Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing YUM vs Flatpak, the Slant community recommends YUM for most people. In the question“What are the best Linux package managers?” YUM is ranked 15th while Flatpak is ranked 18th. The most important reason people chose YUM is:
All the metadata for installed software is stored into a XML file. This is used to avoid conflicting dependencies among packages. What's more, YUM also automatically syncs remote metadata to the local client in order to avoid failures if a command is not run at the correct interval.
Specs
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Avoids dependency hell
All the metadata for installed software is stored into a XML file. This is used to avoid conflicting dependencies among packages. What's more, YUM also automatically syncs remote metadata to the local client in order to avoid failures if a command is not run at the correct interval.
Pro Simple syntax
Pro Binary delta for faster transfer times
Yum supports Delta RPMs which allow transmitting only the parts of the package that have changed.
Pro Is/was the industry standard
YUM is still widely used in corporate environments.
Pro Provides pre and post install sanity checks
What might be thought of a standard feature, isn't. Thankfully RPM provides both a transaction test and a post install verification to make sure everything installs neatly.
Pro Supports multiple verification methods
Supports verification with GPG and MD5.
Pro Clean and easy to understand
Pro Supports multiple compression methods
Supports gzip, bzip2, lzma, or xz compression.
Pro Allows for complex dependency definitions
Alongside allowing dependency on a certain package, it allows depending on a library, versioned symbol, or a GAC'd Mono assembly.
Pro Cross-distribution
You can install flatpak packages on any distro you want.
Pro fast
searching, installing and updating are faster than others in my experience
Pro Doesn't bog system down like snaps.
Plus it's not proprietary.
Pro Application sandboxing
All applications are limited to a set of predefined permissions, enhancing privacy and security.
Pro A well-written documentation
Pro Flexible runtime management
You can install a lot of runtimes for different apps, making applications a lot more compatible while still allowing some applications to share their runtimes.
Cons
Con Can be very slow to download headers if not on broadband
Yum can be much slower than other package managers if the internet speed is not at least average to high.
Con Slow (and might be fragile) dependency resolution
YUM dependency resolution is very slow. In addition to it, the people often experiencing very hard dependencies (it might be not a YUM problem).
Con Does fsync often
Like its successor, DNF, YUM does fsync too often. The result is poor YUM and system performance while YUM does its work.
Con Very slow overall
YUM is very slow - beginning with relatively slow startup, extremely slow default plugins, slow dependency resolution, and ending with slow installation of packages.
Con Poor design
YUM is written in Python 2 and people often blaming the quality of YUM's code.
Con Bloated
Due to the way Flatpack handles packaging, this can lead to a large cache being created which quickly inflates to unreasonable sizes. Not only this, but using flatpack requires a large chunk of space to be reserved for it's own file hierarchy.
Con Difficult to export packages
It is difficult and convoluted to export installed packages and move to another system.
Con Doesn't work well with CLI programs
Invoking CLI programs can be a pain. From the weird reverse DNS package names to difficulty in easily managing container environment.
