As a newer Linux user I really like flatpaks.

I don't use them for most things I install but proprietary apps I want sandboxed or programs that have weird issues with dependencies I grab the flatpak.

For me on Arch, Flatpaks are kinda useless. I can maybe see the appeal for other distros but Arch already has up-to-date versions of everything and anything that's missing from the main repos is in the AUR.

I also don't like how it's a separate package manager, they take up more space, and to run things from the CLI it's flatpak run com.website.Something instead of just something. It's super cumbersome compared to using normal packages.

Lemmy (and phoronix) people are generally extremely repelled by new stuff in the Linux world

Agreed, flatpaks are great for desktop apps. I use Nix for the majority of my packages, but I use flatpak for proprietary for the sandboxing.

Yeah, they could have applied a logarithm or something.

I think they count every download of every package, every version, every time. It's not the number of unique users or even packages.

If you install 3 apps you might need to download 3 versions of graphics driver, 3 versions of desktop environment libraries and so on, It won't count as one user installing 3 apps, it will show up as 10 -20 downloads. And that's just the initial install, every time you update them it counts another 10-20.

It could be simple download requests, rather than MAC or IP address downloads.

It is per download not per person.

relevant xkcd

https://xkcd.com/1138/

Right? "Oh look, country with huge population has more downloads than country with small population!"

Flatpak is a universal application packaging standard for Linux. It allows devs to create a single application that gets bundled with all necessary dependencies including versioning.

These apps run in their own semi-isolated "container" which makes immutable distros possible. (Distros like Fedora Silverblue that are effectively impossible to break by installing or removing critical system files.)

This means that a Linux app doesn't have to have a .deb version, an .rpm version, or be pre-compiled for any other distros. A user can simply go to Flathub, (the main repository for Flatpak apps), download the flatpak, and install it on their distro of choice.

It's quickly becoming the most popular way for users to install apps on Linux because it's so easy and quick. But there are a few downsides like size on disk, first party verification, per-distro optimizations, and the centralization of application sources. That's why some users aren't fully endorsing or embracing how popular they are becoming.

Was controversial when it was new and full of problems. Now it is mostly the standard for apps.

I have like 20 flatpak software products running without any problem for 2 years now.

Your system might be messed up

In that case you should use user-install flatpaks and separating and reusing your /home partition

Offline/internal network installs can be handled with flatpak create-usb - https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/usb-drives.html

One can distribute flatpaks along with their dependencies on USB drives (or network shares, etc.) which is especially helpful in situations where Internet access is limited or non-existent.

Cache/mirroring would be great for those who need it.

Edit:

Thinking about it, I wonder if there's enough "core features" with 'create-usb' that its just matter of scripting something together to intercept requests, auto-create-usb what's being requested and then serve the package locally? If a whole mirror is required, it may be possible to iterate over all flathub packages and 'create-usb' the entire repo to have a local cache/mirror? Just thinking "out loud".