpak metadata size overhead, and dependency duplication from runtime and separately whatever was put alongside the contenerized application. Also, it would be cool to compare it across many <a href="https://101010.pl/tags/linuxdistribution" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>linuxdistribution</span></a> in case there are some that due to <a href="https://101010.pl/tags/dynamiclinking" class="mention hashtag" rel="tag">#<span>dynamiclinking</span></a> have to bundle multiple versions of given library</p>