Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
It took me a while to shake my greed for gratis software.
Create a symbolic link to a directory on your SD card in place of ~/.local/share/flatpak/
Exactly.
On second thought, Splashy has a valid point. For casual users, package managers should let us configure install directories via the UI.
A knowledgeable user can do this much faster and comfortable with the terminal, but to a UI-dependent PC user (which are most of them), this is a roundabout way.
And one more thing, you could use the symlink solution, OR, edit your $HOME/.profile to define your own *_DIRs per https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/flatpak-command-reference.html such as:
Update: you can create something "fancy" similar to this so your profile check on boot/login only is set if the sdcard exists:
if [[ -e /path/to/sdcard ]]; then
export FLATPAK_USER_DIR=/alt/sdcard/path
export FLATPAK_SYSTEM_DIR=/alt2/path
fi
This is just off the cuff. I'm sure some more logic needs to be in place. Keep in mind if you have this test, if you have flatpaks in your $HOMEDIR/.local/ they might not be available when the sdcard is installed. -- There's always some sort of trade off when conserving space.
Rip average user
The main issue i have with this is that valve has not offered a easier way fix this for less linux-savvy users
it's better to have those, and when possible make easy to follow videos on how to do it, than simply not have them... but they're definitely not ideal
very very very unlikely to be true, given how they work
the file isn't hosed through it, only its location, so you request it at point A, get sent to point B instead, and do the rest (which is what can be impacted by performance) directly at the new location
what might impact performance is using an SD card instead of the built-in SSD... but only for write speeds, because tests have shown that read speeds are pretty similar (if you use a good enough SD card)
I've used symlinks for space management and other cool tricks on both Linux and Windows and have never noticed any performance issues unless the linked directory was on slow storage (like a spinner or sub-par flash storage).
If you have a crappy SD card or have too many programs read and write simultaneously to the same storage device, it will obviously impact performance. Otherwise, symlink performance isn't an issue for average home users (even most server admins).
Oftentimes, when people are discussing performance drawbacks of certain system utilities (or whatever you would call a symlink), it's usually because they are either just nerdy, don't know what they are talking about or are professionals talking in the context of server farms and super-computers, where even performance hits unnoticeable to a desktop user would mean Megawatts of wasted energy over time due to the operation's scale. Either way, it's nothing a casual user should break their head about (unless they like rabbit holes).