@Nesaijn Maybe package support. Since most packagers are focusing on arm64. I'm not sure thought :D
Correct me if I'm wrong!
@Ghosty I don't know either :D
Did you mean "Since most packagers AREN'T focusing on arm64"?
@Ghosty Oh, is that so? But then it wouldn't be a limitation, right? :D
@Nesaijn Oh. Right! I thought arm64 and amd64 weren’t the same architecture :P.
@Ghosty Honestly I don't know that much about CPU's. That's why I can't say anything. 😅
@Nesaijn Me neither. I just looked it up :)
@Ghosty Yes, there are fewer packages for Arm, and worse - Armv7 != Armv8, package-wise.
That said, Arch has your back. I've only found 1 package I couldn't install on my Raspberry pi with ArchArm. I don't know what type of Arm the Pinebook has, but if it runs Arch, you shall shall not want.
Arm64 is completely different from AMD64.
You need packages built and compiled for the architecture you want to run the application on. That's why Raspbian on a raspberry pi has less and different packages available.
Amd64 is the standard desktop architecture. This is the 64 bit system and can run older 32 bit applications.
Old desktop CPUs are usually 32bit and you'll see packages that are 32 marked as i386, i686, etc. 32 bit CPUs will not run 64 bit applications.
@ozoned I see. Compiling the packages oneself wouldn't be enough because the software also has be written for AMD processors?
If you mean compiling for arm, then you can certainly try it. It completely depends on the code. I think one of flatpak's goals is in attempting to make cross architecture packaging easier.
@ozoned Hmm, ok. Thank you!
Linux Geeks doing what Linux Geeks do..