I totally agree being a contrarian outcast, but not because of what I commented earlier. Why would I use flatpak thunderbird when there is version in my repos which just needs to be updated?
BC it’s easier for the any dev to package their program for flatpaks assuring it’ll work in all distributions, otherwise you have to wait for your package manager maintainer to repackage the program for your system. Which is what happens for Arch, debian, Suse, Fedora.
It’s not Thunderbird/program responsibility if they decided to make flatpaks the main source of distribution yet you decide to install it through other means. Which idk if they did but more devs are opting to distribute through flatpaks.
Not going to install flatpak tb, gimme the full version on my package manager…
I’ll stick with Mutt.
Your meds pal, take them
I totally agree being a contrarian outcast, but not because of what I commented earlier. Why would I use flatpak thunderbird when there is version in my repos which just needs to be updated?
BC it’s easier for the any dev to package their program for flatpaks assuring it’ll work in all distributions, otherwise you have to wait for your package manager maintainer to repackage the program for your system. Which is what happens for Arch, debian, Suse, Fedora.
It’s not Thunderbird/program responsibility if they decided to make flatpaks the main source of distribution yet you decide to install it through other means. Which idk if they did but more devs are opting to distribute through flatpaks.
@[email protected] I will use the distribution version as long as they update it. Yes I will gladly take the meds. Thank you.
Still no reason to use the flatpak if a repo packet exists.